If the CEO testifying in court isn't evidence, then I don't know what is. The whole thing is about that and the link goes to the issue of them charging too much/that the merger would be bad because of it. Testimony in court featured in a business friendly publication like Forbes isn't good enough
https://www.forbes.com/sites/errolschweizer/2024/09/04/why-a-price-gouging-ban-isnt-so-crazy-after-all/
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-27/kroger-hiked-milk-egg-prices-above-inflation-merger-judge-told
You know, I suddenly decided I needed to respond to this in detail.
You say yourself, "a business friendly publication like Forbes". Forbes and Bloomberg are the tools of what you consider to be your enemies, are they not? So treat them like tools of your enemies. When they seem to agree with you, it's not because the people in charge of them randomly and uncharacteristically decided to be honest for a change, it's because they're propagandizing you.
Why are they propagandizing you? To provide support for the idea of grocery store price caps, which nearly every economist agrees is terrible. Why might they want to do this? Well, for one thing, we can just look at discussion right in this thread to see an idea —
We've been over this more than once. "Pool your money and start a competitor" doesn't work when you're up against well-established companies that have massive resoures and existing logistical networks. Kroger can literally afford to put a new store on every approach to yours so that it will always be more convenient to stop there, and have enough supply strength to undercut any price you put up. That's exactly how they got so big in the first place.
Where do you usually pay higher prices, at a chain store or a locally owned store? It sounds like you haven't checked, but as much as Kroger hiked up those prices, local stores have generally hiked them up even more. So price caps come in, which store goes out of business first? It's not the one with massive resources and existing logistical networks, let me tell you.
Forbes and Bloomberg haven't seen the light on price caps because of a very specific socialist epiphany, they've seen the light that price caps can be good for the bottom line.
It's not clear why you "suddenly decided" that you "needed to respond." There is nothing forcing you to respond and no "need." If you want to that's your choice. I don't know where you're getting any of these ideas or why you believe what you are doing is effective. It isn't. "Enemies" is way too broad. I've cited several examples of corporations doing bad things and there are absolutely tons out there. They're wrong and there's a better way that has been historically proven under the most stressful conditions imaginable, while theirs has failed and been repeatedly rescued by that better way. However, the idea of socialism in the U.S. has been beaten to death and censored for so long that talking about it is unbelievable heresy and blasphemy to many.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy Never forget they added the phrase "under god" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1952 because they couldn't stand the idea of socialism for ... whatever reason they called it "godless communism."
There are differences of opinion, and mine is well founded and cited. You realize neither one of us is going to convince the other, right? Europe has socialist stuff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy They have socialized healthcare and all sorts of things like that and it works. Even if they have some capitalist businesses too, you know nationalized universal healthcare in the US would be screamed down as "socialist."
1 People cite the opposite viewpoint to understand it. Bloomberg and Forbes are friendly to the opposite view and even they are forced to admit it, because it was testified to in court. This is kind of like how Fox news was forced to agree Dominion voting machines were absolutely and completely not tampered with and not repeat trumps election lies when they got sued the daylights out of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Voting_Systems_v._Fox_News_Network"Fox News agreed to pay Dominion $787.5 million and acknowledged the court's earlier ruling that Fox had broadcast false statements about Dominion." I understand propaganda. This isn't propaganda and it isn't good for their bottom line. It is something that a CEO was forced to admit in a court proceeding.
More to the point, and please pay attention here: ***** TESTIMONY UNDER OATH in a court proceeding. ***** This is critical and I think you're somehow missing it by focusing on the fact that Bloomberg and Forbes cited it.
The testimony is what the CEO was forced to admit under oath in court proceedings. 2 You are twisting words I didn't say. You want me to have gone to universal price caps rather than targeted corrective action against Kroger, because that somehow is perceived as a better argument to you? The article said, "Why A Price Gouging Ban Isn’t So Crazy After All."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/errolschweizer/2024/09/04/why-a-price-gouging-ban-isnt-so-crazy-after-all/ I pointed to the fact that the U.S. Federal government was unquestionably a better manager than the private sector during world war II. This was socialism absolutely working when capitalism absolutely failed in the great depression. FDR was without a doubt a fantastic socialist president and saved the country by defeating the great depression and actual Hitler while winning reelction so many times the republicans had to limit the US President to two terms to have any chance.
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=162538.msg8556833#msg8556833And at the end of the day, when all the BS comes off and stuff goes sideways, if a major war breaks out like world war III, the US federal government/military can and will seize control the same way they did in World War II (Including re-instituting a military draft which all males are required to register for to this day) and / or through the defense production act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950When it all goes sideways, Uncle Sam steps in and informs the private sector (which fails) how to do it the right way. The same thing happened with the bailouts after the financial crash in 2008
https://home.treasury.gov/data/troubled-asset-relief-program"Treasury established several programs under TARP to help stabilize the U.S. financial system, restart economic growth, and prevent avoidable foreclosures."
Translation, when capitalism ultimately fails, it turns to the government and socialism (but only for the rich) to bail things out. Why? Because the Banks were "too big to fail." So if any of us fail we are just screwed but if the banks fail we have to rescue them or they will take the whole country (or countries) and economy (or economies) down with them. If your corporation is too big to fail, then it is too big to exist.
This wasn't about "price caps," this was about "price gouging" and that is illegal and why the government is stepping in. It is about the bad risks capitalists are able to take only because of corporate structure with the government there to bail them out if they fail. If they tank the grocery market like they did housing then the government would have to step in there too.
3 What that testimony really was did not go to price caps but improper market cornering and unfair illegal business practices. The FTC is upset about that and suing them about it and the merger. Kroger is getting into market cornering territory. This is what happens when corporate things are allowed to get too big. There's a whole reason why this going toward monopoly and unfair market cornering is illegal and raises prices without any real reason except greed and gouging.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp4 Price gouging is bad. I don't care what you call it. There needs to be something to reign in bad things like that.
Where do you usually pay higher prices, at a chain store or a locally owned store? It sounds like you haven't checked, but as much as Kroger hiked up those prices, local stores have generally hiked them up even more. So price caps come in, which store goes out of business first? It's not the one with massive resources and existing logistical networks, let me tell you.
I don't understand why you assume Lord Shonus hasn't checked or doesn't get it. I don't understand why you seem to be saying that about him, because it doesn't fit and it isn't fair or nice to him. Speaking of checking, do you have any evidence for what you're saying? You seem to be saying "price caps," (like you appear to think some blanket thing applying generally) but nobody is really talking about those. It's price gouging that's the problem and the remedy for that would be to hit the big stores who are price gouging rather than the little ones. So even if what you're saying is true, (and it does not seem to be) then there's saying any restrictions would be universal and even touch the smaller stores. The little locally owned stores don't necessarily have to be impacted at all if the big stores get hit by a court so it isn't clear why you seem to be saying that.
The FTC isn't suing the little local store, because they're suing Kroger instead. The little local store isn't the problem Kroger is and that's why Kroger is getting sued and the little local store is not.
I don't know why you decided you "needed" this but I guess if you want to whatever. You look at the opposition to understand it. That wasn't propaganda it was testimony a CEO was forced to give in a court matter. Price gouging and price caps are not the same. Kroger is getting sued because it was price gouging and a merger would make it worse. The local little store isn't getting sued because it didn't price gouge. Nothing to do with anything we are talking about will impact the little local store(s), because they aren't getting sued for price gouging. Also, I don't get why Max seems to think Lord Shonus hasn't checked on grocery prices or doesn't get it, because Lord Shonus seems to make sense.
I don't wanna live in a world where eggs can just shoot up to $12 a dozen randomly because a corporate jerk decided they wanted more money and didn't care what the market thought or any reason. That's price gouging and it's wrong.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4260849 times)