Big food at it again V. Price fixing and why we don't trust big business

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheRemains
  • Start date Start date
Not really. If you accept guilt, even if you're not guilty, you have admitted to being guilty. It's not obtuse to suspect that someone will then treat you as guilty.



Well that's a deep philosophical argument about how do we ever knew if someone is guilty?

Even if there's video evidence....there's a chance the video could be wrong...no?
Even if there's DNA evidence (per a discussion I had with a forensics person yesterday) there's more than a decent (5%) chance that it's wrong.

The only thing that matters for you and I when determining guilt is whether they were found guilty. Wrongly so or rightly so....we must treat them as guilty....because we have no other method of determining so. For this disucssion...they are guilty.
 
if you don't notice, then it's more legal?

What are you rambling about. They formed a trust. The first company gave in and submitted evidence. L o'L was the next, they settled paying 28% of their profits from the last 6 years rather than go the full distance.

A) companies conspire to create trust
B) government catches them doing so
C) expensive case ensues


Why would price fixing mean the government isn't doing their job? I know you hate government, but some things in business are illegal for a reason.
 
You shouldn't trust big business or big government.

The difference is, if big business does something you don't like then you're free to take your business elsewhere.
 
so they have to pay 25 million to their direct buyers, aka super markets?

I'm willing to bet that the super markets will not return that down to the consumer...
 
I think the government should do something to punish this behavior, but thats extreme.
 
That takes years and years to accomplish and you need to be able to convince 51%+ of the population that there is a problem, THEN hope to be able to vote in a group of people that want to do something about it. It's a ridiculously long and difficult process that rarely works.







Example?
 
My position is that it IS bad when companies distort a market, but not AS bad as when the government distorts a market - thus, big business > big government.
 
Not only that, but the Elite pad their pockets for a scratch on the back. Go figure.
 
If the distortion companies cause leads to government distortion through attempts to compensate, what is the real difference here?
 
it would also behoove you to learn more about what is acceptable evidence in a case involving conspiracy to commit price fixing.

correct me if I am wrong, but technically you do not need any smoking gun evidence to prove that the firms are colluding-- just evidence of price fixing.
 
I never stated you did.



I said it doesn't matter if you price fix if you're not a monopoly.
 
No, that doesn't make sense, because it's not DCC's responsibility to ensure you have a convenient chicken.
 
we throw people in jail for stealing 50 dollars from a liquor store, but if you can hire a lawyer and have plausible deniability, it doesn't matter what you do.

I think its shitty justice. Look at Goldman Sachs. They were stealing from their customers. nobody is going to go to jail.
 
Back
Top