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
What is up with all the big business defenders on this site? If they do something wrong and they're convicted it's like 10 people rush in to tell how they buy eggs from small markets and the company that did price fix got a raw deal.

Publius made a great comment the other day about the lack of regulation and freedom in business means we hold companies accountable when they make mistakes.

Yet, I feel there are many that rush in and say "well they didn't really do anything wrong". That sort of attitude only fuels the oppositions idea that they should increase regulation. Because....without regulation, even when a company does do something wrong...many people come out defending the company guns blazing.
 
They are acceptimg the liabilty in some cases because it's cheaper than fighting city hall. It doesn't mean they are truly guilty of anything.
 
It's a mindset. Political ideologies are so strongly correlated with what appears to be attack and defense of corporations (mostly over discussions of regulation) that when it comes to things that don't have anything to do with those arguments, people still tend to approach from those positions.
 
because he's a fucking retard? has that not been demonstrated unequivocally in this thread?
 
In the Land O'Lakes example the consumer is not privy to the option. Ergo they are not consciously avoiding price-fixing/collusion (see below). Constricting supply means that other options are more available (% wise)...but if you have control over supply to an area...in some instances there may not be other options or at least commonly available options that you don't need to go out of your way to find.

I know you don't think collusion/anti-trust is something the government should be involved in so we can avoid that discussion about whether it's right or wrong. Simply the government is involved in it currently, we can assume it's wrong until it's no longer illegal.
 
If you sick bastards would stop dis-allowing dairys, chicken farms, and pig farms in your areas, you could have a reasonably priced breakfast.
 
Since you can't be bothered to read the thread, I'll quote myself:





To use the price fixing situation as an example, sure it was shitty what Land O Lakes did - JUST as shitty as if the government were controlling a market. But now it's done with, and the markets are back to normal. When government sinks its teeth into the market, it almost never lets go.
 
only if you're spreading false and malicious rumors.

I can go to walmart and yell that they suck all I want.
 
They were actually scamming to intentionally restrain supply, which is going to artificially increase market price. You get a giant group of the biggest suppliers together, have them all cut supply, and prices go up due to lower supply. According to the article, they were actually dumping supply below cost in foreign markets, all in an effort to increase price here.

You don't think that has an effect? "According to U.S. Commerce Department data, the wholesale price of eggs roughly tripled from 2007 to 2008. "

Sure, presuming you had perfect information and knew exactly what was going on, you could probably undercut that if you wanted to build the largest egg production business in the country to outmatch the rest of the businesses together. But the ultimate result of this would only be to return the market to normal, which would probably happen before you ever got your business off the ground, costing you enormous startup costs and netting you zero benefit.
 
So it's a big deal to you because some evil corporation made a lot more money? I don't care how much money they made, it's not a big deal to me because it didn't effect me very much.

I'm not saying that it should be allowed or that they didn't do anything wrong, but my definition of a big deal is when it noticeably effects the consumers. It didn't, so it's not that big of a deal to me.
 
For the same reason LOL () has to pay out for their price fixing. Do you think the middle men didn't pass that cost down to the consumer?
 
They are enforcing the laws. It's rather tough when there's a trust to find evidence against them.

This case would be an example of them enforcing laws to remove that.
 
The fines no longer fit the crime anymore. Inflation goes up, sales go up, but the fines stay the same. 30 years ago this would have been a lot of money, but now it's a drop in the bucket. Fines have to be proportionate to inflation and revenue.
 
Back
Top