• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

One step in reducing inflation, break up the "monopolies"

Yea, thanks for pointing out the obvious.

What in my comment made you think I was only in favor of campaign finance reform for one party?

Even if you could (somehow) limit how much a candidate can spend you can’t limit political speech, either for or against a candidate or their policy position(s), by others.
 
Real world scenarios > artificial deliberately unrealistic sceneries.

The grocery market is not a monopoly in the United States. In other countries it has become so at times, generally through nationalization.
Grocery stores are not controlled by one monopoly. However, a few players control a large swathe of the market. And some areas are
more impacted by that circumstance than others.
 
The Catholic Church?

The State

??? Mergers reduce competition.

They can, however, what you described:

There are five main corporate grocers in this area: Smith's (Kroger), Save Mart, Raley's, Safeway and Walmart. There is an independent local grocer, Scolari's, which at one time had a handful of locations, but has been down to two for a couple decades.

Raley's is by far the most expensive, to the point of being ridiculous. Safeway and Save Mart are comparable. Smith's (Kroger) has the best prices.

So, will buying up the competition raise prices, or will economy of scale lower them? Kroger brands are very cheap. Albertsons was always more expensive, when it was here.

Is a functioning market system where businesses compete for business and consumers choose between them.
 
The State
No, I'm sure it was St. John Vianny.

They can, however, what you described:

There are five main corporate grocers in this area: Smith's (Kroger), Save Mart, Raley's, Safeway and Walmart. There is an independent local grocer, Scolari's, which at one time had a handful of locations, but has been down to two for a couple decades.
Raley's is by far the most expensive, to the point of being ridiculous. Safeway and Save Mart are comparable. Smith's (Kroger) has the best prices.
So, will buying up the competition raise prices, or will economy of scale lower them? Kroger brands are very cheap. Albertsons was always more expensive, when it was here.
Yes, I know what I wrote.

Is a functioning market system where businesses compete for business and consumers choose between them.
That's a big 10-4. A bonafide NSS. Brilliant response.

This doesn't answer the question, and again seeks to avoid it.

Lookie here. A stagecoach robbery. In 2024? :unsure: :LOL:


:oops:
 
Grocery stores are not controlled by one monopoly. However, a few players control a large swathe of the market. And some areas are
more impacted by that circumstance than others.

What, exactly, is your proposed solution? If a business gains over X% of the market (in some area?) what (in your opinion) should be done?
 
People think that a monopoly is one big company that controls an industry, and they would be wrong. Today a monopoly in this country is usually more than one large company that in collusion with other large companies, which enables them to control both the supply of goods and the prices of those goods. Look at gas prices and food. Both are controlled by just a few suppliers and there seems to be little or no competition in those industries and you have to believe that is caused by collusion between those large corporations. They are able to control prices and will raise those prices until the price and reduced demand that comes from higher prices, reach a balance point where they provide the highest level of profit. You can see how right now profits for corporations have reached an all-time high due to the collusion between large corporations. We need to break up these large corporations to bring real competition back into our markets so that the market system works to bring down prices without any kind of government controls on pricing or supply.
"Seems to be"?

So the FTC should get on the phone and say something like, "Yes, we're going to break up your company and force you to sell of pieces of it, maybe so your competitors can snatch them up, because you "seem to be" suffering from too little competition."

There is absolutely a need to break up monopolies, which are one of the few flaws in Capitalism, and if left unchecked can distort or even destroy free markets completely. But you're going to need more than "seems to be".
 
People think that a monopoly is one big company that controls an industry, and they would be wrong. Today a monopoly in this country is usually more than one large company that in collusion with other large companies, which enables them to control both the supply of goods and the prices of those goods. Look at gas prices and food. Both are controlled by just a few suppliers and there seems to be little or no competition in those industries and you have to believe that is caused by collusion between those large corporations. They are able to control prices and will raise those prices until the price and reduced demand that comes from higher prices, reach a balance point where they provide the highest level of profit. You can see how right now profits for corporations have reached an all-time high due to the collusion between large corporations. We need to break up these large corporations to bring real competition back into our markets so that the market system works to bring down prices without any kind of government controls on pricing or supply.
Not true. Large companies clearly compete with one and another. Not just on prices but also market share, profitability, strategies, and locations. If there really was a monopolistic advantage then large caps stock would run circles around mid and small caps stocks. Large companies have an economy of scale where they can remove redundancies and operate more efficiently. Suppliers love large companies and cut them breaks because they get large orders and they're guaranteed to get paid. These advantages produce savings that are rolled into providing the customer a more positive experience. Consumers prefer large companies because they have a good consistent product and they have a easy to reach customer service depart that will solve problems and honor their warranty. Because of this consumers will pay more for a name brand product vs. a store brand. People confuse willingness to pay more for what they perceive is a superior product with price fixing.
 
No, I'm sure it was St. John Vianny.

No, St John does is not the dominant provider of K-12 education in this country :). Instead, a State Monopoly fulfills this function.


Yes, I know what I wrote.

That's a big 10-4. A bonafide NSS

Indeed and so there is no need to worry that our grocery system is anything close to a monopoly. Instead, people (including Harris) are trying to reason backwards to a preferred solution.
 
No, St John does is not the dominant provider of K-12 education in this country :). Instead, a State Monopoly fulfills this function.




Indeed and so there is no need to worry that our grocery system is anything close to a monopoly. Instead, people (including Harris) are trying to reason backwards to a preferred solution.
:sleep:
 
Even if you could (somehow) limit how much a candidate can spend you can’t limit political speech, either for or against a candidate or their policy position(s), by others.
Indeed you can't (well, I suppose that you could if the candidate was running on a platform that incited people to go out and kill anyone who was potentially likely to theoretically have some probability of either [1] NOT being of the "approved" race or religion, or [2] NOT wanting the candidate to be elected and then to stay in power for life while turning the entire economy of the country over to a foreign power and revoking America's status as an independent and sovereign nation such that it became the possession of a foreign government).

HOWEVER, you CAN make it mandatory for those who are indulging in political speech to publicly identify themselves and to take responsibility for what they do say AND you can required political candidates to wither "adopt" or "reject" the things that "independent voices" are saying on in their "independent support" of the candidate's bid for election.
 
The State



They can, however, what you described:

There are five main corporate grocers in this area: Smith's (Kroger), Save Mart, Raley's, Safeway and Walmart. There is an independent local grocer, Scolari's, which at one time had a handful of locations, but has been down to two for a couple decades.
Raley's is by far the most expensive, to the point of being ridiculous. Safeway and Save Mart are comparable. Smith's (Kroger) has the best prices.
So, will buying up the competition raise prices, or will economy of scale lower them? Kroger brands are very cheap. Albertsons was always more expensive, when it was here.

Is a functioning market system where businesses compete for business and consumers choose between them.
From the point of view of the owning class, a "functioning market system" is one which produces the maximum amount of profit for the minimum amount of work and with the minimum amount of risk. The "Company Store" of coal mining town fame is an almost perfect example of that, no competition, no control over prices, and almost 100% certainty of payment of the customers' accounts REGARDLESS of whether or not the customer had some other "so-called 'need'" for the money (you know, like paying for medical care or medicine).
 
No, I'm sure it was St. John Vianny.


Yes, I know what I wrote.


That's a big 10-4. A bonafide NSS. Brilliant response.

This doesn't answer the question, and again seeks to avoid it.

Lookie here. A stagecoach robbery. In 2024? :unsure: :LOL:


:oops:
I'm going to step WAY out on a limb here and say that the middle one of those three people has SERIOUS psycho-social problems.
 
This is a one battle the people will never win. Oligarchs control the politicians….
 
What, exactly, is your proposed solution? If a business gains over X% of the market (in some area?) what (in your opinion) should be done?
Josip Tito's government had an interesting approach to the issue.

If you wanted to start a business and had a potentially viable business plan, the government would lend you the money you needed to get your business up and running. How well you ran the business was up to you.

HOWEVER, as a part of the "start-u[ loan" the company was granted a portion of the company's voting stock and that portion was variable depending on how much of the market share the company had. That meant that, the closer that the company came to the point where it was in a "dominant market share" position, the greater the share of the voting stock the government had.
 
"Seems to be"?

So the FTC should get on the phone and say something like, "Yes, we're going to break up your company and force you to sell of pieces of it, maybe so your competitors can snatch them up, because you "seem to be" suffering from too little competition."

There is absolutely a need to break up monopolies, which are one of the few flaws in Capitalism, and if left unchecked can distort or even destroy free markets completely. But you're going to need more than "seems to be".
Look at the gas stations in your community. Do you ever see more than a few cents, if any, per gallon difference in their prices. Do I have proof they are in collusion no, but there certainly "seems" to be collusion. That is because there were once more than 30 gas producers in this country and now there are three or four and that is because our government allowed the big fish to eat the little fish and now, we have no real competition in that market. So, although there is not just one company holding a monopoly in the provision of gas in this country, there is a monopoly of the many.
 
Look at the gas stations in your community. Do you ever see more than a few cents, if any, per gallon difference in their prices. Do I have proof they are in collusion no, but there certainly "seems" to be collusion. That is because there were once more than 30 gas producers in this country and now there are three or four and that is because our government allowed the big fish to eat the little fish and now, we have no real competition in that market. So, although there is not just one company holding a monopoly in the provision of gas in this country, there is a monopoly of the many.
Those gas stations almost all get their gas from the same refinery. There used to be "competing refineries" but those were excess to the need for production and the number (and distribution) of refineries in the country was "rationalized". So, if ARCO, Phillips, BP, EXXON, and Chevron all buy their gasoline from the same producer at the same price, are all subject to the same state and federal taxes, and pay their workers the same wages, why would you think that their retail prices would differ?
 
Look at the gas stations in your community. Do you ever see more than a few cents, if any, per gallon difference in their prices. Do I have proof they are in collusion no, but there certainly "seems" to be collusion. That is because there were once more than 30 gas producers in this country and now there are three or four and that is because our government allowed the big fish to eat the little fish and now, we have no real competition in that market. So, although there is not just one company holding a monopoly in the provision of gas in this country, there is a monopoly of the many.

OK, but why don’t gas stations (or fuel their suppliers) constantly (at least quarterly?) raise their pump prices?
 
Look at the gas stations in your community. Do you ever see more than a few cents, if any, per gallon difference in their prices. Do I have proof they are in collusion no, but there certainly "seems" to be collusion. That is because there were once more than 30 gas producers in this country and now there are three or four and that is because our government allowed the big fish to eat the little fish and now, we have no real competition in that market. So, although there is not just one company holding a monopoly in the provision of gas in this country, there is a monopoly of the many.
Ok, I looked and I see a LOT more than a few cents difference. The cheapest gas near me is $4.04 a gallon and the most expensive in $5.30, a difference of $1.26 per gallon, or about 30% more.

There's even a corner with three stations where the prices are $4.04, $4.60 and $5.00.

So how does the $5.30 get away with charging that much? It's a name brand (Chevron) right next to the freeway, and next door to a McDonalds, so it's really convenient. You can fill your tank, grab an Egg McMuffin and coffee and be on your way to work in minutes. It's also get a full service car wash.

OTOH, the $4.04 station is also a name brand (76) understandably always super crowded, it's got one of those drive-thru self-serv car washes, and it's next door to a Starbucks. But it's not as close to the freeway.

There's also a Quik Stop with four pumps. It's the 2nd cheapest at $4.15 and seldom crowded. I usually go there.

Is this a monopoly? I don't think so. This seems a lot like a free market hard at work.

gas.png
 
Look at the gas stations in your community. Do you ever see more than a few cents, if any, per gallon difference in their prices. Do I have proof they are in collusion no, but there certainly "seems" to be collusion. That is because there were once more than 30 gas producers in this country and now there are three or four and that is because our government allowed the big fish to eat the little fish and now, we have no real competition in that market. So, although there is not just one company holding a monopoly in the provision of gas in this country, there is a monopoly of the many.
One more comment.

Even if the gas prices close to my home were within a few pennies of each other, it wouldn't necessarily suggest a monopoly. It might just as easily be a case of intense, white hot competition where each station is lowering it prices and cutting its margins to the bone to be the "low price leader". This was actually a thing back in the 1960's.

 
Airlines have merged from 12 major carriers in 1980 to 4 today. A handful of companies control the pharmaceutical industry. Four giants control 80% of meat processing. Corporate concentration is everywhere. And fewer competitors means higher prices for you.
 
Airlines have merged from 12 major carriers in 1980 to 4 today. A handful of companies control the pharmaceutical industry. Four giants control 80% of meat processing. Corporate concentration is everywhere. And fewer competitors means higher prices for you.
But the increased efficiency means higher profits and dividends for the people who make the actual decisions on who is going to be approved to attempt to get the nominations for the elected office in the government which oversees the fairness of the marketplace.
 
Back
Top Bottom