I love that we need ironclad proof to decide whether or not it’s okay for people to be able to afford sustenance or not. If there’s no proof then, oh well! The poors will just have to make do.
I’m aware that’s how they work but when the system “works” and the result is starving families then maybe it’s time we rethink whether we should keep following this system, no?
Would you prefer the FTC just forces them to cut prices, and then give both the corporations reason to sue them, as well as more right-wing talking points about “big government stealing money from Ma and Pa grocer”? The unfortunate reality is that if the FTC don’t do this investigation and come back with hard proof, no matter how blatantly obvious what the large grocers are doing actually is, they will play the victim and make it even harder to take any hard action against them.
The other reality is that, even if it’s not actually the case, if it turned out that it was just “inflation” and all those companies did
have to raise prices to stay afloat (again, not saying this is the case at all, just simply playing devil’s advocate), the FTC would face an absolute shitstorm if they took action and it did actually do serious harm to grocers/the broader food supply chain. Again, not a “Oh no, profits were only up 20% YoY instead of 35% because of the FTC action” but a “We will literally be selling all our products at a severe loss and will be bankrupt in weeks”. They have to understand exactly how much they’re fucking people over to take action, because historically there have been plenty of times where a well-intentioned “Stop fucking people over” rule, has caused much greater consequences down the line.
It sucks and is disgusting that in such a wealthy nation that we have people going hungry at all, but at least they’re attempting to finally do something about this specific issue, and hopefully will at least discourage shit like this in the future.
does this need investigation? a spike in profit should be rather obvious, if not the spike than increased income and some new mysterious expenses.
Yes, if there’s collusion or a lack of competition, there are legal solutions, namely breaking up the offending companies.
But will those solutions be applied? That’s always in doubt.
Who knows, but Khan is the best chance we’ve had of something getting done in a very long time.
When was the last time this happened?
Bell telephone
So 42 years ago.
Yes it does. Because they need ironclad proof if they’re going to take legal action.
I love that we need ironclad proof to decide whether or not it’s okay for people to be able to afford sustenance or not. If there’s no proof then, oh well! The poors will just have to make do.
That’s how legal cases work. You have to prove your side. I’m not sure how else they should work.
I’m aware that’s how they work but when the system “works” and the result is starving families then maybe it’s time we rethink whether we should keep following this system, no?
So how should it work? What system could not be abused by, for example, a Trump administration?
Would you prefer the FTC just forces them to cut prices, and then give both the corporations reason to sue them, as well as more right-wing talking points about “big government stealing money from Ma and Pa grocer”? The unfortunate reality is that if the FTC don’t do this investigation and come back with hard proof, no matter how blatantly obvious what the large grocers are doing actually is, they will play the victim and make it even harder to take any hard action against them.
The other reality is that, even if it’s not actually the case, if it turned out that it was just “inflation” and all those companies did have to raise prices to stay afloat (again, not saying this is the case at all, just simply playing devil’s advocate), the FTC would face an absolute shitstorm if they took action and it did actually do serious harm to grocers/the broader food supply chain. Again, not a “Oh no, profits were only up 20% YoY instead of 35% because of the FTC action” but a “We will literally be selling all our products at a severe loss and will be bankrupt in weeks”. They have to understand exactly how much they’re fucking people over to take action, because historically there have been plenty of times where a well-intentioned “Stop fucking people over” rule, has caused much greater consequences down the line.
It sucks and is disgusting that in such a wealthy nation that we have people going hungry at all, but at least they’re attempting to finally do something about this specific issue, and hopefully will at least discourage shit like this in the future.