Kapitalism

[tomtomagain]

Yes, they can choose to go bankrupt instead.

Yes they can. And if it is not worth their while doing so then that is what happens.

That's capitalism. The most effective method of allocating societies resources to where society wants them.

[vetran]

Yes, they can choose to go bankrupt instead.

Well it was no surprise the supermarkets were going to abuse their suppliers.

Many have chosen not to supply supermarkets or diversify.

All the businesses I have worked for or with that had >50% of their business with one customer have eventually regretted it. Many ignored counsel to use the money to pursue business with others.

[SpontaneousOrder]

They grow, become too powerful and abuse their position. That is when (or just after) the Government should step in.

Do you have any examples where they abuse their position (to maintain a monopoly to the detriment of the consumer), where that abuse hasn't been facilitated by government imposed barriers to entry or outright cronyism? Because in the real world it just doesn't work like that.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Yes, they can choose to go bankrupt instead.

Failure is not a bad thing in a free economy.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Well it was no surprise the supermarkets were going to abuse their suppliers.

Many have chosen not to supply supermarkets or diversify.

All the businesses I have worked for or with that had >50% of their business with one customer have eventually regretted it. Many ignored counsel to use the money to pursue business with others.

Precisely. They were poor business men & women. You can't blame retailers for the failure of bad business people. Otherwise i should just open my own supply business right now and make a fortune, as is my right - apparently.

[darmstadt]

Failure is not a bad thing in a free economy.

That's how you get to go on the benefits system

[d000hg]

Yes they can. And if it is not worth their while doing so then that is what happens.

That's capitalism. The most effective method of allocating societies resources to where society wants them.

How does me as a consumer wanting product X stop a supermarket deciding they won't stock product X unless the producer pays their kick-backs?

[xoggoth]

For me capitalism should be about success based on merit and a free market. If some big companies have too much power they can use it to maintain their own success at the expense of those things. Afford to lower their prices, not just as a result of supply and demand, but simply to shut out what could otherwise be effective competition.

[tomtomagain]

Failure is not a bad thing in a free economy.

Failure is not just, "not a bad thing". It is vital.

Imagine if you had a society where everything was supported and kept going by the state. What would happen is you would end up with lots of inefficient, zombie companies, producing stuff nobody wanted at a price that nobody was prepared to pay.

I think the problem isn't capitalism but peoples perception of how capitalism behaves. We all see these adverts all the time from companies and everything is presented as nice-and-happy-and-fair but the reality is that capitalism is brutal, tough and cruel.

Capitalism forces efficiency and through that invention and progress.

That's why the West dominates the world whereas the Russians couldn't stand the pace and the Chinese had to become capitalists to begin to succeed.

[AtW]

Why is it illegal? It's simply a fee which reduces the suppliers margin.

It is or should be made explicitly illegal because it's abuse of dominant position held by those supermarkets - that's the only reason they can get away with charging those fees, the fact that they do is factual proof that they have dominant position that got abused. If the current law does not make it explicit then it should be made so.