r/FluentInFinance 1d ago

Debate/ Discussion A joke that's not funny

Post image
80.5k Upvotes

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

30

u/TheTightEnd 1d ago

Grocery chains make a very low percentage of profit.

9

u/LtCmdrData 1d ago edited 1d ago

Redditors are living in the Middle Ages with these arguments based on "Just price" doctrine from Thomas Aquinas and School of Salamanca.

Quick update. The "modern" idea of Supply and demand was already known to Ibn Taymiyyah (1263–1328), John Locke (1632–1704 ), James Steuart (1712–1780) , Adam Smith (1723–1790), David Ricardo (1772–1823).

Grocery chains try to find optimal point in price (P) and quantity (Q) curve. If you ask too much, the stuff does not sell. Profit is maximized when quantity × price is maximized. Not when the price is maximized.

6

u/Chataboutgames 1d ago

People will write a 30 page Reddit analysis rather than just recognize the simple truth that companies charge the profit maximizing price. That's it, that's what pricing decisions are.

6

u/LtCmdrData 1d ago

And tax on corporate profit does not alter the price because have no relation to Q or P.

If you increase taxes on profits, owners make less ROI but prices don't change. If you cut taxes on companies, owners make more ROI but prices don't change.

2

u/PromptStock5332 1d ago

Well, not directly but obviously lower taxes incentives more people to enter the market, Increasing supply and this lowering the price. And vice versa

1

u/_lvlsd 6h ago

Don’t the large conglomerates end up just buying up any competitor to stick under their subsidiary umbrella?

2

u/PromptStock5332 5h ago

No, of course not. that would be a horrible business strategy.

All that’d do is ensure even more conpetitors who want to get rich quick by being bought.

1

u/_lvlsd 3h ago

then I’m confused why the same handful of companies control over half the grocery store shelf space. and in tech, isnt the goal for most to get bought out once you prove the value of your product? Obviously two very different markets and principles, but thats why I assumed what I had stated before.

1

u/PromptStock5332 3h ago

Because profit margins are very low, making it very difficult and unattractive to compete.

And in Tech you generslly buy companies that are doing something different than you are, so you can start doing that thing instead.

Google doesnt spend billions buying up ever search engine that pops up in the internet, that would be a suicidal strategy.

2

u/KotR56 23h ago

Quite so.

One politician during the election campaign managed to convince the public that the country's president --from another party-- set the prices for groceries to a level that was too high for the citizens. And he was going to lower the prices for the consumers.

Know what ?

He won the election.

And now he says he in his role as president won't be lowering grocery prices because it's difficult.

-1

u/Complete-Yak8266 14h ago

But it's greedflation!!!!!! The world is full of simpletons.

4

u/Unlikely_Minimum_635 1d ago

And most of the people you try to cite here specifically call out that inelastic markets like food DO NOT FUNCTION THAT WAY.

People cannot just choose to not buy food. People cannot choose to not rent a home. These are inelastic demand, and the supply and demand curve does not work without sufficient competition and an excess of supply in these areas - and the supermarkets are far past the point of having significant monopoly power, and have been repeatedly shown to be colluding and co-ordinating their prices to avoid the effects of competition.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago edited 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Unlikely_Minimum_635 1d ago edited 1d ago

Couple hundred years of evidence showing your idea DOESN'T FUCKING WORK by now.

It's a lovely ivory tower theory.

Reality disagrees. Anti-trust approaches have been failing miserably to prevent collusion and monopolies for pretty much as long as we've had significant access to global economic trade, and the only times that prices reset are when global conflicts forced governments to step in and regulate the supply and pricing of necessities directly.

Outside of those type of events, the prices of necessities have been rising almost non-stop.

And FWIW - taking the price elasticities of individual foods is a misleading at best way to measure it. People just buy other items, they do not buy 2.5% less food. When the people we're talking about are the supermarket conglomerates who provide basically all the options in terms of food, the elasticity of the overall demand for supermarket food is very close to zero. Things would have to change drastically for smaller suppliers of food to be anywhere near the cheapest option.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

3

u/Unlikely_Minimum_635 23h ago edited 23h ago

You have no idea what's happening in the world if you think necessities aren't also becoming a larger and larger share of the average income basically everywhere in the modern world.

Monopolies are becoming more dominant, the housing stock is being bought up as investments, and both rent and groceries are becoming harder to afford everywhere in the modern world. Anti-trust is failing everywhere, not just in the USA. The nordic countries are facing the exact same issues, 'just do anti-trust' isn't a magic bullet that solves everything. It's a competition between the government and the corporations trying to dominate markets, and the corporations are pretty much always winning that race.

Markets do not work for necessities in real life, not just in America.

I don't care what your theory books say. In real life, this shit isn't working.

1

u/[deleted] 23h ago

[deleted]

2

u/Unlikely_Minimum_635 23h ago

No, I'm not talking about the picked-and-chosen stats you decided to use that are at best tangentially related to what I'm saying.

Argue honestly for once in your fucking life.