Antitrust legislation and enforcement are a core component of a functioning economy, and have been a prominent feature of western economies for more than a century. It’s nothing to do with authoritarianism. It’s about fostering competition. Have a look at the suggestions Westpac made in my other comment for some ideas about how antitrust action might look in terms of the supermarket duopoly.
I read your quote and I hope you are honest enough to admit that it’s full of caviats and says in the short term it will lead to higher prices and more pain for all involved. No government will survive this kind of action. Forcing countdown to sell off brands like 4square etc aren’t going to end up with more competition anyway so the government will have to start pointing at individual supermarkets and say “you must sell this to somebody” and then cross their fingers somebody buys it. But not just anybody, new world, paknsave etc aren’t allowed to buy it so some other business must show up pay out a shit ton of money to buy just one supermarket and hope it can compete. It’s ridiculous.
Read it carefully. It says it may lead to temporary price rises. It’s complex. But leaving it as it is is a disaster and leads to long term worse outcomes. There’s no way that’s a good move.
That’s why antitrust actions are considered a basic staple of a functioning economy. Read about them if you don’t understand why they’re a necessity. It’s well established. There’ll be heaps online.
Read it carefully. It says it may lead to temporary price rises. It’s complex.
I am glad to see somebody in this place admit it’s complex. So far everybody has claimed it’s simple as shit. Just have to government wave a magic wand and make food prices lower, make house prices lower, make fuel prices lower, make taxes lower, give a raise to nurses and doctors and teachers and make racism disapear.
Prices will go up if for no other reason than you are going to lose economies of scale. I don’t think any economist would dispute that.
So far everybody has claimed it’s simple as shit. Just have to government wave a magic wand and…
No one is saying that here. Please stop building straw men.
Prices will go up if for no other reason than you are going to lose economies of scale. I don’t think any economist would dispute that.
Any economist worth their shit knows that when a market is controlled by one or two players - like the current supermarket industry in NZ - they will use that position to stifle competition. This leads to over-inflated pricing, and far-outweighs any economies of scale. We know that’s happening now because the supermarket industry is much more profitable than comparable industries in NZ, and businesses in the same industry overseas. If you’re not convinced, read the Commerce Commission report. It gives far more evidence than either of us could bring up here.
Antitrust legislation and enforcement are a core component of a functioning economy, and have been a prominent feature of western economies for more than a century. It’s nothing to do with authoritarianism. It’s about fostering competition. Have a look at the suggestions Westpac made in my other comment for some ideas about how antitrust action might look in terms of the supermarket duopoly.
I read your quote and I hope you are honest enough to admit that it’s full of caviats and says in the short term it will lead to higher prices and more pain for all involved. No government will survive this kind of action. Forcing countdown to sell off brands like 4square etc aren’t going to end up with more competition anyway so the government will have to start pointing at individual supermarkets and say “you must sell this to somebody” and then cross their fingers somebody buys it. But not just anybody, new world, paknsave etc aren’t allowed to buy it so some other business must show up pay out a shit ton of money to buy just one supermarket and hope it can compete. It’s ridiculous.
Read it carefully. It says it may lead to temporary price rises. It’s complex. But leaving it as it is is a disaster and leads to long term worse outcomes. There’s no way that’s a good move.
That’s why antitrust actions are considered a basic staple of a functioning economy. Read about them if you don’t understand why they’re a necessity. It’s well established. There’ll be heaps online.
I am glad to see somebody in this place admit it’s complex. So far everybody has claimed it’s simple as shit. Just have to government wave a magic wand and make food prices lower, make house prices lower, make fuel prices lower, make taxes lower, give a raise to nurses and doctors and teachers and make racism disapear.
Prices will go up if for no other reason than you are going to lose economies of scale. I don’t think any economist would dispute that.
No one is saying that here. Please stop building straw men.
Any economist worth their shit knows that when a market is controlled by one or two players - like the current supermarket industry in NZ - they will use that position to stifle competition. This leads to over-inflated pricing, and far-outweighs any economies of scale. We know that’s happening now because the supermarket industry is much more profitable than comparable industries in NZ, and businesses in the same industry overseas. If you’re not convinced, read the Commerce Commission report. It gives far more evidence than either of us could bring up here.
Many people here are saying it. In fact most people are saying it.
Can you link to some comments saying that?
So you don’t think it will achieve any of that and yet you still want it?