• Worx@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Why though, what did they do wrong? They’re allowed to set their prices how they like as long as they’re not coluding with competitors.

      (I’m not saying it doesn’t suck, obviously, but they are just doing a capitalism)

      • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        When you say “wrong,” what do you mean? Are you arguing that their actions are morally just, or merely not too illegal?

        • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Capitalism violently forces people to serve capital for food, shelter, and other basic human needs.

          This situation is slightly worse than usual.

        • Worx@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m questioning whether they did anything illegal. It’s quite obvious (to me, at least) that what they did is morally wrong

          • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            “Wrong” is certainly the wrong word, then.

            Price gouging does run counter to some states’ consumer protection laws.

      • beebarfbadger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Were this capitalism, the competition would simply win by offering lower prices, but Kroger was allowed to grow to monopolistic proportions so that they’ve either bought up any and all serious competition already, muscled rivals out of business or settled on quasi-gerrymandered spheres of influence with their equally monopolistic competitors, so that nobody undercuts them when they abuse their status to not offer the best deals, but instead price-gouge the people stuck in their sphere of influence.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        First, I’d argue this was doing business in bad faith - they took advantage of a crisis to jack up profit on staple foods. That’s extremely unethical

        Second, they effectively did collude. McKinley is a consultant hired by Kroger (which owns many different regional chains) as well as their largest competitors and suppliers. They coordinated the price gouging - it doesn’t matter if an algorithm does it or a third party does it, it’s still collusion. Adding a degree of separation doesn’t change the nature of the act

      • Kalysta@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Price gouging is immoral and illegal in many states. Especially for needed things like food.

        Saying this is fine is cheering for the poor to starve.

  • crusa187@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yeah, he was literally bragging about it on the quarterly earnings calls as it was happening. They’ve only paused the price gouging now that it’s a hot topic, don’t think for a minute prices will go back down or that this won’t resume in a year or so when there’s some other distraction available.

    We need regulations to stop this predatory behavior, and we desperately need to break up monopolies like Kroger, if this problem is to be mitigated.

    • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Nono, you misunderstand! Prices going down is a very bad sign as it means something is very wrong!

      -Every economist ever without explanation or clarification whatsoever

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        They don’t clarify, because if they did it would be clear who it’s “wrong” for.

        Spoiler alert: It ain’t you and me.

      • Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        The problem is we talk about the economy in terms like “revenue” “profit” or “prices”.

        We need to change the language of the economy to appeal to its true creed: line go up. It’s Economics 101. Line go up, forever.

        Hence, I propose we talk about the cost of things on units of “not getting fucked”

        Use phrases like, “the not getting fucked on tomato sauce has been dropping lately”

    • Itsamelemmy@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      2 months ago

      Why break them up when you can just let them get bigger. I’d bet my job the fucking merger is still happening.

      • RustyShackleford@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Of course it’s still happening, this is just a side puppet show to distract from that fact. Now they’ve realized most of the population would vote in an uneducated felon again, so they see they faked having a heart for nothing. Which was cutting into their profits all along.

        Until there’s serious consequences and bankruptcy looming, they’ll continue shitting on us like we’re Japanese businessmen with a fetish.

      • Kalysta@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Lina Kahn has been going hard after monopolies lately. I will take that bet so long as she is FTC head.

      • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        What merger?

        And Kroger is a monopoly? I see Walmarts everywhere. Target to a lesser extent. Definitely an oligopoly.

  • Frozyre@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    2 months ago

    What did that Heinz CEO say at one point when confronted about inflation prices for groceries?

    “Get used to it”

    That’s their attitude here.

  • ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    2 months ago

    We price gouged the plebs. We know the government isn’t going to do anything and if they try our good ol’ friends at SCOTUS will make sure nothing happens to us. Long live the line always going up!

    -Andy Goff

  • borth@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    “There is not just one bad apple in this bunch,” Powers said, adding that most companies who engage in price gouging receive limited consequences.

    Because customers generally still have choices to shop at other grocers like Walmart, Thompson said Kroger is unlikely to experience any severe consequences from the FTC.

    Despite the fact that this is likely a larger problem in the grocery sector, Ryan said consumers could react swiftly with their wallets.

    Yeah, and go to the next grocery store with the same prices and behind-the-scenes policies, and buy the same overprices eggs… But hey, at least they didn’t admit to the lie.

    • Pandemanium@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Unfortunately Kroger is the cheapest option where I am. I refuse to support the dumpster fire that is Walmart. Every item at Albertsons and Safeway, especially produce, is at least 50 cents more expensive than at Kroger. Too bad Trader Joe’s doesn’t offer a little more selection. You can’t even get a whole cabbage there.

  • LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 months ago

    Hmmmm. Maybe, since all stores are doing this, we should just institute price fixing on certain goods? Oh but I forgot, that’d be bad for the corporation and their profits, and that’s obviously more important than citizens being able to afford groceries at a reasonable price.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    2 months ago

    so there’s already not enough competition in the grocery store market. Why is kroger being allowed to merge at this point?

  • exanime@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    2 months ago

    but don’t worry!, there will not be any negative consequences for him or his company!

  • Noxy@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    2 months ago

    And yet they may still be allowed to merge with assimilate Albertson’s, leaving so many neighborhoods with less (or even zero) choices for where to buy groceries get price gouged

  • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 months ago

    For all of these companies trying to merge the default answer should be no. Merging companies isn’t good for capitalism at all in any way so if any company wants to merge they should have to get special permissions. This shit is out of control.

    • breetai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      Agreed. I have no issues with capitalism but I have a huge issue with monopolies. Just buying out the competition isn’t competing.

    • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      One of the possibilities would be a cooperative chain. They don’t go for profit so can seriously undercut these price gougers.

  • criticon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    I stopped getting my groceries at Kroger unless I need just a few items quickly (I have 2 less than 2 miles from my house). Most stuff is more expensive at Kroger than Meijer or even Walmart and if doing the whole list it ads a lot to my expenses

      • diskmaster23@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        And that’s why there is a portion of people who dislike Harris; they dislike anything.

        • Frozyre@kbin.melroy.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          No they dislike anything that sounds reasonable, logical and rational. Or they don’t like anybody who comes up with ideas that would take them 50 years to come up with. Everyone wants solutions now, not whenever you’ll get to it.

          • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Harris will be painted as socialist/communist. It will be interesting to see how much stigma those labels still carry.

              • Fedizen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                I mean it would be funny to turn the tables on their nationalist rhetoric by noting the USSR wasted a lot of resources on border security and stupid walls. We’ve gone from a country that celebrates walls coming down to a country that will never be satisfied with the worlds largest contiguous wall.

          • diskmaster23@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I feel like that happens no matter what? Doesn’t make it right. Like, we install dictators all the time that commit genocide.

        • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I mean you can drop the sarcasm indicator and actually be correct. Every single state has price gouging laws already. However, I know Republicans will now act like it’s a terrible “communist” plan just to obstruct it.

    • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Some jackass economist will pop in and say that there’s no such thing as price gouging. That prices are set by market demand. It is true to an extent, because if people weren’t buying things at those prices, then the store would lower the price. The problem with groceries is that there isn’t really a price discovery method for the average person unless they go to every possible store and price compare. It’s not like you can go online and find prices for every option and alternative for groceries. People just assumed that prices have gone up due to natural inflation, which isn’t the case here.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s supposed to be, but laws generally only kick in if there’s an emergency like an earthquake or hurricane.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yup and the argument over if it qualifies or if they were doing it at the time is for the lawyers.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Right? My favorite. It’s not really something that’s enforceable on that level though. It would be easier to bring prices down by breaking up these large companies. And if that fails, just start a government grocery store that opens up in food deserts first, then in high cost of living areas. See what happens to prices when they need to justify people going there instead of the government store.

              • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                Depending on how the recenr precedent curtailing the agency of government agencies holds up, teams of lawyers presenting teams of scientists to judges with political agendas may become the norm.

                Legally, criminalizing systemic food waste would be a good step.