Heck, you anti-corporates have it all figured out don't you?
Explain this, why isn't generic pop more popular than it is with Coke and Pepsi selling at $1.27 per 16 oz bottle as compared to generic pop selling for half that? Perhaps beverage consumers need you guys to save them from themselves.
WHO IS FORCING CONSUMERS TO BUY NAME BRAND POP WHEN GENERIC POP IS SELLING FOR 1/2 THE PRICE?????
Yup, you guys got it all figured out don't you? Good luck selling your soft drinks. Perhaps you might want to talk to "SureFine" before investing too much money.
As if there was no other costs associated with coke and pepsi other than suger and water. No aluminum costs, no labor costs, no transportation costs, no bottling costs, and no profit?
AMAZING! What marketing wizards we have here. Just dump a few teaspoons of sugar in water an WAHLA you are a millionaire overnight. LOL!
No wonder you guys are telling others how to make a fortune instead of making it yourself.
Diamond S: "Econ posted a valid post about a corporation using market penetration and concentration to not respond to consumer demand."
Diamond S: "It was a genuine example of how a huge corporation can indeed twist the market to their own needs."
Conman has never had a valid point because he never brings anything to the table to support his "theories" other than more theories.
If consumer demands are not being met, that opens the door for competition to enter the market place and meet those demands. If packers are making too much profit per head, that opens the door for another company to come in and do it better and more efficiently.
That is precisely why Armour, Swift, Wilson, Cudahey, and Morris became Excel, ibp, Monfort, National Beef, and Beef America which became Excel, Tyson, Swift & Co., Smithfield and USPB.
The obvious is too obvious isn't it?
If a market was truly controlled, HOW DID THE NAMES CHANGE????
Diamond S: "Pure competition assures that only the most efficient company survives. Or alternatively, assures that all companies will attempt to operate at the most efficient level."
That's what we have. Tyson, Excel, USPB, Smithfield, Greater Omaha, and Swift are all competing for the same cattle. To suggest otherwise is living in fairyland.
Diamond S: "Efficiency and large company size do not always go hand in hand. Certainly, large companies are able to use economies of scale to do as you say: provide goods at the lowest possible cost. However they are also able to restrict competition and ignore consumer demand. How? Because we don't have pure competition anymore. Government policy and lawyers have ensured that the big dawgs remain the big dawgs, and thats it very difficult to get a start."
When efficiency and size do not go hand in hand, that opens the door for competition to step in and do it better. What Tyson lacks, Swift and Excel will pick up on.
No packing company is currently big enough to restrict competition. The largest market share is less than 1/3.
If government policies and lawyers have ensured that the big dawgs remain the big dawgs, how did National get purchased by USPB? How did Future Beef get purchased by Creekstone? How did Swift & Co. buy Monfort?
Once again, the obvious is simply too obvious for the conspiring mind.
Diamond S: "Until the concentration reaches too high a level, then it becomes anti-competitive by the very same economic forces that inspired it. Once the concentration becomes so high, and companies are able to use their profits from one market to buy their way into another market, then I think there is a problem."
We are not even close to that level of concentration in the packing industry. The largest packer has less than 1/3 of the market share.
Diamond S: "IMHO, Not even close to being enough to ensure pure competition given the huge size of the market."
I totally disagree. Using that logic, there should be no competition between Ford, Dodge, and Chevy either.
Or Peterbilt, Kenworth, Volva, and Freightliner.
Or Winchester, Ruger, Remington, and Marlin.
Or........
Open your eyes. It only takes two to compete although there is certainly a better opportunity for "price fixing" with only 2 players. We have 5 major players all competing for the same cattle.
I'd suggest you get out your checkbook and invest in a packing company if you are so convinced that there is money for the taking.
Through the 90's, the average per head profit for the 5 largest packers was $3.88 per head. You want more competition than that. Knock yourself out. I hope you invite me to your foreclosure sale to pick through the bones.
Diamond S, you may be singing the packer blamer's theme song but you'll have to do better than that.
RK: "This poor Randy routine is pathetic SH."
I agree but for whatever reason, you persist with it.
Conman: "The point is that concentration in markets is not good for consumers."
That is flat wrong. Walmart has market share and I'd love to hear you try to explain how saving money at Walmart is not in the consumer's best interest. Gonna give the Walmart consumer the "save you from yourself" speech? You arrogant eletist!
~SH~