The breaking point, though, is the point when consumers will look to alternatives, e.g. a different store. As long as there are other options available, competition does usually do a decent job of keeping prices down.
And companies in a free market would never, ever collude to keep prices high in the face of that very competition you think will keep prices down, right? In fact that’s exactly what we’re seeing right now, is prices being kept down by the absolutely healthy competition in the Canadian grocery market, right?
Look collusion is a thing, but it’s illegal. Grocery stores, even the big chains in the US anyways are pretty cutthroat, they aren’t making huge profits they’re fighting to survive vs Amazon and the like. Anyways my point is that the claim that costs don’t affect prices (and therefore losses from theft don’t affect prices) is just silly.
The breaking point, though, is the point when consumers will look to alternatives, e.g. a different store. As long as there are other options available, competition does usually do a decent job of keeping prices down.
And companies in a free market would never, ever collude to keep prices high in the face of that very competition you think will keep prices down, right? In fact that’s exactly what we’re seeing right now, is prices being kept down by the absolutely healthy competition in the Canadian grocery market, right?
Look collusion is a thing, but it’s illegal. Grocery stores, even the big chains in the US anyways are pretty cutthroat, they aren’t making huge profits they’re fighting to survive vs Amazon and the like. Anyways my point is that the claim that costs don’t affect prices (and therefore losses from theft don’t affect prices) is just silly.