Comments on: Game shop buys cheap supermarket consoles to resell. It’s legal, but is it ethical?

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:43:50 +0000

> How come I, the leftie, know more about how capitalism works than the tireless defenders of multinational corporations do?

That would be an excellent question, if the preceeding sentence didn’t display such an impressive lack of knowledge.

> Unless you just do it long enough to put a smaller competitor, who can’t afford to keep selling at a loss, out of business.

You’re wrong to start with the word “unless”. No, competing with someone so vigorously that they go out of business doesn’t mean that you’re not really competing. And selling at a loss doesn’t cease to be competitive if you only do it for a certain amount of time.

I think you’re confusing “preventing competition” with “putting a competitor out of business by outcompeting them”.

By: McGazz

McGazz — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:20:24 +0000

> How? Selling at a loss doesn’t prevent competition; it is competition.

Unless you just do it long enough to put a smaller competitor, who can’t afford to keep selling at a loss, out of business. How come I, the leftie, know more about how capitalism works than the tireless defenders of multinational corporations do?

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:11:24 +0000

@squander two:
> Buying up all your competitor’s stock and reselling it from your own stores at a higher price is unequivocally preventing competition, in that you are taking measures to ensure that a price offered by one of your competitors is not actually available to the public.

Yep, that’s my take on it too.

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:10:22 +0000

You know, what really gets on my tits about this kind of stuff is that when we do it, eg by importing from abroad, the manufacturers throw a big fit because it messes with their cosy distribution agreements. Grey imports are bad! But when shops screw us around, which is what I’d characterise this as, that’s just our tough shit.

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:08:38 +0000

That’s one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever heard. And brilliant.

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:38:06 +0000

Tony, that’s brilliant.

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:36:34 +0000

Having a big Tesco in my town didn’t stop Asda opening up and doing very nicely, so, if Tesco are preventing competition, they’re not very good at it.

> Selling at a loss could be considered to fall under that too.

How? Selling at a loss doesn’t prevent competition; it is competition. Buying up all your competitor’s stock and reselling it from your own stores at a higher price is unequivocally preventing competition, in that you are taking measures to ensure that a price offered by one of your competitors is not actually available to the public.

Besides, when Microsoft are selling the units to Sainsbury’s at a loss, one can hardly complain that Sainsbury’s are doing the same.

By: Tony Kiernan

Tony Kiernan — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:30:02 +0000

Friend of mine worked in a suburban Ottakers (don’t exist any more, should be safe ground) a couple of Xmases back. Big thing was the Harry Potter book that came out at the time (possible the frist few months of the year). The local mega-supermarket (still very much in existence) were selling it really low priced. When they ran out of stock they bought up the Ottakers supply to keep up with the demand. The manager of the branch then sent staff round to pick up cheap copies for them to sell.

And, folk wonder how we got in this mess?

By: McGazz

McGazz — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:38:01 +0000

Isn’t the very existence of Tesco a major violation of the second point?

By: mupwangle

mupwangle — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:37:24 +0000

Not sure about that one. Selling at a loss could be considered to fall under that too.

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:38:34 +0000

It may not be legal. Here’s the Competition Commission’s remit:

We investigate and address issues of concern in three areas:

• In mergers – when larger companies will gain more than 25% market share and where a merger appears likely to lead to a substantial lessening of competition in one or more markets in the UK.

• In markets – when it appears that competition may be being prevented, distorted or restricted in a particular market.

• In regulated sectors where aspects of the regulatory system may not be operating effectively or to address certain categories of dispute between regulators and regulated companies.

Surely this is covered by the second point. It would at the very least warrant an investigation. If anyone complains to them.

By: mupwangle

mupwangle — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:19:53 +0000

Since when is any of this shite ethical?

The wii sells so well because it is/was difficult to get (and the shortfalls are rumoured to be deliberate). Supply and demand being fed by deliberate stock manipulation.

Sainsbury’s sold them at a loss to increase footfall in their stores to try and get these new customers to buy Sainsbury’s products, or at least buy their games from there.

Also the wii itself, although fun, is nowhere near as good as the hype suggests. It’s a laugh (especially in company) but not worth the markup that many people paid in the first year.