Can someone chime in? Why aren’t there chains of grocery stores run by the government to ensure prices are minimal and people can get food at fair prices? Does any country do that?
If they did that here, we’d just be hearing about how the government spent 50b on building and “online grocery ordering system” with Loblaws Food Consulting Inc
And the system would be down and crash within 5 days of launch
Co-ops are better than government run anyways, since the members are the owners, invested members can make the right choices for the store/community/region instead of a blanket provincial/federal policies.
I dunno, I live in a place run by a co-op and it’s really just a group of tyrannical old people with nothing to do, who want to control everyone’s life and are every bit as greedy as corporations.
They can be usurped. Just nobody wants to run it, young residents don’t want to be involved or don’t have time, so you end up with the old busy bodies with nothing to do running it. They run unopposed a lot
Then you get what you get. we live in a Strata, people complain the council makes decisions they don’t like, but nobody steps forward each year at vote time to offer themselves as a new council member.
The truth is that Loblaws is working as intended within capitalism. They need continuous profit. The CEO swears an oath to shareholders to prioritize profit quarter after quarter ad infinitum. Prices of everything will always increase, otherwise the investors bail and the house of cards collapses. No boycott is going to ultimately change that. They are always playing a game of: "How high can we increase prices today without people rioting?"
What may help is regulating how prices increase or maybe a crown corporation that isn't driven by endless profit.
The core argument is that capitalism pushes for this outcome, which your link actually confirms. I also find it a bit odd to claim that “x is a myth” and link to an opinion piece article as if it’s a peer reviewed study.
It’s a link to an article about a legal case where the courts specifically stated this was not the case. In the legal realm, that is the equivalent of a peer review. And absolutely, unfettered capitalism pushes towards this outcome. That doesn’t make it a legal requirement.
The linked article does nothing to characterize the “myth” you imply.
The article simply states that corporations have to represent the “best interests” of shareholders, that “shareholder value” is a common proxy, and that “value” can be many things because different shareholders have different values.
So, shareholders can tell companies to have a different mandate. Sure. That does not eliminate the default which is that the mandate is to make money. About the only default caveat is that it needs to be “sustainable” value which gives management flexibility to act with a longer term view when thinking about brand, reputation, supply-chain stability, employee relations, regulatory risks, legal risks, the environment, and other things that may not directly make money or even cost money in the short term.
All that said, if a company decides ( without direction from shareholders ) to reduce profits voluntarily, they should expect shareholder action in the form of non-confidence ( getting voted out of management ) or even legal action.
If shareholders have not communicated other “best interests”, their best interest is maximizing the value of the shares. That is almost always going to translate to maximizing profit.
I am not taking a moral position or preference on any of the above. Let’s just not be dishonest by suggesting that management obligations to maximize shareholder value is a “myth”. It is not.
Capitalism depends on proper competition to function “properly”. So of course the goal of every company is to reduce competition so that they can raise prices to infinity.
Loblaw’s still has competition, but it is not what it should be. There are a small number of big chains that don’t have proper competition in their best interests. If you live in a big city you likely have a few real options but often not really.
The capitalist’s answer to this is applying regulation since it has been required to prevent monopolistic behaviour. Or we can ditch capitalism as the model for our society. Or more likely both, one as a short term fix and another for the longer term.
Competitions are meant to be won. The fact that we keep talking about things not working due to a lack of competition points to it being a red herring. The point is to crown a winner, and winners are being crowned.
Every time this view point is parroted, they either imply or outright state the company will be sued/break the law because they didn’t do their best to make money. Notice how they used words like “need”, “swearing an oath”, etc. I’ve seen it time and time again on here and on Reddit, it’s tiresome at this point. The companies are just greedy, and know they can pretty much get away with stuff like this, end of story.
Edit: can you imagine being the one that makes the most money, but still too cheap to accept Amex?! Like a millionaire still living in his mom’s basement…
Amex and credit cards in general are a tax on our society, especially the poor. The wealthy get “rewards” which just come from increased prices to cover the high credit card fees. The less wealthy don’t get as much of the extra fees back as rewards but still have to pay the higher prices.
We should strictly regulate credit card fees like the EU has done.
The problem is that the percentage of profits, not just revenue, as indicated by the 15% dividend raise, is increasing which means more is being scraped off the top by Loblaws which isn’t from input costs which Loblaws likes to blame but greed.
Revenue and share of profits should be should have steady growth commensurate to inflation at most for an essential service like Loblaws. Really government should treat housing, food, water and energy as essential with better regulation across the supply chain.
Add comment