Economics

at the risk of engaging in the folly of a "subtance demander," and making an actual point, what do you think will happen when you "force" a grocery store to sell their goods at a loss? they will charitably do so? or is it more likely they will simply stop selling that good?

Grocery stores do have razor-thin operating margins. 3% is gargantuan. However, there is not a zero-sum relationship between food prices and that margin.

Grocery stores are optimized for a KPI of revenue-per-linear-foot, which is why produce is always near the front. 

As a consumer, my value KPIs are calorie-per-dollar and gross-weight-per-dollar.

It is possible that the store earns more from me per-linear-foot with a lower price that is offset by my increased purchase volume. This inflection point is dynamic and changing relative to inventory cost and sale prices to increase purchasing. 

The POLICY question regarding this inflection point and market manipulation is— are there cases where a grocer would be earning *more* revenue from me per-linear-foot at a lower food price— but chooses a higher price because *collective* supply-hoarding by my limited grocery-acquisition vectors (let’s say, five stores) unfairly creates a closed market where consolidated cartels mute Adam Smith’s “magic hand.”

Chocolate rainmaker. Singer. Thinker. Voice

mcdonalds is not in the burger business mcdonalds is not in the burger business mcdonalds is not in the burger business mcdonalds is not in the burger business mcdonalds is not in the burger business