• ulkesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Thing is…there is no real free market with proper competition, anyway. If there was such a thing, my groceries wouldn’t cost double now from what they were a mere five years ago (or quadruple, if looking at soda like Coke and Pepsi products). There is rampant collusion and price-fixing going on and not a damn government official seems to be doing anything about it. And yeah, the “but but the pandemic” excuse runs pretty thin as the years of this gouging continues.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      The truth is, a real market is never actually truly competitive. In an unregulated market, competing firms always collude with each other to set prices and wages for the industry. “Free market” ideology is based on nonsense, they’ve proven this over and over.

        • vga@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          In a Hayekian free market, yes. Most (all?) actual free markets prohibit cartels, though.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        In an unregulated market

        There’s no such thing. All markets are regulated. Even ones dominated by cartels. Markets do not meaningfully exist without regulation. The only question is how they’re regulated.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        “Free market” ideology is based on nonsense, they’ve proven this over and over.

        The theoretical model of the free market relies on perfectly rational actors acting on perfect information. If those are given, then resource allocation indeed is perfect.

        Those conditions of course don’t exist in the real world, best we can do is to regulate away market failures to approach the theoretical ideal. That’s the kind of thing ordoliberalism argues for, and it can indeed work very well in practice. Random example: You want companies to use packaging with less environmental impact. You could have a packaging ministry that decides which company uses what packaging for what, creating tons of state bureaucracy – or you could say “producers, you’re now paying for the disposal of packaging yourself”. What previously was an externality for those companies suddenly appears on their balance sheet and they self-regulate to use way more cardboard, easily recyclable plastics, whatnot.

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          or you could say “producers, you’re now paying for the disposal of packaging yourself”

          Definitely wouldn’t solve the problem as they’d just find the cheapest method of disposal to match the letter of the law and go about their day.

          Corporations don’t self-regulate. They regulate the regulators. They work and then later buy the refs.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Definitely wouldn’t solve the problem as they’d just find the cheapest method of disposal to match the letter of the law and go about their day.

            Those are illegal. Already were before. I’m not talking about a hypothetical, here, the policy is over 30 years old.

            Corporations don’t self-regulate. They regulate the regulators. They work and then later buy the refs.

            Yeah if they do that were you are then maybe elect better politicians. They sure as hell try it over here but it’s not nearly as much as an issue as e.g. in the US.

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I dunno if I were in Germany I wouldn’t be so smug about electing politicians that prevent a slide into fascism.

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Are you actually trying to make a point or did you simply want to be hostile.

                • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  My point is that it’s not as simple as setting “common sense” neoliberal rules when the corporations actively evade them. The problem in the US is also more complicated than you’re making it, here we need to basically redo a court which is full of people on lifetime appointments in order to roll back their ruling that political corruption is basically free speech.

                  • barsoap@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    The stuff I described was not a neoliberal rule at all, they abhor any kind of regulation that’s not securing property rights for the affluent.

                    This “regulate away market failures to approach the ideal of the free market better” thing is ordoliberalism. An actual economic theory I don’t fully agree with but which is mostly sane, and is, most of all, unlike neoliberalism not pure class war. Ordoliberalism e.g. considers welfare necessary so that the labour market isn’t stacked in favour of the employers.

        • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          The theoretical model of the free market relies on perfectly rational actors acting on perfect information. If those are given, then resource allocation indeed is perfect.

          That’s not even remotely true. Natural monopolies exist because of how natural resources work, and oligopolies or undercutting of prices to destroy weak competition can happen with perfect knowledge by sellers and buyers.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            weak competition can happen with perfect knowledge by sellers and buyers.

            It can’t happen given perfect rationality as it’s not in the rational interest of the majority to allow a minority their monopolies.

            It’s a fucking theoretical model. The maths check out, that’s not the issue the issue is that it’s theory, with very glaring limitations.

    • Commiunism@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Funnily enough, not even neoliberals believe in the free market regardless of how much they spout its nonsense.

      Thatcher was one of such neoliberals, she would always talk about how people should become self-sufficient and governments shouldn’t interfere in the free market for it to truly work and so on, but during her rule she was spending billions in subsidies for corporations (aka government interference in the free market). Of course, they weren’t called subsidies in the paperwork but some other bullshit like “public investment”, but their effect was still the same.

    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      Is the pandemic really the main claimed reason in the US? Here in central Europe it seems that since February of 2022, all products have been coming exclusively from Ukraine, so that is why they just had to become more expensive you know…

      • Gsus4@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        That joke was good, but it’s old now. Everyone should understand that it was due to the peak of oil/gas prices due to the Ukraine war, that had cascade effects on the price of transportation, fertilizer, energy, groceries…which then compounded into general inflation with some price gouging too to keep it from going back as quickly.

        If you want to keep that from happening again, gradually reduce your dependence on fossil fuels for your security, not just to “be green”.

      • ulkesh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Many businesses in the US still cling to that trope, yes. We all understood that it was to a be a temporary issue in 2020 and 2021, but businesses took that to mean they could just never drop their prices now that people were willing, at the time, to pay for it. I’m not talking luxury goods either, I’m talking about staples to maintain life, such as meat, vegetables, and even water prices have risen. This is untenable for many, many people.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      In the USA, the FTC is actually taking grocery store chains to court over collusion and price fixing, presumably will target specific brands once more data gets released via the court proceedings.

      So there are government officials doing things about it, but nobody ever seems to give them any fucking credit and every few years we vote in new politicians who gut the agency.