Call to scrap ban on below-cost selling

[FutureTaoiseach]

I don't see how protecting small business, who keep some form of competition, amounts to legalised cartelling. That could only come about, when there is no small competition.

The CSG report states that the damage that would be caused by lifting the Order is greatly exaggerated, as so-called small chains have consolidated thie position since the order was imposed. They are now in a far better position to compete in the absence of the ban.

[Conor]

But you have to ask the question: Why on earth would a business want to sell at a loss, if not to exterminate their competition??
Page1 of a junior cert business text tells you that people enter business to make profit.

This is a quaestion that has yet to be answered by the PDs, the CA, or the fatcats who want the order scrapped.

Loss leaders. They're on page two of your junior cert business text. Maybe you were out sick that day.

[Libero]

For once in my life, I tend to agree with the FF/FG heads and the Monbiot-quoters and disagree with the standard liberalism of the PDs.

I've seen for myself what happens in Britain when the likes of Tesco get given a free hand to do as they like.

That said, we need ask if that danger is best tackled by the Groceries Order or by a limit on the size of retail superstores and other planning measures.

It seems to me that the Groceries Order is a second-best approach since it prevents savings being passed on even where there is no risk of Tesco-style aggressive underpricing.

Of course this whole debate is directed by the vested interests of the small (and not so small) retailers. Their language, arguments and rhetoric is now deployed by those hungry for votes and one has to ask if those politicians have done much thinking for themselves on this matter.
The fact is, the smaller retailers want to keep out all competition, not just the dangerous "future monopoly" kind. Scrapping the Groceries Order but restricting superstores would help competition but prevent the nightmare scenario. Which is why retailers won't support it, but good politicians should.

Hope that makes sense.

[brownenvelopes]

Your only looking at the short term gain though. Once abolished, below cost prices will exist,yes. However, the large chains who can buy such large quantitites will sell way below cost price, undercutting smaller retailers who can't get such large discounts from wholesalers. Small business is eliminated quickly and then you only have large chains left. With only themselves left, a cartel-like market will emerge, only a few players controlling the whole market and they'll all set prices they like, making nice profit margins and ripping you, the customer off. Your only going to increase the 'Rip-off Ireland' you talk about, so thats why I'm glad the gov. is taking a sensible approach to reviewing this issue, something smart, for once!

The Bilderberg Syndrome.

[stringjack]

I totally agree with Barry on this issue. I attended a recent debate on this issue and Fingleton was again harping on the need to abolish this order. It will considerably hurt and indeed close many of the small businesses in our community and lose valuable community structures in doing so. As I understand it a similar thing has happened with petrol in certain parts of Munster. The ability of the big supermarket chains to sustain a price war closed down the smaller independent rivals and the result? With no competitors the supermarket chain increases prices. While in the short term this would see prices drop, and benefit the lower socio-econbomic groups in particular, in the long term there would be a rise in prices.

Is your argument an economic one or a social one?

[thegeneral]

Is your argument an economic one or a social one?

Clearly a bit of both, socio-economic then :wink:

[stringjack]

Is your argument an economic one or a social one?

Clearly a bit of both, socio-economic then :wink:

Disaggregate!