Quote
State regulators crack down on grocery chain for selling cheap milk
Louisiana state regulators recently cracked down on a supermarket chain's weekly promotional deal because it was selling milk too cheaply — which violates state law.
The upscale Fresh Market was selling gallons of milk for $2.99 as part of a weekly promotional deal. Louisiana requires that retailer price markups be at least six percent above the invoice and shipping costs of the product.
"Because milk is a commodity product with regulated costs that are subject to change, at the current cost, due to Louisiana state law, we are unable to honor the $2.99 Tuesday deal for (Fresh Market) milk," according to a statement from Drewry Sackett of BRAVE Public Relations, who represents the Fresh Market. "Because the cost of milk fluctuates, it is possible that we will be able to offer the $2.99 deal on milk again in the future."
"They can sell it six percent over cost all day long. It's when they sell it below cost that it becomes a problem," State Agriculture and Forestry Commissioner Mike Strain told The Advocate.
After getting a complaint about Fresh Market's promotional deal, Strain's office sent an auditor to a French Market store.
At least one Fresh Market shopper was outraged when he found that the state government had intervened to control the store's milk prices.
"Should we do the same thing with bread? Should we do the same thing with soft drinks?" asked Lafayette stockbroker Kenneth Daigle. "If retailers want to take a loss, so be it."
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/26/state-regulators-crack-down-on-grocery-chain-for-selling-cheap-milk/ (http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/26/state-regulators-crack-down-on-grocery-chain-for-selling-cheap-milk/)
Central planning Louisiana style. :nelson:
Interesting take on preventing predatory pricing.
Motherfucking Right!
Is this sort of thing that unusual? :hmm: I have no idea. I have heard of fixing a max price, and the disasters that usually come with that, but a min price? I hardly think a blackmarket of people trying to sell their milk for a loss is going to break out.
Quote from: Valmy on January 29, 2013, 09:23:29 AM
Is this sort of thing that unusual? :hmm: I have no idea. I have heard of fixing a max price, and the disasters that usually come with that, but a min price? I hardly think a blackmarket of people trying to sell their milk for a loss is going to break out.
The US has antidumping laws relating to international trade.
And of course price floors are quite common in labor markets.:nerd:
Quote from: Valmy on January 29, 2013, 09:23:29 AM
Is this sort of thing that unusual? :hmm: I have no idea. I have heard of fixing a max price, and the disasters that usually come with that, but a min price? I hardly think a blackmarket of people trying to sell their milk for a loss is going to break out.
This has nothing to do with black market milk. It has to do with large retailers forcing out competitors by selling product for less than cost. Then when the competition is gone they can charge whatever they please.
Predatory pricing is very hard to prove - just look up the attempts made to prove Walmart engaged in such practices. A far cheaper and efficient method is simply to regulate minimum pricing.
Yeah, stops them killing the little guys.
I don't think we have any such law in the UK....loss leaders are pretty standard practice for supermarkets
Quote from: Tyr on January 29, 2013, 01:21:34 PM
Yeah, stops them killing the little guys.
I don't think we have any such law in the UK....loss leaders are pretty standard practice for supermarkets
loss leaders are another thing that are regulated within competition legislation or consumer protection type legislation - even without minimum pricing type schemes.
A number of years ago I was invovled in a private prosecution in a couple of cases.
Generally for a retailer to advertise a mark down it has to be a bona fide savings to the customer otherwise it is a kind of fraud on the customer. For it to be a bona fide savings the retailer has to have sold the product at the "regular price" for there to be such a savings.
But all too often what occurs is that a retailer advertises a sale price based on a "regular price" at which the product was never sold giving the customer the illusion of savings.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 29, 2013, 01:52:33 PM
Generally for a retailer to advertise a mark down it has to be a bona fide savings to the customer otherwise it is a kind of fraud on the customer. For it to be a bona fide savings the retailer has to have sold the product at the "regular price" for there to be such a savings.
But all too often what occurs is that a retailer advertises a sale price based on a "regular price" at which the product was never sold giving the customer the illusion of savings.
I'm glad we have lawyers to protect us from horrors such as these.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 29, 2013, 01:58:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 29, 2013, 01:52:33 PM
Generally for a retailer to advertise a mark down it has to be a bona fide savings to the customer otherwise it is a kind of fraud on the customer. For it to be a bona fide savings the retailer has to have sold the product at the "regular price" for there to be such a savings.
But all too often what occurs is that a retailer advertises a sale price based on a "regular price" at which the product was never sold giving the customer the illusion of savings.
I'm glad we have lawyers to protect us from horrors such as these.
I am here to serve the greater good
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 29, 2013, 02:04:23 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 29, 2013, 01:58:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 29, 2013, 01:52:33 PM
Generally for a retailer to advertise a mark down it has to be a bona fide savings to the customer otherwise it is a kind of fraud on the customer. For it to be a bona fide savings the retailer has to have sold the product at the "regular price" for there to be such a savings.
But all too often what occurs is that a retailer advertises a sale price based on a "regular price" at which the product was never sold giving the customer the illusion of savings.
I'm glad we have lawyers to protect us from horrors such as these.
I am here to serve the greater good
:P
On a more serious note, do you not have a concern about deceptive trade practices?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 29, 2013, 02:04:23 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 29, 2013, 01:58:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 29, 2013, 01:52:33 PM
Generally for a retailer to advertise a mark down it has to be a bona fide savings to the customer otherwise it is a kind of fraud on the customer. For it to be a bona fide savings the retailer has to have sold the product at the "regular price" for there to be such a savings.
But all too often what occurs is that a retailer advertises a sale price based on a "regular price" at which the product was never sold giving the customer the illusion of savings.
I'm glad we have lawyers to protect us from horrors such as these.
I am here to serve the greater good
I always like to steal Reagan's line that "I'm with the government and I'm here to help". -_-
I imagine that was terrifying when Union soldiers said that to the slaves they were liberating.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 29, 2013, 02:33:48 PM
On a more serious note, do you not have a concern about deceptive trade practices?
Not on whether an item an item advertised as on sale is actually at a reduced price.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 29, 2013, 03:12:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 29, 2013, 02:33:48 PM
On a more serious note, do you not have a concern about deceptive trade practices?
Not on whether an item an item advertised as on sale is actually at a reduced price.
So its ok for a retailor to be dishonest, so long as its on and item by item basis?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 29, 2013, 05:39:36 PM
So its ok for a retailor to be dishonest, so long as its on and item by item basis?
It isn't okay in the ethical sense, and that may put their souls in danger of eternal hellfire. But I don't think it is a good use state power and society resources to investigate whether that roll of toilet paper advertised on sale was actually sold for a higher price last week.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 29, 2013, 06:16:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 29, 2013, 05:39:36 PM
So its ok for a retailor to be dishonest, so long as its on and item by item basis?
It isn't okay in the ethical sense, and that may put their souls in danger of eternal hellfire. But I don't think it is a good use state power and society resources to investigate whether that roll of toilet paper advertised on sale was actually sold for a higher price last week.
Your right, that is why there are private procecution provisions. I guess you missed that part :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 29, 2013, 06:40:18 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 29, 2013, 06:16:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 29, 2013, 05:39:36 PM
So its ok for a retailor to be dishonest, so long as its on and item by item basis?
It isn't okay in the ethical sense, and that may put their souls in danger of eternal hellfire. But I don't think it is a good use state power and society resources to investigate whether that roll of toilet paper advertised on sale was actually sold for a higher price last week.
Your right, that is why there are private procecution provisions. I guess you missed that part :P
That doesn't change anything: your judges, court administrators, etc are still state employees. Actually, if the government is going to allow action in these cases, I'd prefer it to be managed by government regulators rather than privately, which seems to have more potential to have costs spiral out of control.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 29, 2013, 08:34:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 29, 2013, 06:40:18 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 29, 2013, 06:16:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 29, 2013, 05:39:36 PM
So its ok for a retailor to be dishonest, so long as its on and item by item basis?
It isn't okay in the ethical sense, and that may put their souls in danger of eternal hellfire. But I don't think it is a good use state power and society resources to investigate whether that roll of toilet paper advertised on sale was actually sold for a higher price last week.
So you would rather have deceptive trade practices then fund the court system. Interesting.
Your right, that is why there are private procecution provisions. I guess you missed that part :P
That doesn't change anything: your judges, court administrators, etc are still state employees. Actually, if the government is going to allow action in these cases, I'd prefer it to be managed by government regulators rather than privately, which seems to have more potential to have costs spiral out of control.