Were this capitalism, the competition would simply win by offering lower prices, but Kroger was allowed to grow to monopolistic proportions so that they’ve either bought up any and all serious competition already, muscled rivals out of business or settled on quasi-gerrymandered spheres of influence with their equally monopolistic competitors, so that nobody undercuts them when they abuse their status to not offer the best deals, but instead price-gouge the people stuck in their sphere of influence.
First, I’d argue this was doing business in bad faith - they took advantage of a crisis to jack up profit on staple foods. That’s extremely unethical
Second, they effectively did collude. McKinley is a consultant hired by Kroger (which owns many different regional chains) as well as their largest competitors and suppliers. They coordinated the price gouging - it doesn’t matter if an algorithm does it or a third party does it, it’s still collusion. Adding a degree of separation doesn’t change the nature of the act
Why though, what did they do wrong? They’re allowed to set their prices how they like as long as they’re not coluding with competitors.
(I’m not saying it doesn’t suck, obviously, but they are just doing a capitalism)
When you say “wrong,” what do you mean? Are you arguing that their actions are morally just, or merely not too illegal?
Capitalism violently forces people to serve capital for food, shelter, and other basic human needs.
This situation is slightly worse than usual.
I’m questioning whether they did anything illegal. It’s quite obvious (to me, at least) that what they did is morally wrong
“Wrong” is certainly the wrong word, then.
Price gouging does run counter to some states’ consumer protection laws.
Were this capitalism, the competition would simply win by offering lower prices, but Kroger was allowed to grow to monopolistic proportions so that they’ve either bought up any and all serious competition already, muscled rivals out of business or settled on quasi-gerrymandered spheres of influence with their equally monopolistic competitors, so that nobody undercuts them when they abuse their status to not offer the best deals, but instead price-gouge the people stuck in their sphere of influence.
First, I’d argue this was doing business in bad faith - they took advantage of a crisis to jack up profit on staple foods. That’s extremely unethical
Second, they effectively did collude. McKinley is a consultant hired by Kroger (which owns many different regional chains) as well as their largest competitors and suppliers. They coordinated the price gouging - it doesn’t matter if an algorithm does it or a third party does it, it’s still collusion. Adding a degree of separation doesn’t change the nature of the act
Price gouging is immoral and illegal in many states. Especially for needed things like food.
Saying this is fine is cheering for the poor to starve.