Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Supreme Court, now with a conservative majority, has once again made things tougher for middle class Americans. In a 5-4 decision, they have reversed a basic tenet that has stood for almost 100 years, and decided in favor of corporate profits.
The decision makes it legal for manufacturers to set a fixed price for their products and enforce retailers from offering discounts. The effect of this will be to raise the prices of almost everything you buy, especially that made in the USA. It will open the door even further for foreign competition.
Without digging too far into this SC decision, it appears that this would effect online stores the most. Brick and mortar stores have been losing market share to these online discounters since the start of the internet. These online stores have little to no over head and can drop ship their products with out ever touching or purchasing them before the sale.
You would have to be extremely naive to think that back door price fixing hasn’t been the standard of business with or without laws.
Is this a good or bad decision? For the consumer, I doubt it will be noticed by anyone other than some die hard on line shoppers.
For retail, that’s to be determined, but it would be a safe bet that WalMart, HomeDepot, any big box retailer, and on line businesses will be effected the most.
So why are you anti-conservative, perfect world liberals so angry. These SC judges just handed you a victory. THIS MAY KILL WALMART!!!!!!
So why are you anti-conservative, perfect world liberals so angry. These SC judges just handed you a victory. THIS MAY KILL WALMART!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by chele123
Watch out Wal-mart. The Supreme court just leveled your playing field. Maybe now small stores can compete.
It appears you two sorely misunderstand the balance of power between Wal-Mart and manufacturers. It is Wal-Mart that dictates the terms, not the other way around. Many manufacturers would collapse if they were to lose access to Wal-Mart's shelves.
It appears you two sorely misunderstand the balance of power between Wal-Mart and manufacturers. It is Wal-Mart that dictates the terms, not the other way around. Many manufacturers would collapse if they were to lose access to Wal-Mart's shelves.
That was true before the decision. Who knows what will happen now. Besides a few Chinese manufacturers going under wont interrupt my sleep.
This decision won't effect that balance of power one bit. I don't think you appreciate the sheer volume of merchandise Wal-Mart moves. Its annual revenues exceeds the total GDP of dozens of entire nations. That is what gives them the leg up in the bargaining process: the manufacturers cannot afford to lose access to that volume stream. This decision does not affect Wal-Mart's market share and therefore does not affect its bargaining position.
This decision won't effect that balance of power one bit. I don't think you appreciate the sheer volume of merchandise Wal-Mart moves. Its annual revenues exceeds the total GDP of dozens of entire nations. That is what gives them the leg up in the bargaining process: the manufacturers cannot afford to lose access to that volume stream. This decision does not affect Wal-Mart's market share and therefore does not affect its bargaining position.
If the SC decision is as stated on this thread then a widget for sale at WalMart will sell for the same price at Target, and Mom and Pops. It may be true that WalMart can buy it cheaper, but they cannot sell it for less.
If the SC decision is as stated on this thread then a widget for sale at WalMart will sell for the same price at Target, and Mom and Pops. It may be true that WalMart can buy it cheaper, but they cannot sell it for less.
You threw me a bit of a curve on this one Sprinter. If the suppliers set the price of their product sold to the retailers, how is dictating the retailers pricing enhancing supply and demand??? As an alternative to retail price fixing, couldn't they just raise the price sold to retailers, making it more difficult for them to cut prices?
Actually, if I dictate a price for my product at the retail level, and prohibit Amazon from lowering the price level to that necessary to move an appropriate number of items, isn't this rigging the market and price fixing? How do you dovetail this to pure supply and demand?
To me it seems like this ruling is meant to make it so the walmart Amazon types can't artificially lower prices below market value as a way to increase sales volume and traffic.
If suppliers price items too high the demand will decrease so thats why I say supply and demand as opposed to before the ruling when prices could be set below market value regardless of demand.
If the SC decision is as stated on this thread then a widget for sale at WalMart will sell for the same price at Target, and Mom and Pops. It may be true that WalMart can buy it cheaper, but they cannot sell it for less.
Your position assumes that this decision REQUIRES a company to make its retail price uniform across all sellers. It certainly does not. Any company that tries to tell Wal-Mart how to set its prices is going to be told to go to Hell.
Here's some insight into Wal-Mart's bargaining position: They recently told suppliers of washing detergent -- you know, Tide, Cheer, the like -- that they had to change the size of their packaging so that they could fit more of them on the shelves. Sure enough, the companies changed the size of their packaging. Because Wal-Mart told them to. We're not talking little mom-and-pop companies with no bargaining clout at all. We're talking about major international corporations like Proctor & Gamble. When Wal-Mart says "jump," suppliers say "how high?" Bottom line.
Furthermore, I doubt many manufacturers are going to take this as license to set retail prices. Most companies just want their crap out of their plant and into stores; and once there and once paid by the retailer, don't care how much it retails for. This is more likely to be used by companies that want to protect their "brand image" -- more upscale, higher-end boutique-type items.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
