Thomas Woods - Predatory Pricing

Historian Thomas E Woods Jr explores the economic notion of "predatory pricing." http://www.libertypen.com

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Austrian
• bromine
• business
• corporations
• economics
• free
• market
• Mises
• strategy
• big
• competition
• small
• smuggle
• monopoly
• raise
• prices
• lower
• Wal-Mart
• Target
• KMart
• Amazon
• economist
• public
• Herbert
• Dow
• chemical
• company
• dyes
• German
• cartel
• Europe
• cheat
• law
• capitalism

[KripDrip]

Walmart doesnt put other stores out of business. The customers do for only shopping at Walmart. They had the choice of buying things at Walmart or buying from other stores in the community but they chose to destroy the other businesses by not supporting other businesses and only going to Walmart.

[tewj57]

How is Wal-Mart an example? Where's the raising of prices that's essential to the model?

[HanStanwell]

@fzqlcs yeah but there is no rule sayng you can't eat before a show, nor is there a rule that says you have to buy food when you get there. with the age of digital projectors, I wouldn't be surprised if ticket sales start coming down and food prices cause it will make things cheaper for the theatres since they no longer have to rent big, expensive, heavy film reels, but by then the dollar might have collapsed and it may cost $100 for popcorn, coke and 1 ticket.

[fzqlcs]

@HanStanwell and... there is no competition within the theatre.

[HanStanwell]

The reason movie theatres charge so much for concessions is because they hardly make any profit from ticket sales, plus the movie goers wont refuse to pay high prices so they charge $10 for a bag of popcorn and a large coke.

[aoeu256]

@macduggles

Businesses use other businesses products as inputs, and getting rid of cheap foreign goods reduces profit. Meanwhile on the other side, the Japanese businesses are weakened because consumers have less spending power [since they are paying more for TVs]. This means that American companies[that don't make TVs] do better since American home market has more spending $, while Japanese has less $. Investors invest in many companies, so if TV is weakened all other is strengthened.

[macduggles]

@aoeu256 I am looking at it from the investor's point of view and you like to look at it from the consumer's point of view.

[aoeu256]

@macduggles

By "helping" I meant subsidies, tariffs, regulations, or bans. Did any American laws do this? When Jap government shifts resources to TV companies, or favors one over the others, all other Jap companies are weakened slightly. This means that American companies can compete better say in Germany.

[aoeu256]

@macduggles

"Charged a premium in those markets"... This means that the Jap buyer has less $ because their TVs are higher priced thus companies other than the TV company get smaller markets. US buyers, however, save money by buying subsidized Japanese TVs thus every single other market other than TVs is increased. Smart CEOs know to be flexible, so just don't go into TVs if Japan wants to give them away: however, this means that the Americans have more $ for other goods.

[macduggles]

@aoeu256 Hey Clueless, the Japanese television manufacturers controlled their home markets and charged a premium is those markets with the help from both Japanese and American governments.