The equal marketplace Bill.

[Technosoul]

This is a bill I thought up which could help to bring back equality in competition at the marketplace.

The bill would simply outlaw discounts offered to stores if they buy in volume. A distrabuter or a company that sells items to retailers must charge the same price per item no matter how much they order as the quantity. The retialer however, who sells to the public is free to ask whatever price they please.

This would allow a family to open a mom and pop store with the ability to compete with the wealthy "gaint" stores. They would not be forced to sell items at a higher price then the chain stores. The bill would bring back diveristy in the marketplace as well as the "small town environment" that existed before the big guys like Walmart took over.
Because each retailer would be charged a flat rate no matter if they had a small business or a massive chain store outlet.

The bill would encourge more people to risk self employment and allow them a sense of independance. Because they would then have a "even playing field" for competitive potentials.

Such a bill would come under attack by powerful looby groups no doubt.

But what do you think about this idea for a bill and should it be proposed by a canadate or someone in government?

[SoylentGreen]

Big stores could still get around it by selling some items at a loss to attract customers. The larger stores can afford this because they will have volume sales.
Smaller mom and pop stores still need to make profit on all sales because of smaller volume of sales.

Different distributors selling the same item would have to coordinate prices which is price fixing that can be easily abused into giving distributors excessive profits for an item.

[tivodan1116]

Your solution is laudable in its goal, but is too limited to actually have the desired effect.

There are far more economies of scale at play in competitive markets between differently sized companies than just the cost of goods sold.

Things like real estate, labor, overhead, advertising, etc, all have economies of scale that allow larger companies to save money and deliver goods at lower prices. While supplier pricing is important, it is only one part of the equation.

[Alive]

Both the idea and the responses to it are silly. This is a horrible idea because volume selling is good for the consumer! Producers offer discounts for volume buys not because they want to be nice to big stores but because it is cheaper and more efficient to sell in volume (for a number of reasons). The consumer benefits because cheaper prices for retailers translate into cheaper prices at the store.

Mom and pop stores are not necessarily a good thing; if they die in the marketplace, they deserve to die. If people truly want their services they will survive.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Big stores could still get around it by selling some items at a loss to attract customers. The larger stores can afford this because they will have volume sales. Smaller mom and pop stores still need to make profit on all sales because of smaller volume of sales. Different distributors selling the same item would have to coordinate prices which is price fixing that can be easily abused into giving distributors excessive profits for an item.

The big stores can try to outlast the smaller ones with such give-aways but they cannot sell all items at a no porfit price because they must meet payroll demands and related costs of operation. Especially the items that sell the most. People might figure it is quicker and would use less gas to just stop at the small store close at hand, and so the "volume of sales" would be shifted away from the big stores and spread out among smaller stores due to the fact that the price difference is much smaller. However larger stores can offer more selection and diversity of itmes and brands due to space. But waiting in long lines is not fun.

In this bill different brand names can have different prices. A bean company can sell their brand of beans for whatever they wish as long as they sell it the at the same price to all retailers.

However the bill maker would have to review the 'changing label' trick.
For example the maker of Bush beans cannot change the label to read "Walmart beans" and sell them only to Walmart at a much cheaper price, because other Mom and Pop stores could not oder enough to warrent 'store brand name" (labeling).

[Technosoul]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Your solution is laudable in its goal, but is too limited to actually have the desired effect. There are far more economies of scale at play in competitive markets between differently sized companies than just the cost of goods sold. Things like real estate, labor, overhead, advertising, etc, all have economies of scale that allow larger companies to save money and deliver goods at lower prices. While supplier pricing is important, it is only one part of the equation.

True, this is not a "cure all' bill and likewise not intended as an all out attack to destroy chain stores. Rental space at a supermall would not be affordable for a small upstart store, so they would seek out a rental properties at less "central' locations and would need to depend on locals for their business, mostly via 'word of mouth' and those who see the store when driving by. The more traffic the more the rent is, but later on if they can advance thier business they can try expanding to better locations. A tiny hot dog stand could once more become a MacDog chain. From the bottom up. If they have a chance via a fair playing field. But indeed, finding the right location is a key factor when starting up a indedpendant store form scratch. Likewise getting economic backing form a bank when starting a new business is a factor, to survive the first 6 months to a year while you drum up enough buyers who know you are there. If banks know you can compete due to this 'equality bill' then new comers are more likely to get approved by the banks.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Alive Both the idea and the responses to it are silly. This is a horrible idea because volume selling is good for the consumer! .

Usually the items sold are cheap and badly made. If I want to buy something and am not to worried for how long it will last then I go to a big store but for quality goods I usually find better stuff at the smaller specialised stores IMO.
Both have there places.
I don't believe that volume selling is good as such but it is cheaper, but on the negative side it also produces a throwaway mentality towards goods that is filling our rubbish tips with plastics and non degradable rubbish that is pollution. Plus it is a waste of resources.
Its good in the sense that distributors can make a quick profit but it is at the expense of our environment.

Small stores such as food stores, called dairy's here, are usually run by Indians or islanders who tend to live a more family orientated lifestyle compared to pakeha (white people). So that if you go into a store you might get served by grandma or a 9 year old depending on which family member is around. That way they cut costs by having no wage bills.
Other small stores tend to specialise or get only top quality merchandise or designer wear.
Where as the bigger stores are well known for selling cheap and nasty junk that people expect not to last long.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Alive Both the idea and the responses to it are silly. This is a horrible idea because volume selling is good for the consumer! Producers offer discounts for volume buys not because they want to be nice to big stores but because it is cheaper and more efficient to sell in volume (for a number of reasons). The consumer benefits because cheaper prices for retailers translate into cheaper prices at the store. Mom and pop stores are not necessarily a good thing; if they die in the marketplace, they deserve to die. If people truly want their services they will survive.

We have a small food store near us and I would love to shop there because I like the people running the store, but they must sell (for example) their canned goods for about 50 cents more then the larger stores that are about a 4 miles away. So if I need a lot of items I go to the larger store to save money, due to my limted household budget.

The store stays in business because they sell a lot of beer and booze products. (beer prices are not discounted much in the larger stores compared to his price). He also sells a lot of cigarettes because he stocks promotional brands and not just the name brands, which cost $3.00 a pack less. The big stores cannot stock the cheap cigarettes because they made a deal with the name brand people only to stock name brand cigarettes. This is because a company must pay the big stores a fee for getting 'shelf space' in their high volume store. So only cigarette companies that can afford shelf space due to a larger profit margin can reach the public. With exception of small stores that cator to the wishes of their local shoppers.