The Unknown Trade Commission (whose job is to cripple the market to somehow free it up) saw this as the best way to force supermarkets to lower prices. Whatever you think, the opposite will happen.
The committee's advisers are currently investigating the gold -plated proposal to force the owners of the two largest supermarkets to "lose" their businesses in all regions with a market share of more than 27%.
What could be the consequences of such a thing other than the loss of market freedom? easy .
The trade committee is full of bad ideas, such as the advice of their favorite advisers, mostly hammer boys looking for nails, that there is no such need for nails (they have the opposite effect). Not because they care. They are so happy as they try to find the best way to create bigger regulatory barriers that the owners of the two big supermarkets have to lower their prices. They do not want to say that the real solution is to remove all obstacles to having more than two large supermarkets for newcomers .The ban on exceeding market share is preparing them to stop competing. This doesn't seem like a good idea.
But that could have destroyed several hammer throwers.
* The Trade Commission has no problem with the centralization of power represented by the same government agencies, only producers can have it.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar
Catatan: Hanya anggota dari blog ini yang dapat mengirim komentar.