>Maybe we should do like China and have multiple big state-owned enterprises in the same sectors competing against each other. The competitive forces stay without the intervening short-sighted interests of the ownership class.
Where's the incentive for the various SOEs to actually compete? At least in capitalism there's money on the line. When all the executives/board members are political appointees of the same party, things can get really chummy between "competitors".
>This is informal collusion between the large supermarket chains, enabled by a long tradition of lack of antitrust enforcement.
But you linked to figures for the PPI, which as the name suggests, is the price charged by producers, not distributors or retailers. It might be evidence of collusion between whoever is making ketchup, but not between the supermarkets stocking them. It's hard to take the rest of your comment seriously given sloppy mistakes like this.
>If running a Chinese SOE well means a promotion in the party apparatus, then that would give some real competition
How's that working out with all the senior party members mysteriously disappearing?
>but US capitalism is delivering only for the billionaire class.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
In other words, working as intended.
Complete nonsense. Tomato yields are a very small part of the price of ketchup.
And ketchup prices in the U.K. also increased. Are U.K. supermarkets colluding with American supermarkets?
Energy costs along with increased demand has a huge impact on prices. There are vast microeconomic factors but also macroeconomic factors as well. For instance, a declining economy (or more accurately, increased inflation ,) means that more people buy cheaper food. And most fast food features — ketchup. Higher demand + increased fuel costs + same sized harvests = higher ketchup prices.
I am highly simplifying the ketchup market but the Democrat talking point of “supermarket collusion” is absolute nonsense and not based on any evidence.
Supermarkets buy their products from distributors — do you know the price of ketchup from a distributor? If the distributor price remained exactly the same, and supermarkets operate on similar financial models, then the price at the shop will be very similar. That isn’t collusion, that’s how commodities get priced at the retail level.
As far as the “billionaire class” — who gets rich from Chinese SOEs? (Hint, it isn’t the workers who are paid effectively slave wages with no recourse to move to another employer because those SOEs are, by the very definition of SOE, in collusion. The wealth inequality gap in China is massive. You have the Audi class, and the bicycle class — and not much in the middle. The other interesting factor about Chinese economics is their currency manipulation. But that’s a topic for another day.
Those arguing for Chinese-style anything in the realm of economics ought to spend a few years living there prior to forming an opinion.
For those interested in ketchup, here’s a Guardian article describing the issue of grocery inflation: https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2022/nov/15/heinz-tomat...
Things are pretty chummy in the supermarket space right now. Here is the price of ketchup: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WPU02440127, and there is no reason why the price should have gone up by 50 % between Summer 2021 and Summer 2023, the tomato harvest did not fail in that time. This is informal collusion between the large supermarket chains, enabled by a long tradition of lack of antitrust enforcement.
If running a Chinese SOE well means a promotion in the party apparatus, then that would give some real competition, but US capitalism is delivering only for the billionaire class.