FTC Fights Grocery Store Merger That May Bring Down Prices
Who needs better prices, products, and customer service?

While the Thanksgiving grocery shopping rush may be over, grocery stores Kroger and Albertsons are still eagerly waiting to find out if the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will allow their proposed merger to proceed. After years of excessive inflation, the merger would unlock significant benefits for consumers: more product options, lower prices, and better customer service. Unfortunately, the FTC already appears to have made up its mind.
While the landmark deal is not expected to close until early 2024, it has already been reported that the FTC is not satisfied with the proposal, despite Kroger having agreed to divest over 400 stores in overlapping markets to C&S Wholesale Grocers. According to two sources with knowledge of the situation (including a former FTC policy director), the FTC will likely take Kroger and Albertsons to court. If true, the coming court battle will be unfortunate but not surprising.
Most legal experts believe the FTC is eager to flex its muscles in areas other than Big Tech. In recent years, the FTC has taken a much more aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement, inspired by the naive belief that everything "big is bad." Under the leadership of Chair Lina Khan, the Commission has developed a penchant for challenging mergers with little success.
Khan has recently made several statements that seem to express skepticism toward the Kroger-Albertsons merger. For instance, during an interview with a Las Vegas news station, Khan said, "If there's a merger that is presenting a lot of risk of reducing competition, may even create a monopoly…we need to weigh those risks, and especially given that some of these remedies in the past have failed." These comments are consistent with Khan's previous writings on food retail, where she has criticized "retail consolidation." However, she appears to undervalue the benefits of market scale in reducing per-unit costs and delivering consumers lower prices.
There is no evidence that the Kroger-Albertsons merger would result in any of the supposed harm she believes it would. For starters, a Kroger-Albertsons merger would not create a monopoly in the grocery market. According to a recent report by Retail Info Systems, Walmart remains the nation's largest grocer, controlling 17 percent of the grocery market. The second and third largest grocers are Amazon and Costco. Kroger and Albertsons are only a distant fourth and sixth with market shares of 4.4 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively.
Grocery stores have experienced a declining market share, while superstores and online competitors have grown. For example, like many traditional grocers, Kroger's market share has declined in recent years while Walmart's has increased. Even if Kroger and Albertsons were to merge, it's not clear that their combined market share wouldn't continue to decline. The merger would simply enable Albertsons and Kroger to bulk up and compete with larger competitors, like Walmart.
In addition, Kroger's decision to sell stores in overlapping markets where Albertsons operates means the merger would not increase concentration in any market. This has traditionally been enough for the FTC.
The national grocery market is also becoming more competitive, not less. No longer limited to brick-and-mortar supermarkets and independent grocery stores, the grocery market now includes a growing assortment of e-commerce stores, like Amazon, discount grocers like Aldi and Lidl, and delivery providers like FreshDirect and Instacart. These newer market entrants have fundamentally altered grocery shopping.
The merger will heighten competition among larger competitors, which will drive down prices for consumers. While a merger would not make Kroger and Albertsons the dominant industry players, it would allow them to compete more effectively with others, putting pressure on all major retailers to keep prices low as they fight to preserve their customer base. In fact, Kroger and Albertsons have indicated that the merger will generate $500 million in new cost savings for them that they plan to use to cut consumer prices. In addition, they plan to expand their lineup of affordable store brand products and spend $1.3 billion on improving customer service at Albertsons stores.
These are significant upsides to a Kroger-Albertsons merger that the FTC should not quickly ignore. Rather than creating a monopoly, such a merger would enhance competition, drive down prices, and deliver more choices for consumers. Allowing the merger would mean a cheaper Thanksgiving meal in years to come.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
FTC slavers, fuck off!!!!
"Kroger and Albertsons are only a distant fourth and sixth with market shares of 4.4 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively."
Monopoly in the making?!? WTF has the FTC been smoking, besides Marxism?
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com
You stupid Trumplicans.
First off, Marxism is the ultimate form of monopoly - one source for everything. I guess its OK if Trump leads it?
Second, there are plenty of mergers which resulted in losses that aren't measured strictly as a monopoly.
Mergers aren't free - instead of spending money on make the business more efficient, they spend money on making the business bigger and HOPE that they can get some efficiencies out of it.
Its lazy, the stock holder THINK its great, but consumers will loose in the end.
Grocery stores are all about shelf space. Companies negotiate with chains to put products on the shelf and how much space on the shelf. Fewer companies means less variety and less choices.
So.... No more Total Raisin Brand, no more clear sodas with real sugar, no Breyer's Yogurt (yeah the full fat, non-greek yogurt!)
Wah, cry more. But the real take here is Sqrlsy being called a Trumplican. Any thoughts?
We’ve entered Bizzaro’s World?
First, understand that whether the merger would result in better service, lower prices, or more selection, or alternatively would allow the enlarged company to begin behaving as a monopolist (in a crowded market, yet) is all projection, speculation, and coin-tossing.
Nonetheless, the possibility exists that the merger might just result in the claimed "improvements". That possibility, whether likely or faint, is clearly enough reason for the Biden FTC and DoJ to oppose it.
But, at least, and thank heavens for small favors, we do not have a Bad Orange Man in the White House sending out Mean Tweets, and we can thank 81,000,000 alert and responsible voters for that.
Yeah, I think this poster is con_fused and is a total “loose”r.
And the retarded squirrel still eats shit.
I am MORE Trumplican than ALL of the other Trumplicans put together!!! Butt I still NEED yer help, my fellow Trumplicans!!! We must get together and STOP Der Bider-Grunch from stealing Trumpsmas yet AGAIN this yer, dammit!!!
The Bider-Grunch has stolen Trumpsmas!!! Get a grip, people, and focus on the BIGLY problems around here!!! Man the battle stations, full speed ahead, and DAMN the Lizard People AND their mind-controlled vote thieves and erection thieves!!!
How the Bider-Grunch Stole Trumpsmas
‘Twas the night before Trumpsmas,
And all through the lands,
Patriotic feelings were stirring our glands!
The voters ALL firmly fixed to vote RED!
Vote BLUE?!? They’d rather be dead!
Visions of Eternal Redness danced in their heads!
The Great Whitish-Orangish Pumpin-Father would soon be there!
All one-party Republican states would soon be square!
While every You Down in Youville Liked Trumpsmas a lot...
But the Bider-Grunch, who lived just north of Youville, Did NOT!
The Bider-Grunch hated Trumpsmas! The whole Trumpsmas season!
Now, please don't ask why. No one quite knows the reason.
It could be his head wasn't screwed on just right.
It could be, perhaps, that his shoes were too tight.
But I think that the most likely reason of all,
May have been that his heart was two sizes too small.
Whatever the reason, His heart or his shoes,
He stood there on Trumpsmas Eve, hating the Yous,
Staring down from his cave with a sour, Grunchy frown,
At the warm lighted windows below in their town.
For he knew every You would vote Trump,
THIS, bigly, made the Grunch a real grump!.
"And they're preparing ballots!" he snarled with a sneer,
"Tomorrow is Trumpsmas! It's practically here!"
Then he growled, with his Grunch fingers nervously drumming,
"I MUST find some way to stop Trumpsmas from coming!"
For Tomorrow, he knew, all the You girls and boys,
Would wake bright and early. They'd rush for their toys!
And then! Oh, the noise! Oh, the Noise!
Noise! Noise! Noise!
That's one thing he hated! The NOISE!
NOISE! NOISE! NOISE!
Then the Yous, young and old, would sit down to a feast.
And they'd feast! And they'd feast! And they'd FEAST!
FEAST! FEAST! FEAST!
They would feast on You-pudding, and rare You-roast beast.
Which was something the Bider-Grunch couldn't stand in the least!
And THEN They'd do something He liked least of all!
Every You down in Youville, the tall and the small,
Would stand close together, with Trumpsmas bells ringing.
They'd stand hand-in-hand. And the Yous would start singing!
They'd sing! And they'd sing! And they'd SING!
SING! SING! SING!
And the more the Grunch thought of this You TrumpsmasSing,
The more the Grunch thought, "I must stop this whole thing!"
"Why, for four years I've put up with it now!"
"I MUST stop this Trumpsmas from coming! But HOW?"
Then he got an idea! An awful idea!
THE GRUNCH GOT A WONDERFUL, AWFUL IDEA!
"I know just what to do!" The Bider-Grunch laughed in his throat.
And he made a quick MAGA hat and a coat.
And he chuckled, and clucked, "What a great Grunchy trick!"
"With this coat and this hat, I look just like Saint Prick!"
"All I need is a Proud Boy..." The Bider-Grunch looked around.
But, since Proud Boys are scarce, there was none to be found.
Did that stop the old Grunch? No! The Grunch simply said,
"If I can't find a Proud Boy, I'll make one instead!"
So he called his cat, Chairman Meow. Then he took some red thread,
And he tied a big MAGA hat on the top of his head.
Then he loaded many bags and sacks, made ‘em all fit somehow,
On a ramshackle sleigh, and he hitched up Chairman Meow..
Then the Grunch said, "Giddap!" And the sleigh started down,
Toward the homes where the Whos Lay asnooze in their town.
All their windows were dark. Quiet snow filled the air.
All the Whos were all dreaming sweet dreams without care.
When he came to the first little house on the square.
"This is stop number one," the Grunchy fake-Trump hissed,
And he climbed to the roof, empty bags in his fist.
Then he slid down the chimney. To his fat gut, a punch.
But, if Trump could do it, then so could the Grunch.
He got stuck only once, for a moment or two.
Then he stuck his head out of the fireplace flue.
Where the little You ballots all hung in a row.
"These ballots," he grinned, "are the first things to go!"
Then he slithered and slunk, with a smile most unpleasant,
Around the whole room, and he took every vote!
This, surely, would get the You’s goat!
And he stuffed them in bags. Then the Grunch, very nimbly,
Stuffed all the bags, one by one, up the chimney!
Then he slunk to the icebox. He took the Yous' feast!
He took the You-pudding! He took the roast beast!
He cleaned out that icebox as quick as a flash.
Why, that Grunch even took their last can of You-hash!
Then he stuffed all the food up the chimney with glee.
"And NOW!" grinned the Bider-Grunch, "I will stuff up the tree!"
And the Bider-Grunch grabbed the tree, and he started to shove,
When he heard a small sound like the coo of a dove.
He turned around fast, and he saw a small You!
Little Cindy-Lou You, who was not more than two.
The Grunch had been caught by this tiny You daughter,
Who'd got out of bed for a cup of cold water.
She stared at the Grunch and said, "Lord Trump, why,”
"Why are you taking our Trumpsmas tree? WHY?"
But, you know, that old Grunch was so smart and so slick,
He thought up a lie, and he thought it up quick!
"Why, my sweet little tot," the fake Lord Trump lied,
"There's a light on this tree that won't light on one side."
"So I'm taking it home to my workshop, my dear."
"I'll fix it up there. Then I'll bring it back here."
And his fib fooled the child. Then he patted her head,
And he got her a drink and he sent her to bed.
And when CindyLou You went to bed with her cup,
He went to the chimney and stuffed the tree up!
Then the last thing he took Was the log for their fire!
Then he went up the chimney, himself, the old liar.
On their walls he left nothing but hooks and some wire.
And the one speck of food That he left in the house,
Was a crumb that was even too small for a mouse.
Then He did the same thing To the other Yous' houses
Leaving crumbs much too small For the other Yous' mouses!
It was quarter past dawn... All the Yous, still a-bed,
All the Yous, still asnooze When he packed up his sled,
Packed it up with all of their ballots… ALL of their votes!
THIS, the fake Lord Trump grumped, will get ALL of their goats!
Three thousand feet up! Up the side of Mt. Crumpit,
He rode with his load to the tiptop to dump it!
"Pooh-Pooh to the Yous!" he was Grunchishly humming.
"They're finding out now that no Trumpsmas is coming!"
"They're just waking up! I know just what they'll do!"
"Their mouths will hang open a minute or two,
Then the Yous down in Youville will all cry Boo-Hoo!"
"That's a noise," grinned the Bider-Grunch, "That I simply MUST hear!"
So he paused. And the Bider-Grunch put his hand to his ear.
And he did hear a sound rising over the snow.
It started in low. Then it started to grow.
But the sound wasn't sad! Why, this sound sounded merry!
It couldn't be so! But it WAS merry! VERY!
He stared down at Youville! The Grunch popped his eyes!
Then he shook! What he saw was a shocking surprise!
Every You down in Youville, the tall and the small,
Was singing! Without any Trump-votes at all!
He HADN'T stopped Trumpsmas from coming! IT CAME!
Somehow or other, it came just the same!
And the Grunch, with his Grunch-feet ice-cold in the snow,
Stood puzzling and puzzling: "How could it be so?"
The Grunch-light came on! “Yes! Now I know!
The Yous down in Youville, they’re really quite slow!
Their erection’s been stolen, but the whole Trumpsmas glow,
Overwhelms EVERYTHING, even democracy!
They’ll lie bigly, and impose mobocracy!”
So the Bider-Grunch whipped out his cell phone,
Called the Lizard People, who send out a drone,
Mind-controlled them ALL, as is Lizard habit,
Now NO ONE could save them, not even Saint Babbitt!
So THAT’s the Sad Story of the bad Bider-Grunch,
Who stole Trumpsmas, the erections, AND your lunch!
White Indian?
Black Martian! From Venus, equipped with a prehensile penis!
Who loves to shove it, around, beneath, and between us!
The big beneficiaries from the mergers are the folks on Wall Street who make huge commissions for facilitating such deals.
You look good in green, twit.
"folks on Wall Street" way to narrow it down. Yes, we have so many mergers those folks on Wall Street are all focused on that.
Its lazy, the stock holder THINK its great, but consumers will loose in the end.
Really? How does "the consumer loose [sic]" if the company makes more money?
Grocery stores are all about shelf space. Companies negotiate with chains to put products on the shelf and how much space on the shelf. Fewer companies means less variety and less choices.
So you are saying that you want more brand names of industrially produced, highly processed food from big corporations? Big corporations that have driven out small companies and local producers from supermarkets?
So…. No more Total Raisin Brand, no more clear sodas with real sugar, no Breyer’s Yogurt (yeah the full fat, non-greek yogurt!)
And you think that's an argument against a merger?
Agreed! Reason has never heard the word ‘oligopoly.’
ErinS should learn what words mean before making an ass of herself. Again.
Monopolies have never brought down prices. I call bullshit.
From the article...
“Kroger and Albertsons are only a distant fourth and sixth with market shares of 4.4 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively.”
Market share 6.6% = a monopoly? Shirley Knot says... Surely not!
Is that of the world market? They easily have 80-90% of the Colorado market share together.
It doesn't say, butt... Shirley they mean the USA market, I would think... They include on-line suppliers ass well, though!
I used to live in Colorado... I miss the outdoors, butt not the snow-shoveling!
I'm lazy. I pay someone.
"Monopolies have never brought down prices. I call bullshit."
I call Eeyore full of shit.
AFAIK, there has been exactly one monopoly in the US: Alcoa. Once it was broken up by the FTC, aluminum prices began to increase almost immediately.
KAAAAHN!
Move out of urbia/suburbia and learn to roll your own.
Yeah. Khan wants us to go back to fortnightly village markets where you bring your groats to exchange for milk and meat.
? If you have a goat you just kill it and you have meat.
Low prices are unfair because inefficient businesses can't keep up. The solution is to prevent businesses from being able to lower prices, thus making it more fair.
Precisely the "solution" that corporate welfare advocates promote -- from all over the political spectrum.
Maybe the merger is a good idea and maybe it isn't. But the idea that there will be massive savings to consumers is ridiculous. Profit margins in the grocery industry are tiny and the major price driver are costs of product. If we really wanted to reduce food costs we would end the corporate welfare to farmers and let them go out of business. But give that everyone from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump loves subsidizing farmers this is unlikely to happen.
I’m surprised when yet another grocery chain opens up here in metro DC. There must be at least 12, and yet the old dinosaurs Giant and Safeway still keep chugging along.
Safeway is owned by Albertsons and Giant by Ahold Delhaize. They have together prevented anyone else from breaking into the market.
They couldn't stop Walmart from coming in, but local government can.
But I don't think Walmart is going to be expanding into deep blue urban areas where they've quit enforcing the law, and retailers can't make a profit.
Only concern I have is that government control/interference becomes dramatically easier the fewer participants a market has.
That may be true, but surely the remedy for increasing government power over the economy is not increasing government power over the economy?
(Sometimes, I just love the English language...)
If somebody in business wants to do something, and we can stop them, we should, right?
As all business people are evil, monocle wearing bastards, cackling evilly as they plot the evil destruction of all mankind, anything they desire is evil and definitionally something that should be prevented. For good.
Nah, only if it will earn us some votes.
I've seen recently that we should assume people have good intentions just because they say they have good intentions. So if a businessman tells me he has good intentions for consumers as a result of his company merging with another company, who are we to assume they have malice? Good intentions all around!
‘Cause we all know that businessmen that have malice towards their customers are great at creating long lasting businesses. Do you work for Hollywood by chance?
If government agencies weren't doing something, then what good are they? We didn't elect the FTC Commission to do nothing. And think of the children.
After years of excessive inflation, the merger would unlock significant benefits for consumers: more product options, lower prices, and better customer service.
Nothing in that article indicates the merger will unlock benefits for consumers. The first two items are two of the very common negatives for consumers - will my store close, will frontline employees (the ones who deal with consumers) be laid off. The company asserts that neither of those will happen but a)that merely eliminates a negative, it doesn't create a benefit and b)it elides the more significant issues. One is stores won't be shut down by OldCo because they will be transferred to NewCo and NewCo will be the one who decides if stores will be shut down - and it's the FTC that is ordering that change of management and is thus serving as corporate cover for the merger. The FTC ain't getting paid for that 'get bigger' subsidy/value. Would stores be closed IF the FTC didn't order the transfer as a result of the merger? IDK - but probably and that is why the transfer of stores is being ordered. Second - frontline workers are not going to be fired but you can bet that corporate employees will be fired in large numbers. That is always the biggest cost-savings projected by the spreadsheet-wielding MBA's. It rarely produces any benefit for consumers unless overhead cost is almost the entirety of product cost. It does produce a bigger paycheck for the remaining execs (and a big golden parachute for the other execs) who advise their boards re mergers. And a huge benefit for Wall St, lawyers, and the other corporate agents who suck on the principals teats. The corporate people who do deal indirectly with consumers (product dev, purchasing, etc) are the ones who get laid off without golden parachutes. Hence the cost-savings.
The third item is 'my groceries are going to be more expensive'. Followed by feel-good that has nothing to do with any choices by the two companies. Obviously the grocery business is competitive. And will remain so. Like any competitive industry, it is the competition not any individual company that determines prices.
All of which is an aside to why the FTC is either a)serving as the corporate lackey of mergers and 'bigness' or b)doing anything anti-trust related. Of course all the FTC stuff is crap here.
And a diversion from a far more interesting story of why a 'corner store' can no longer provide a value proposition to consumers in the US even though it can still provide a value proposition to consumers in countries where huge American companies get their clock cleaned. Of course that's mostly a zoning/lifestyle story.
And a diversion from a far more interesting story of why a ‘corner store’ can no longer provide a value proposition to consumers
European fascists had pretty much the same complaints in the 1930s: they liked small stores and hated big corporations, and they used that as the basis for economic policy.
As a libertarian, I say it's none of the government's business. But - I agree with the FTC that the merger would be bad for consumers.
C&S has a long history of supplying grocery stores but not a lot of good experience running them.
C&S is the real monopoly. They are the wholesaler to every retail grocer in the northeast. I see their trucks unloading at every supermarket here in NYC. C&S now owns Grand Union and Piggly Wiggly.
Here in NYC we have no Walmarts, no Kroger brands, and no Albertsons brands. Unusually, a lot of the branded supermarkets are independently owned franchises. We don't starve.
A dumber take is hardly possible.
“We don’t starve” paying Bodega prices for Bodega selections.
I guess letting New Yorkers have options is a bridge too far.
This idiot must have missed the videos of NYers going into Wegmanns, an homage of the videos of tearful Venezuelans seeing an American grocery store, (an homage to Yeltsin seeing a grocery store)
"C&S has a long history of supplying grocery stores but not a lot of good experience running them."
If that is the main reason it will be bad for consumers, then far from preventing harm the FTC is in fact causing it. Those stores would likely not be getting divested if not for a desire to appease the FTC.
You don't get it, the reason isn't competition, its because the unions don't want it:
https://www.supermarketnews.com/issues-trends/largest-union-officially-rejects-kroger-albertsons-merger
They are worried that efficiency and consolidation means store closures, consumer be damned.
Why should the unionized workers not benefit from govermnent intervention in the economy?Farmers do! On a greater scale! Oh, I forgot. Unionized grocery workers vote Democratic; farmers vote Republican. My bad.
Neither should get government intervened compensation but particularly unionized since they drive up prices for customers without providing any additional value to the customers.
Fuck 'em. Farmers should not be subsidized, either. Get out of here with that weak sauce.
You hate farmers, you had big corporations. What do you like? Hope you grow your own food...wait that what give you self hate because you would be a farmer
If Reason has a staff, why does it republish so many articles from paid mouthpieces at right-wing organizations?
Just to piss you off, rev. You are that important.
Why, oh why do you continue to permit the clingers to carry on?
The clingers are dying off predictably. Their fate in the modern American culture war has been settled. Their stale, ugly, conservative thinking will become increasingly irrelevant as our nation continues to improve against their wishes.
Fuck off and die, asshole bigot.
How are the grocery stores on Kensington Ave, Philly doing?
FTC Fights Grocery Store Merger That May Bring Down Prices
When corporations get that big, any additional benefits from economies of scale really won't matter much. On the other hand, the bigger corporations get, the bigger their political power gets. In other words, utilitarian arguments like this against the FTC simply aren't convincing to anybody: not progressives, not conservatives, and not libertarians.
For starters, a Kroger-Albertsons merger would not create a monopoly in the grocery market. According to a recent report by Retail Info Systems, Walmart remains the nation's largest grocer, controlling 17 percent of the grocery market. The second and third largest grocers are Amazon and Costco. Kroger and Albertsons are only a distant fourth and sixth with market shares of 4.4 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively.
Technically true, but a bit misleading.
Kroger and Albertsons are the extreme majority of the traditional grocery market. That is, what you actually think when you think of "grocery stores."
Costco requires a membership (and owning >1 freezer) and contributes to huge amounts of consumer waste. Amazon is the single worst and most expensive place to buy groceries (you're upcharged for the convenience of not having to get your fat butt out of your barca lounger). And nobody in their right mind buys meat or produce or anything "fresh" at Walmart (the same goes for Target, unless you're a homo/pedo - in which case you're there for a different reason, and the grocery shop is incidental).
When you prepare a grocery list, you're doing it with Kroger or Albertsons (or Publix or Wegmans or Piggly Wiggly or Hyvee or whatever) in mind. You shop their circulars. You join their rewards programs. It's an entirely different mindset, because it's a dedicated grocery store.
Now, I'm not saying that Kroger/Albertsons would be a monopoly - I'm just saying that the argument that it's not because it's being compared to Costco and Amazon is bogus. They're simply not its traditional competitors.
They may not be traditional grocery but they are selling more groceries. So they are the competition. The number of grocery stores has been going down.
Imo the important measure of competition for people in cities is how many places are there to buy food within x minutes? That’s more important than what’s the cost of a jar of PB that I must load into an SUV on a weekly food buy in order to drive that jar home. Super sized residential only zones have created super sized food wholesale that masquerades as retail. But it’s also I suspect why takeout and restaurants are getting more food dollar. And is definitely why we need bigger vehicles, bigger refrigerators, more freezer space in the garage. And have bigger bellies.
You not only agree with Hitler in your lies about Jews, you also agree with his economic views.
Godwin's law. You are now on ignore.
Oh! Oh NOOOOO!
How will I live!
In any case, Godwin's law or not, it's true.
The only competitor close to me will be Whole Paycheck.
They're not a competitor. They're a niche market that panders exclusively to a specific consumer base.
(That is, idiots.)
When have mergers ever "brought down" prices? The author must be in high school
The efficiency of monopolies is from the communist playback. It is a lie.
Competition and creative destruction create efficiency.
I think that Nate mischaracterizes the relevant market. We shop at all of them, on Occassion: Kroger’s, Albertsons/Safeway, Walmart/Sam’s Club, Costco, and even Amazon/Whole Paycheck. Kroger’s competes with Walmart on price, and Albertson’s on quality, which in turn competes with Whole Paycheck. Costco and Sam’s Club compete with Walmart on price, but much less so with Albertson’s/Safeway. And really don’t compete much, at all, with Walmart. Or, at least that is how I see it. The average Albertson’s/Safeway customer wouldn’t probably be caught dead with the unwashed masses in a Walmart, but would potentially visit a higher end Kroger’s store (like the Fry’s Signature stores in AZ).
You can see this when walking in the stores, esp here in LAS - on the one hand, are the floors covered with a wooden looking floor covering, or at best epoxy over concrete? How much merchandise is locked up? The Walmart I visited this morning is now locking up Chap Sticks and Ace combs.
This reminds me of the IBM antitrust suit, where IBM tried to define the relevant market as all computers, while the government tried to define it as all mainframe computers. The way that the relevant market is defined very often determines who wins an antirust suit, and who loses it.
He has absolutely 0 idea how grocery operates.
1) People that shop at Kroger/Albertsons do not generally do their shopping at Walmart and vise versa. They may pick up an item or two from either, but one group is looking for quality and other is looking for price. The grocery selection at Albertsons or Kroger is superior to Walmart.
2) You cannot compare Costco to Albertsons. You are bulk buying and stocking up on non-perishable items at Costco/Sam's while you are buying your food for the week at Albertsons. To say the two are competing is like saying Ford is competing with Winnebago.
And where do you think Instacart gets their stuff? They don't have a warehouse to get stuff from. They go to the store and buy it. They're just a delivery service that you pay for.
3)The price per unit at the grocery store is a small cost of price paid by the consumer. There are many other fees associated with the stores that the brands must pay, including placement fees (being on a shelf that is eye level is more expensive than being on the bottom shelf) and warehousing fees that will more than likely be higher since there will be LESS competition to the manufacturers.
4) The last merger between Safeway and Albertsons created less stores than before. All of the stores in my area that were sold of in that merger have closed. The merged chain will not sell off high performing stores. They will use it as a way to unload stores that are underperforming. Less than half of the stores will be operational in 5 years, if not sooner.
Corporations will corporation. This is not a good thing for the consumer. They may be able to force lower costs from the manufacturers, but there will be little benefit to the consumer. more competition is better for people, not less. This benefits the board members and stock holders, not the consumer.
Corporations do not let the market run freely. They do everything they can to manipulate them into their favor. This will just create a more powerful entity that will make things worse for the consumer, not better.
"...Corporations do not let the market run freely. They do everything they can to manipulate them into their favor. This will just create a more powerful entity that will make things worse for the consumer, not better..."
Got a live one here; government good, business bad!
It's true that not all business decisions benefit the consumer, but it's downright certain that nearly all government decisions are harmful to the consumer.
I certainly don't shop for groceries in Albertson's or Kroger. I couldn't if I wanted to. Around here in Grand Rapids, Michigan, there is no Albertson's closer than Indiana - and that one is closed, if it even was a grocery store. The nearest Kroger is a hundred miles away. There were Kroger stores in the 1970's, but apparently they didn't like competing with Meijer in the Meijers' home town.
So, is Albertson's here under another name? I see Safeway is one of their brands, and there's one just half a mile away - but Safeways are not supermarkets, but gas stations with a convenience store. When I travel to northern Michigan, I often refill with diesel at the Safeway in Cadillac, but the one near me doesn't have diesel, so my maximum annual purchase is one gallon of gasoline for my lawnmower. I never buy groceries there. I am far too old to plan so badly as to have to put up with the high prices and poor selection of a convenience store.
So, as far as this area, and pretty much all of the western and northern 3/4 of Michigan go, the effect on competition is nil - unless Albertson's management somehow manages to screw up the busiest gas station in Cadillac.
Sadly I am not able to predict the future, but only having a Safeway and King Soopers here, I would hope that the net result of this merger would not mean we were left with only (1) full-service grocer in or near our community.
We get by with Lynn's Dakota Mart and a Grocery Mart within a couple miles. Walmart and Safeway are 20 some odd miles away. Our prices are tolerable.
It is the potential market entry of competitors, not just the presence of competitors in the market, that keeps prices down.
FTC and Biden want bribes so they threaten to put the kibosh on the merger until enough money changes hands.
Nothing to see here, move along. Nothing new.
Allegedly Lina Khan is 'inspired by the naive belief that everything "big is bad."' So she opposes Democrat's efforts to make government bigger and badder? Or is she and all the other Democrats on the FTC complete hypocrites?
I shop at HEB here in Texas (one of the triad of Texas). There is a Kroger less than a mile away.
There are Adis. There are Trade Joes. There are Wholes Foods.
Yes, Walmart and Target too. They aren't traditional but they do have a grocery section.