What Elizabeth Warren's Fear of a 'Sandwich Shop Monopoly' Reveals About Democrats' Priorities
Should a federal government that is nearly $34 trillion in debt and can't manage basic operations be micromanaging fast-food business purchases?

As something of a fast-food aficionado, I've been amused by the raging and inconsistent arguments from progressives about the fast-food industry. For years, these professional scolds have depicted America as a Fast Food Nation, with cheap burger joints epitomizing our nation's consumerism, tackiness and fast pace. Why can't we all enjoy two-hour gourmet lunches at the café like they do in Europe?
In his review of a 2001 book by that name, a New York Times writer conceded that fast food is not "solely responsible for every social problem now haunting the United States," but he complained that it "has been a catalyst and a symptom of larger economic trends." The argument is hard to follow, but it has something to do with big corporations, low wages, Big Agriculture and some blah, blah, blah about social stratification.
To make matters worse, we're even exporting this culture. I recently watched a delightful video of British kids eating a Popeye's fried chicken sandwich for the first time. They loved it, which is the latest evidence of American cultural imperialism. I prefer the one from Raising Cane's because the slice of lettuce counters the grease, but to each their own. In the suburb near me, one can choose from dozens of sandwich shops in a small area.
That brings me to the latest leftist obsession: fast-food acquisitions. In a tweet last week, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) harrumphed: "We don't need another private equity deal that could lead to higher food prices for consumers. The @FTC is right to investigate whether the purchase of @SUBWAY by the same firm that owns @jimmyjohns and @McAlistersDeli creates a sandwich shop monopoly."
This is ludicrous for various reasons. I appreciate the value of a nicely assembled sandwich—and as a free-market advocate understand the complexities of running any type of business—but slapping lunch meats and condiments on bread is not some high-barrier-to-entry endeavor. Should a federal government that is nearly $ 34 trillion in debt and can't manage basic operations be micromanaging fast-food business purchases?
A monopoly is defined as "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service." To apply it to sandwich shops is incomprehensible. Subway is large, but is dwarfed by the number of independent delis. Increasingly, the federal government is expanding that monopoly definition to include any business that has a lot of market power.
Many politicians and regulators—especially in the Biden administration—seem economically illiterate, but do they have to be actually illiterate, too?
Why are lefties so upset at the potential of rising fast-food prices when they want people to eat less of it? These ideologues, of course, specifically want to raise prices of nicotine products, fossil fuels, and other disliked substances to reduce reliance on them. For instance, a 2018 study from the federal Centers for Disease Control complained that nearly 37 percent of Americans eat fast food every day and that such habits are associated with obesity.
Regarding fast food, progressives have zeroed in on the fast-food industry to improve the living conditions of low-wage workers. As I explained on these pages last month, California Democrats passed a law creating a European-style sectoral-bargaining commission to set wages and working conditions on national-franchise fast-food restaurants.
They ultimately agreed to a deal (to avoid a statewide referendum) that limits the commission's power, but boosts wages to $20 an hour. That will harm the industry and raise prices, which could reduce salty french fry consumption, but that isn't their goal. It's just odd to pin the financial future of lower-income workers on an industry they believe to have such a maleficent influence. We don't see Gov. Gavin Newsom trying to help workers pursue careers in the oil and gas industry.
As an aside, President Joe Biden recently slammed businesses for high prices: "Let me be clear to any corporation that hasn't brought their prices back down even as inflation has come down: It's time to stop the price gouging." Never mind that his own administration's policies, and the policies of other Democratic politicians, are driving up the wages that are resulting in soaring restaurant prices. It's not gouging, but government policy.
It's pointless to look for consistency. Progressives dislike the private sector and are incapable of blaming inflationary government policies given they always want more government spending and meddling. There always has to be a bad guy, and fast-food restaurants fit that bill for any convenient reason relating to nutrition, wages, mergers, rising prices, or over-sized portions. Tech firms get this treatment, too, as the Federal Trade Commission is targeting Amazon for offering customers really good deals.
Next time you get sticker shock at a sandwich joint (and I always recommend Jimmy John's Spicy East Coast Italian), remember that government policies are the reason. The FTC's new fight against sandwich "monopolies" is just the latest effort at deflection.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
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
Navahoagie…white bread.
Why does anyone pay attention to that dried up old hag?
It's a mystery to me. I've been ignoring her rants for years now.
Speaking of lying SOS,she be sent to the gutter along with Santos.
Massachusetts is another state that needs to go away. Build a wall around California and Massachusetts.
Or excavate and remove the state, renaming what remains as Masshole.
And dump all the useless masks into it?
And New York. And Wisconsin. Hell, let's just build a wall around all of them and then all move to Scotland.
Come on Liz; we all know the only democrat priority is control of the individual.
This campaign is fully in line with that goal. Remove one more choice.
Well, no. Their goal is to strike fear into the individual so that they control themselves, so the democrats don't have to exert themselves to do so. Dr. Ferris expressed this explicitly, clearly and succinctly. Unfortunately, this is also the goal of republicans through implementation of a state religion or its secular equivalent.
Republicans want to implement a state religion? Really?
Grow up.
22da
Yes, they DO have to be actually illiterate. Literacy - especially economic literacy - is a serious hindrance to a successful political career, as are honesty, the ability to feel shame, the ability to accept facts and logically analyze them, and the ability to draw conclusions and tell the difference between principles and slogans. Next question!
Facts don't matter. Feelz do.
and as a free-market advocate understand the complexities of running any type of business—but slapping lunch meats and condiments on bread is not some high-barrier-to-entry endeavor
There is nothing "free market" about either our agribusinesses or about fast food chains: they are both the products of massive government interventions and wouldn't exist otherwise.
Furthermore, given our regulatory environment, "slapping lunch meats and condiments on bread" is indeed a high-barrier-to-entry endeavor.
Please explain what government intervention (US or elsewhere) sustains fast food chains in the USA or wherever, such that the chains wouldn't exist without them. Is this true of chains (of whatever nature) throughout the hospitality industry in one or more countries, or only fast food?
Oh, there's probably more than a few; they're just not obvious and visible up front.
Zoning laws enable or discourage siting fast food stores.
Minimum wage laws distort the labor market for their workers.
Health and safety regulations constrain much of their activity (which can be a good-health thing, but there are silly rules, too...)
Government subsidies for growing or not growing certain crops have an influence, too, so anything from the meat (beef or ham), cheese, vegetables like lettuce and the wheat that goes into the bun all have an influence.
Picture, for comparison, the Ethanol/Gasohol mandates by the government. You can find a scientifically well-founded description of how corn-to-ethanol production lowers the efficiency of the engines that burn it and the net carbon footprint from one end to the other (from growing the corn to the CO2 coming out the cars' exhaust pipes)... is WORSE than if the corn went into tacos and cars were fed plain old 'gasoline.'
There's a lot of examples and evidence, but today's media virtually never tells anything resembling "the whole story."
Sometimes I think my role is that of a "Curator of Information," looking at a range of sources to see which ones are more reliable.
Yes, all of this.
On top, the US government has created an environment in which large corporations are strongly favored over small companies, foremost through fiat money and regulatory capture.
As an aside, President Joe Biden recently slammed businesses for high prices: "Let me be clear to any corporation that hasn't brought their prices back down even as inflation has come down: It's time to stop the price gouging."
If anything shows Ol' Joe is incompetent this does. Apparently he doesn't understand how inflation works, that it is cumulative and that even if the rate goes down costs don't.
Nobody will ever point out to Joe that the Decreases In Inflation mean only ONE thing... Prices Will Continue to Rise, just not as fast!
I would put money on a bet that neither he nor any of his alleged 'economics advisors' understand that concept.
She also wanted Kroger's investigated for price gouging its net profit was 0.75% on sales.
Clearly she doesn't understand how the economy works,
I wouldn’t say it proves she doesn’t know how the economy works. She just doesn’t care. She’s a demagogue. Describing or understanding any aspect of reality just isn’t a relevant concern. The only question she asks before making a statement is “will this cause my voters to hate the people I’m targeting”.
True, except it's not about causing the voters to hate, it's about causing the haters to vote.
They also always cry about "record profits" and never say a word about profit margins. A company can make $20M on less than 1% profit margin but somehow they're evil for making $20M profit if last year they only made $18M.
Elizabeth Warren - the gift that keeps on giving
And btw the best sub sandwich is
Cheba Hut's 5-0
or
any one of 10 random food trucks (from banh mi to arepas to gyros) at my local farmers market
She's an affirmative Action Hero in her own 1/64 Native American mind.
How soon till she gets her own action hero figure? There's one that won't fly, off the shelves or otherwise. C'mon, Mattel, step up to the plate.
Thought it was 1/1024th.
To leftists high prices are only good when the funds go to the government which increases their power and income. Every dollar made be someone outside the government helps the enemy.
I wish she would focus on the price of movie theater snacks instead. $11 for soda and popcorn is robbery.
Uh, sure. Do you really want government movie snacks?
As explained to me many years, which may have changed since then, is that the ticket price was the cost for the theatre to rent the film to show. All of that went to the studio, potentially minus a small amount for the distributor. Maybe. The concession stand paid for everything else: labor, utilities, materials/consumables, local advertising, rent/property taxes, business taxes.
Local Arby's charged $2.39 for a small soda. Don't mock me, in a small town the choices are pretty limited, and the alternative is a not well-maintained Burger King.
OF course, stores are charging $9 for a 12-pack of Coke that was $4.50 before COVID.
Shorter version: Cuntahontas never saw any venture, especially private, that she did not want to control. And she never saw any private wealth that she did not want to nationalize.
Is this the death of the sandwich industry by a thousand cold cuts?
The confusion comes from a party who advertises itself as being liberal while it unrelentingly practices tyrannical power-mad dictation as actual [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s].
"It's pointless to look for consistency. Progressives dislike the private sector and are incapable of blaming inflationary government policies given they always want more government spending and meddling."
[Na]tional Crony So[zi]al[ism] 101. As-if there isn't a mountain of history about the uprising of socialism. The only difference is the Nazi-Party in the USA wears sheeps clothing (BS Propaganda) as a disguise.
Fascists gonna fascist...
wikipedia:
A number of mixed entities were formed, called instituti or enti nazionali, whose purpose it was to bring together representatives of the government and of the major businesses. These representatives discussed economic policy and manipulated prices and wages so as to satisfy both the wishes of the government and the wishes of business. The government considered this arrangement to be a success and Italian Fascists soon began to pride themselves on this outcome, saying they had survived the Great Depression without infringing on private property. In 1934, the Fascist Minister of Agriculture said: "While nearly everywhere else private property was bearing the major burdens and suffering from the hardest blows of the depression, in Italy, thanks to the actions of this Fascist government, private property not only has been saved, but has also been strengthened".
Well, aside from the obvious fact that Warren has virtually no practical knowledge regarding real-world economics, I was just wondering why(TF) Nobody has Yet Asked Her for any corroborating EVIDENCE from History where such mergers have been shown to result in higher consumer prices.
C'mon Pocahontas... Show Us Your Research Data to justify your positions. [long-term forecast:... crickets ]
Reminds me of an interview a decade or two back, here in Raleigh, NC, where a reporter quoted a representative from a cable company (Comcast) saying that opening up the Raleigh or Wake County cable market to another supplier Would Increase Costs for Consumers.
After I picked my jaw up off the floor and stopped laughing, I realized that the jerk was dead serious.
Fast-forward about ten years and there are a Large Number of cable suppliers, along with Dish Network and the daily postcards from Google Fiber, offering connection rates allegedly monstrously LOWER than anyone else (but with higher bandwidth, too!)
Yep, Competition == Bad, but only if you're an Economic Illiterate.