Were this capitalism, the competition would simply win by offering lower prices, but Kroger was allowed to grow to monopolistic proportions so that they’ve either bought up any and all serious competition already, muscled rivals out of business or settled on quasi-gerrymandered spheres of influence with their equally monopolistic competitors, so that nobody undercuts them when they abuse their status to not offer the best deals, but instead price-gouge the people stuck in their sphere of influence.
Why though, what did they do wrong? They’re allowed to set their prices how they like as long as they’re not coluding with competitors.
(I’m not saying it doesn’t suck, obviously, but they are just doing a capitalism)
When you say “wrong,” what do you mean? Are you arguing that their actions are morally just, or merely not too illegal?
I’m questioning whether they did anything illegal. It’s quite obvious (to me, at least) that what they did is morally wrong
“Wrong” is certainly the wrong word, then.
Price gouging does run counter to some states’ consumer protection laws.
Capitalism violently forces people to serve capital for food, shelter, and other basic human needs.
This situation is slightly worse than usual.
Were this capitalism, the competition would simply win by offering lower prices, but Kroger was allowed to grow to monopolistic proportions so that they’ve either bought up any and all serious competition already, muscled rivals out of business or settled on quasi-gerrymandered spheres of influence with their equally monopolistic competitors, so that nobody undercuts them when they abuse their status to not offer the best deals, but instead price-gouge the people stuck in their sphere of influence.