Inside the corporate dash to buy up dentists’ offices, vet clinics and pharmacies

[ChickenLips]

The chase for the lowest price is the foundation of capitalism. Lowest price has a number of qualifiers, like value or total cost of ownership (which is value).

If a good or service is of higher quality but higher price than a competing good or service of lower quality and lower price it's up to the consumer to decide which provides the best value.

None of us pay extra for anything. We shop for the best value. Being able to shop being key when discussing monopolies. Monopolies remove the ability to shop around.

A monopoly can extract higher profits. These higher profits can then be used to pay for legislation or regulatory changes to cement the monopoly. If a monopoly is in place there is fuckery somewhere behind it. A free market will always follow lowest cost, highest value.

[5.4MarkVIII]

“If a good or service is of higher quality but higher price than a competing good or service of lower quality and lower price it's up to the consumer to decide which provides the best value“


My experience is this is rare anymore that’s why I lay blame on the consumer as well.

Every day people come in and want the absolute cheapest. You take the time and explain the value of spending more, you real down the dollar per year of service, and 9 times out of ten they still want the cheapest. Only to come screaming in a couple years when it’s broke. Lol

No system is perfect.


I think we are moving off topic slightly.

But I do see if fields like Veterinary, dental and optometry your dealing with industry’s that are Highly regulated by governing bodies.

I totally get why a private practice owner would jump at the massive payout to not have to deal with all the red tape.

Ultimately I think the consumer will pay the price.

[5.4MarkVIII]

The chase for the lowest price is the foundation of capitalism.

I just don’t agree with this sentiment.
Free trade capitalism is based on the foundation of equal trade of goods or services.

Money being a goods,

When we move to cheap product at the same price because it’s the only option we have lost sight


150 years ago the blacksmith didn’t charge a fortune for his work because he was the only black smith in town.

Maybe not the best analogy but we are greedy now. Always wanting more for less. To me it’s akin the the entitlement that is rampant in society.

[ChickenLips]

nailed it on post 42. Heavily regulated.

not agreeing or not liking the sentiment doesn't change the reality. You said it yourself, customers come in looking for the absolute cheapest. If you found some way to cut your overhead and could sell cheaper than competition, you'd do it and grab market share. Your frustration with absolute cheapest customers is their lack of appreciation of your perceived added value. BTW I'm not suggesting it isn't there, only it's not recognized.

A blacksmith, cooper, or cobbler would have to charge some amount greater than their cost of doing business. They could charge as much as the market would bear. No different today. Competition would force efficiency or business death.

Circling back to the original discussion, regulation appears to be the key factor. Maybe it's corruption, maybe bigger can more efficiently navigate legitimate regulation. I'm leaning towards some level of legitimate legislation and another layer or 10 designed to favor monopolies that can grease the wheels of regulators.

I think it's fair to make the broad statement that a decision that is bad for the rank and file, and the public while being beneficial to the decision maker will be green lit.

[5.4MarkVIII]

nailed it on post 42. Heavily regulated.

not agreeing or not liking the sentiment doesn't change the reality. You said it yourself, customers come in looking for the absolute cheapest. If you found some way to cut your overhead and could sell cheaper than competition, you'd do it and grab market share. Your frustration with absolute cheapest customers is their lack of appreciation of your perceived added value. BTW I'm not suggesting it isn't there, only it's not recognized.

A blacksmith, cooper, or cobbler would have to charge some amount greater than their cost of doing business. They could charge as much as the market would bear. No different today. Competition would force efficiency or business death.

Circling back to the original discussion, regulation appears to be the key factor. Maybe it's corruption, maybe bigger can more efficiently navigate legitimate regulation. I'm leaning towards some level of legitimate legislation and another layer or 10 designed to favor monopolies that can grease the wheels of regulators.

I think it's fair to make the broad statement that a decision that is bad for the rank and file, and the public while being beneficial to the decision maker will be green lit.

I think your missing the point I’m trying to make.
Competition is a good thing. But it’s not free market when large corp one cuts a deal with large corp two in order to line pockets and crush the competition. That’s not free market
When a large company with millions behind it moves to head hunt employees from their competing. That’s not free market.

If the only way one business can complete with another is threw shady business practices. The. That’s not free market .

For too long society has accepted. “No hard feelings it’s just business.” As just a part of free market.
And proponents of anti free market have used this as a crutch because when it comes to political/ economic ideology’s. Nothing else has done as much for the average person that tree market capitalism has. But when they don’t have an argument they point to Amazon and say look at them that’s free market.
Would Amazon had gotten as big as they did if they were not given deals on shipping form government owned postal services that were not given to anyone else? Perhaps they would have. I think there is a chance they would not have.

Free market is build on equal playing field.

I’m not saying that the blacksmith would not charge enough to make a living. I’m saying that backsmith wasn’t charging $100 when his closest completion was only charging 20. And when he couldn’t get customers. Buy out the next closest completion and then charge 100 there too.

[RedSN]

I think your missing the point I’m trying to make.

That’s not free trade.

Free trade is build on equal playing field.

None of that is "free trade". Free trade is a trade policy that does not restrict imports or exports.

[5.4MarkVIII]

None of that is "free trade". Free trade is a trade policy that does not restrict imports or exports.

Wrong words. Too much going on. Fixed it.

[92redragtop]

I'd love to see an established definition from the world of economics where free trade equals equal trade. Is this the CRT version of economics?

[5.4MarkVIII]

I'd love to see an established definition from the world of economics where free trade equals equal trade. Is this the CRT version of economics?

I’d love to see an established definition where corrupt business to business or business to government relationships equal free market.

[ChickenLips]

I think your missing the point I’m trying to make.
Competition is a good thing. But it’s not free market when large corp one cuts a deal with large corp two in order to line pockets and crush the competition. That’s not free market
When a large company with millions behind it moves to head hunt employees from their competing. That’s not free market.

If the only way one business can complete with another is threw shady business practices. The. That’s not free market .

For too long society has accepted. “No hard feelings it’s just business.” As just a part of free market.
And proponents of anti free market have used this as a crutch because when it comes to political/ economic ideology’s. Nothing else has done as much for the average person that tree market capitalism has. But when they don’t have an argument they point to Amazon and say look at them that’s free market.
Would Amazon had gotten as big as they did if they were not given deals on shipping form government owned postal services that were not given to anyone else? Perhaps they would have. I think there is a chance they would not have.

Free market is build on equal playing field.

I’m not saying that the blacksmith would not charge enough to make a living. I’m saying that backsmith wasn’t charging $100 when his closest completion was only charging 20. And when he couldn’t get customers. Buy out the next closest completion and then charge 100 there too.

I am getting the point. Buying up the competition is dirty pool as far as the consumer is concerned. it's been going on for milenia. Look at DeBeers and their strangle hold on diamonds. Surely Walmart, Amazon and all other behemoths are dirty dealing to some degree. I don't like it, you don't like it, the consumers are either ignorant or don't like it.

We're not operating in a free market, we're pretty damn close to socialism, especially when considering 50% of your earnings goes to taxation.

Bailing out GM and other large employers is socialism and vote buying. The problem being the political cycle that moves like this make is about half of the economic cycle it takes for those bad decisions to bear rotten fruit. Enter another round of vote buying and regulation.

In ideal circumstances the markets would self correct and punish monopolies. In a truly free market, monopolies would die a natural death. In a free market if the blacksmith bought the competition, another would spring up to seize market share. The monopolist could not continue to buy out competition into perpetuity unless competition was stifled (regulation). Look at taxi's versus Uber. The regulators and regulated taxi drivers both object but for different reasons. Regulators revenue is threatened (revenue gained without adding value). Taxi drivers now having to compete with a lower cost alternative, lower cost in part via no regulations or fees. In a truly free market taxi's should die and ride share prevail unless taxi cost of doing business drops to competitive rates.

Back to my point, which is that is monopolies exist its because governments allow or encourage it to meet their own ends.

So yes I completely agree this isn't free markets, we've just taken different routes to reach the same conclusion. I choose to blame regulators, not those who take advantage of crooked and malleable regulators.