ronmknox.bsky.social
Hello. I fight monopolies at ILSR. Words in The Atlantic, The Washington Post, Wired and elsewhere. Antifascist, pro-bagel. [email protected]
58 posts
847 followers
234 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
3. The new Guidelines are also a major departure from the previous iterations of the guidelines, which, since the 1980s, welcomed consolidation and ignored the plain-meaning of the 1950 Antimerger Act.
@ronmknox.bsky.social and I wrote about this huge policy shift and its implications in 2023:
comment in response to
post
Come back! I’ll set you up with a book talk 🫡
comment in response to
post
12. This lawsuit's fate is unclear. But if the incoming FTC administration actually cares about small business and small towns, as they proport to, this case should live.
Ending these conspiracies between Walmart and consumer goods giants should be a top priority. /end
comment in response to
post
11. It also stops other retailers - ahem, Kroger/Albertsons - from trying to merge to gain the same bullying power Walmart has. It stops brands from buying other brands in order to get more bargaining power to push back against Walmart's demands.
Ending bullying also stops concentration!
comment in response to
post
10. When enforcers stop that bullying, it actually de-concentrates the retail economy. More small stores can stay in business, creating more shelf space and opportunity for local produce and cool new products. Workers get paid more. Communities are healthier.
comment in response to
post
9. That bullying has forced smaller shops around the country to close their doors. That means in many places around the country, there are no more small grocers to help keep prices in check, or to give workers another option for higher wages.
Walmart's bullying has gutted entire communities.
comment in response to
post
8. This is an important point! Walmart has always sold its business as good for shoppers, and painted itself as bravely taking in lower profits in order to maintain "everyday low prices."
It's always been nonsense - it's always been corporate bullying all the way down. The FTC now makes that clear.
comment in response to
post
7. Walmart has used this power to punish its suppliers, and its biggest suppliers have changed their whole business model to meet Walmart's demands. Hence, the FTC's Pepsi lawsuit!
The fact that the lawsuit exists means the FTC wants Walmart's bullying business model to end.
comment in response to
post
6. If you comb through SEC filings, you'll find dozens of food and consumer goods companies admitting that they rely on Walmart for huge chunks of their sales, up to a quarter or more. They also say that their biggest customers demand the lowest prices, which they must agree to.
comment in response to
post
5. Yes, the lawsuit is only about Pepsi. But as the majority statement says, Pepsi's discounts and discrimination against smaller stores happens "at [Walmart's] insistence."
This is exactly how Walmart built its retail empire, and broke the industry in the process.
comment in response to
post
4. Pepsi says it relies on Walmart for a full 13% of its sales every year. If Pepsi somehow gets on Walmart's bad side, it could ruin its business - even for one of the biggest consumer goods companies on the planet.
That's Walmart wielding real power, and the FTC knows it.
comment in response to
post
3. The FTC's lawsuit and its press statement doesn't say Pepsi was giving those discounts and perks to Walmart, redacting the name of the retailer. But the press says its Walmart, and we know from many years of securities filings that Walmart is Pepsi's biggest and most important customer.
comment in response to
post
2. In the lawsuit, the FTC accuses Pepsi of giving one big retailer better prices and services than it gives anyone else, putting smaller, mom-and-pop shops at a deep disadvantage. It's the second time in a few weeks the FTC sued using it's retail fairness law, called the Robinson Patman Act.
comment in response to
post
Thank you!
comment in response to
post
4. This is a crucial conversation, as we envision the fight against corporate dominance in 2025 and beyond.
Join us. Next Wednesday at 2 Central. Registration link is here:
us06web.zoom.us/webinar/regi...
comment in response to
post
3. Then, @jdscholten.bsky.social, SiX's @ida-v-e.bsky.social and Tammie Hetrick from the Washington Food Industry Association will talk about what corporate abuse looks like in states and communities, and how local policymakers and enforcers can help ensure fairness and open markets at home.
comment in response to
post
2. We'll talk to @agellison.bsky.social and @azagmayes.bsky.social about how state enforcers can use existing law to stop monopoly abuses, and talk how antitrust reforms can give local enforcers more tools to help workers, consumers, small biz and communities fight back against corporate dominance.
comment in response to
post
you got this bro!