US continues to go backward...

Market is supposed to dictate prices but that's really hard when there's so little competition left.
The market doesn’t dictate prices. The supply and demand of the market influences prices.
There is a TON of competition in the drink space. Raising prices just provides an opportunity for another competitor.
 
So when is Trump going to be arrested for calling Obama, Biden, Cater, Bish etc all those things except for "President"
Suspicious Monkey GIF by MOODMAN
1000001649.png
 
Last edited:
The market doesn’t dictate prices. The supply and demand of the market influences prices.
There is a TON of competition in the drink space. Raising prices just provides an opportunity for another competitor.
There are only 3 major companies in the drink market and lots of little companies with essentially no market share. In the carbobated soft drink market Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Keurig Dr Pepper had over 92% of the market in the US. General Mills, Post and Kellogg control the breakfast cereal market... almost 80% of that market between the three.

If a company gets any decent share, one of the big few buys it out. There's tons of brands but only a few actual companies.


"The Guardian and Food and Water Watch investigation into 61 popular grocery items reveals that the top companies control an average of 64% of sales.

We found that for 85% of the groceries analysed, four firms or fewer controlled more than 40% of market share. It’s widely agreed that consumers, farmers, small food companies and the planet lose out if the top four firms control 40% or more of total sales.

Our investigation is based on the analysis of market share data from thousands of supermarkets across the US.

“It’s a system designed to funnel money into the hands of corporate shareholders and executives while exploiting farmers and workers and deceiving consumers about choice, abundance and efficiency,” said Amanda Starbuck, policy analyst at Food & Water Watch.

The consolidation runs deep: four firms or fewer controlled at least 50% of the market for 79% of the groceries. For almost a third of shopping items, the top firms controlled at least 75% of the market share."
 
The market doesn’t dictate prices. The supply and demand of the market influences prices.
There is a TON of competition in the drink space. Raising prices just provides an opportunity for another competitor.

There are only 3 major companies in the drink market and lots of little companies with essentially no market share. In the carbobated soft drink market Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Keurig Dr Pepper had over 92% of the market in the US. General Mills, Post and Kellogg control the breakfast cereal market... almost 80% of that market between the three.

If a company gets any decent share, one of the big few buys it out. There's tons of brands but only a few actual companies.


"The Guardian and Food and Water Watch investigation into 61 popular grocery items reveals that the top companies control an average of 64% of sales.

We found that for 85% of the groceries analysed, four firms or fewer controlled more than 40% of market share. It’s widely agreed that consumers, farmers, small food companies and the planet lose out if the top four firms control 40% or more of total sales.

Our investigation is based on the analysis of market share data from thousands of supermarkets across the US.

“It’s a system designed to funnel money into the hands of corporate shareholders and executives while exploiting farmers and workers and deceiving consumers about choice, abundance and efficiency,” said Amanda Starbuck, policy analyst at Food & Water Watch.

The consolidation runs deep: four firms or fewer controlled at least 50% of the market for 79% of the groceries. For almost a third of shopping items, the top firms controlled at least 75% of the market share."


1. There are many other market influences that affect prices as well including oligarchical control by a few suppliers.

2. Raising prices provides opportunity for other competitors only if price elasticity of demand is high enough. With regards to the soda market, studies have shown it runs around from 1.08 to as high as 1.37…so is fairly elastic. Have seen one study that said it was ineleastic at .58 though.
 
1. There are many other market influences that affect prices as well including oligarchical control by a few suppliers.

2. Raising prices provides opportunity for other competitors only if price elasticity of demand is high enough. With regards to the soda market, studies have shown it runs around from 1.08 to as high as 1.37…so is fairly elastic. Have seen one study that said it was ineleastic at .58 though.
The beverage market has a fairly low barrier for entry as it relates to capital needs. And even opex if entry is regional.

This is my cousin’s company. He is the founder. His initial capital outlay to enter business was decently low. Yes it is niche, but he has built a regionally successful beverage business in the NE. (As an aside, his story on his website is interesting….well at least to me :). )

As for Coke, they have an extremely strong brand with very loyal customers. Due to earned consumer loyalty it provides flexibility to increase prices. Die-hard Coke drinkers are not going to switch brands for a dime increase. But for the non die-hard customers, maybe an opportunity for other competitors.
 
1. There are many other market influences that affect prices as well including oligarchical control by a few suppliers.

2. Raising prices provides opportunity for other competitors only if price elasticity of demand is high enough. With regards to the soda market, studies have shown it runs around from 1.08 to as high as 1.37…so is fairly elastic. Have seen one study that said it was ineleastic at .58 though.
What drives price elasticity? I'm far from an econ guy.

I was simply using coke and the like as an example of frustration over record profits while people complain of inflation. Wondering if there's any decent mean to control this.
 
What drives price elasticity? I'm far from an econ guy.

I was simply using coke and the like as an example of frustration over record profits while people complain of inflation. Wondering if there's any decent mean to control this.
Any number of things can affect it. Availability of substitutes for a given group of consumers. Whether the particular product is a necessity or a discretionary item…the urgency of the purchase. The length of time the price change goes on matters. Brand loyalties among consumers.
 
I was simply using coke and the like as an example of frustration over record profits while people complain of inflation. Wondering if there's any decent mean to control this.

I do wonder what you mean about “frustration over record profits”? Coke has a duty to its shareholders. Record profits is great news to them.
The is a thread about US Going Backwards — record profits from a US company that has the largest global reach of any company in the world is …great news for the US, IMO.

I may align more to what I think you concern may be if we were talking a necessity like energy …or an industry with huge hurdles for entry that has been subsidized by the government like air travel.
But a good percentage of Coke profits comes from their carbonated soda beverage. A nice to have, but hardly vital. And there are a lot of available drink replacements.
 
Have to admit I thought it was just right wing conspiracy thoughts that George Soros and Biden relection financial backers were funding the college anti-Israel protests, but …it appears they are.

 
Last edited:
Stop counting votes after election day. What if it's midnight and Trump is behind by only one vote? However, the lawsuit filed by the RNC in Nevada doesn’t seek to stop counting ballots after Election Day, but rather seeks to prohibit counting any mail-in ballots received after that date, even if they were postmarked in time. So, Lara Trump doesn't know what she is talking about.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top