The point that Matt Nolan and myself have noted about the claim that raising your price can be anti-competitive raises another question with me: Why have none of our "economic journalists" asked about the validity of this claim?
I mean it does on the face of it seem a very strange claim. The normal anti-competitive pricing activities would be things like predatory pricing or the closely related limit pricing, but both of these involving lowering your price in such a way as to either force competitors out of the market or prevent them from entering. But raising your price is the opposite of this, it would seem to involve giving an incentive for firms to enter the market or if already in the market expand supply, thereby increasing competitive pressures. So have none of the economic journalists out there asked themselves, Can raising your price really be anti-competitive? Have any journalists thought of going to the Commerce Commission and asking them to explain the logic behind this claim?
1 comment:
Ha ha ha ha ha... you fools... you seem to be under the delusion that journalists in NZ have any clues about economics - I bet they can't even spell it!!
The closest such writer in NZ is Bernard Hickey and his grasp of key economic concepts is very vague at best.
Your best bet is to start drinking with the guys from the Press and start having your own commentaries published
Post a Comment