PDA

View Full Version : Worst OP-Ed ever: When Market Rules, the big guy wins




TheBlackPeterSchiff
12-17-2011, 12:33 AM
We were two college kids (well, one of us dropped out) who just wanted to have a small ice cream store in a university town. But the popularity of our product led us in 1980 to dream bigger. We began packing pints and hand-delivering our ice cream to local grocery stores and restaurants. Our reputation grew and in 1983, independent ice cream distributors started selling our ice cream in Boston.

By 1984, our micro-enterprise small business grew to more than $4 million in sales. The big ice cream brands weren't happy.

That year, Haagen-Dazs, owned at the time by Pillsbury, had enough of our upstart small business. Did they try to promote their ice cream harder, develop some new flavors or cut prices to competitively beat us?

No. Their game plan was to try to stop our distributors from carrying our ice cream. Pillsbury, a $4 billion corporation back then, was a major source of income for these distributors and they were told, in no uncertain terms, not to do business with Ben & Jerry's.

This is what letting the free market reign really means. If you are a big business and don't want competition from small companies, you just use your economic clout to shut them down.

Fortunately, the government does restrict this practice somewhat to protect the little guy. It is called the federal antitrust law. We believed Pillsbury's actions were illegal under this statute, which says a company that controls a major share of a given market cannot use its power and economic strength to keep other businesses out of the market.http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/16/opinion/cohen-benjerry-business-regulations/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

wistfulthinker
12-17-2011, 01:01 AM
That's just an absurd argument.



Cohen says B&J won because of the good fight his company put up -- not in the courts and based on regulation. "...we knew that in a strictly legal fight, we would run out of time and money long before Pillsbury did." But they were, "fortunate to have a unique consumer product with a good customer base to advocate for us."

Um...he said his company won through market forces and that regulatory/judicial forces would have beaten his company through the attrition of resources.

Is there no respect for logic? Does this man not see that all his supporting evidence speaks against his premise?

It's just weird how people can formulate whole columns and not be bothered with a fundamental thought -- even a logical thought. We are a nation of sloppy thinkers.