White House prods justices into retail arena

[Donnachaidh]

Source: LA Times.com

WASHINGTON -- Bush administration lawyers urged the Supreme Court today to repeal a nearly 100-year-old rule that bars manufacturers from fixing the retail prices of their products.

[]

The National Assn. of Manufacturers and other business groups want the court to pull back on enforcing the antitrust laws so that companies can promote their brands as they see fit. Sometimes that could mean making contracts with retailers to charge a fixed minimum price for a product.

Since 1911, such contracts have been illegal under the antitrust laws.

The Consumer Federation of America says repealing this rule would allow manufacturers and retailers to set higher prices. It would hurt discounters, as well as shoppers who go online to look for deals, the group said.



Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus27mar27,1,4485517.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

---

so now they want to make it LEGAL to price fix?

PLEASE kick this up so people can see this.

[soothsayer]

1. K&R

[TerdlowSmedley]

2. Done. This is big.

[shanti]

12. it sure is big

changing a law that's lasted over 100 years is huge!

[iconoclastic cat]

3. Now *this* could be used to flog the Republicans!

About 95% of the public would *hate* that!

[aquart]

4. Kick.

BushCo. Destroying America one law at a time.

[DCKit]

5. Geez, what would that do to Wal Mart??????

Oh, stupid me. They don't buy anything from American manufacturers.

[tanyev]

6. Back to the good old days of the Gilded Age.

Good times if you were one of the gilded.

[Roland99]

7. Inflation isn't bad enough and profits aren't high enough, I guess.

:eyes:

[truthisfreedom]

8. I'm a manufacturer, and we have MAP pricing guidelines that we establish with our dealers.

Minimum advertised price.

But we never restrict the actual sale price in the store. Only the price they advertise. That's how it should be... dealers should be able to sell at any price point they're comfortable with. Prices should be negotiable.

[Heywood J]

17. I've seen that before.

Where you have to add the product to your shopping cart online to see the price because they can't advertise it. I've got no problem with that, it doesn't obstruct the consumer from getting the product at a good price.

But the idea of enforcing binding minimum selling prices is something that will just hurt consumers who can least afford it. Everybody who makes less than an executive's pay will feel the cost of personal effects and necessities go up, and then I can only imagine what that would do to Christmas...

There's a reason it fell under antitrust. These are no longer the days of vertical conglomerates.

[Sapere aude]

28. You know, anyone who buys certain things all the time knows that the MAP is bullshit.

For instance, in most hobby fields there are MAP's but you can go to ebay and find out what the traffic will bare price is. Nobody pays the MAP.

[Prophet 451]

32. That's fine

Here (Britain) we have MRP (Manufacturer's Recommended Price) which does about the same thing.

[LiberalFighter]

9. Now they don't believe in free market

[femrap]

10. W Loves the Robber Barons! nt

[knitter4democracy]

11. Excuse me?!

I know some yarn companies have tried this lately, and knitters are furious and boycotting. That's freakin' wrong. MRSP is just a suggestion, and retailers should be able to do what they want with their prices.

[shanti]

13. hi k4d!

:hi: do you have a story about this? what companies are doing this?

[knitter4democracy]

20. I don't know all of them.

I know that Louet tried something like it, and that's why so many shops don't carry their stuff (which is too bad, considering how nice Gems is). I don't know which other companies, but there were rumors of it last summer on the knitting messageboards. I'm sure I could dig around and get company names.

I do remember that several knitbloggers were upset about it and talking boycott.

[shanti]

39. thanks for the info

i saw gems for $7.95 PS on ebay. is that what the lys charge? i've never knitted with it, but it does seem nice. however, there are lots of nice yarns from companies that don't price fix, so i'll stay with them (especially the american farms and mills - bartlett, brown sheep, etc.)

[GaYellaDawgDem]

22. Here you go...

This is the story USA Today ran a day or two ago - http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-25-price-rule_N.htm?csp=34 about a boutique in Texas.

[alfredo]

14. My pension was cut by $150 a month, now this. They want us

needy and pliable. They want to suck what wealth they can from us.

[drm604]

15. K&R

:kick:

[benld74]

16. K&R The bastards just don't quit!

Damn its one thing after another. They got their claws and hooks into everything, kinda like finding termites in your home, just when you think you're getting to the end of them, BOOM you find out its more than you thought.

[mopinko]

18. lots of companies do this anyway.

especially high end products. when we were remodeling our kitchen a few years ago, we were shocked at what you had to pay for a large stove. we wanted double oven, 6 burner. companies like viking make one that they sell to restaurants, and one they sell to people with too much money. except for finish details, usually pretty much the same stove. only one is twice as much money.
they not only squeeze their retailers, through the distributors, of course, they squeeze the wholesale guys to to sell to individuals. you would not believe some of the things that we were told. my favorite was that it was against "the national building code" to have a commercial stove in your house!!
we lucked into a used old vulcan.
point being, this is done, usually through distributors, and they get away with it.

[robinlynne]

19. kicking as hard as I can.

[Nothing Without Hope]

21. K & R - this needs to be publicized far more than it is n/t

[ShortnFiery]

23. Kick

:dem:

[Maven]

24. Never. Happen.

But kicking anyway, for the sheer evil audacity of these fucks.

[ozymandius]

25. I have a viceral reaction when I read this shit.

Fuck them and the horse they stole to ride in on.

[Melissa G]

26. MAP pricing is a GOOD thing! It helps local business survive.

Otherwise you have small brick and mortar businesses, like mine, who provide a lot of service being driven out of business by internet retailers. The internet retailers provide almost no service but lead with cut rate prices until they drive the competition out of business.

Then the Big Corps own all the lines of distribution. They later squeeze out all the small manufacturers

The big company that has hurt my business so much has recently been bought by a major pharmaceutical company. So if you want to dry up all the small businesses and only buy from Walmart....go ahead... eradicate MAP pricing. It will really HURT small business.

Melissa G
Small Business owner

edit to say if the Bush cabal wants it..ya know it is probably GOOD for their big corporate handlers and BAD for small business and consumers.

[northzax]

37. true, but there is a difference between MAP pricing

and actual minimum pricing regulations. MAP prevents, let's call it HALMART from simply underpricing your advertised prices. which is a good thing. I like MAPs. I don't like mandatory minimum pricing, and neither should you, I think. First off, unless there is a global standard, then companies that buy in volume can negotiate lower MMPs. Imagine HALMART going to a company and saying, "Melissa G is selling these shoes for $50, we want to sell them for $40, and we'll buy a million pairs, upfront" dangerous, you can't compete with that sort of bargaining power.

second off, if they do get volume discounting on wholesale, and are still required to sell at the higher price, that makes their margins even higher than yours could ever be.

[Melissa G]

40. Their margins will not put me out of business but overly low prices

on what we both sell Will put me out of business. I do compete with that kind of Big company bargaining power. Bigger customers routinely get better prices than I do. I can live with that as long as they can't undercut me on advertised price.

[Sapere aude]

27. Wait just a minute! Market forces Market forces Market forces Market forces

Market forces Isn't that the conservative mantra?

[intheflow]

29. I'd say "Unbelievable!" but

that word has lost it's meaning in the Bush Administration. Nothing is so low it's beyond belief.
K&R

[Nevernose]

30. Kick

:kick:

[lonestarnot]

31. 664 days left. Can you hang? How bout you Merica, can you hang?

[AzDar]

33. Jesus. n/t

[NuttyFluffers]

34. attempting to abandon market forces for price fixing

i cannot think of a single platform the republican party and their handlers have not abandoned to hypocrisy. K&R

[donheld]

35. Kick

This country is gone.

[Robbien]

36. This is why they are purging the Just Us system of all non-GOPers

If the Just Us system was just, this case wouldn't even have been considered.

[On the Road]

38. As I Understand It, It's Not Traditional Price Fixing

which is collusion among different providers in the same industry. It's the ability for producers to dictate the prices at which the retailer sells their goods. I guess you can make an argument for it, but I don't know if it's wise.

This issue must go way back. I remember Bork being grilled about his support for exactly this same measure.

One of the unintended effects of this law will probably be to help small retailers at the expense of chain stores. Often buyers prefer local stores but are drawn by lower prices at the big chains. If the prices are all equal, more people will buy local.

Connecticut used to have fixed price on liquor, and the effect was to maintain a huge number of small stores which all sold for the same price. If I bought a top-shelf brand I would get too much change back with a wink and a nod -- it was an illegal under-the-table discount.

I suspect this issue is mostly about big manufacturers (who want to divide and conquer their distribution outlets) pitted against big retailers (who want to buy market share at the expense of small business).