[basseq]

  What Uber is doing here should absolutely not be allowed.

What Uber is doing is called loss leading. It would be very hard to outlaw or regulate in any sort of "fair" way. The result you fear--a monopoly with price control--is illegal and is tightly regulated.

[Y7ZCQtNo39]

The claim that it is tightly regulated could be subject to debate. The amount of regulatory capture currently occurring plus what occurred in the previous decades squarely classifies the United States as a plutocracy. The AT&T merger may be blocked, just because Donald Trump (via the Justice Department) doesn't like CNN. Think about that. It's an incredible consolidation of power.

While I agree it's hard to outlaw or regulate loss leading, since it seems to be a common go-to-market strategy, it prevents the smaller guys from competing. It allows those with the upper hand (more capital) to remain dominant and starve out the competition. And the feared result, could very well occur. I wouldn't trust the United States to regulate as heavily as it used to, especially under the purview of Donald Trump.

[DrPsyker]

Loss leading is different. It's when you discount a product to attract people to an overall experience (a supermarket, for example). Not when you discount the price of your core product.

[rtpg]

You might be able to classify it as dumping.

Loss leading itself could also be regulated more. For example, in France it's illegal to resell something for less than the price you paid for it (except during regulated "sales" periods). This prevents companies coming in and using their funds to subsidize the products.

I could see the argument that Uber is a reseller, given they're not part of the actual taxi experience

[mc32]

What are the "sales periods"?

I can see what they're trying to address, but commerce is fickle and often times unpredictable.

What if I thought I saw an opportunity to do business but it turned out to be a bad judgement and now I have 20,000 count of something that isn't moving and I have better things to do than wait for the sale period and at least get half my money back and reinvest it in something else I think might turn a profit?

Maybe there is more to the law than the simple scenario you've laid out. Otherwise that seems stifling.

[Joeri]

Same here in Belgium. The sales periods were regulated times of the year when selling at a loss was allowed. Outside of those periods it was only allowed to sell at a loss for goods that would spoil, or were damaged or outdated, or to match competitors’ pricing.

But, all of that has been struck down by the EU courts since it was found in violation of new EU consumer protection directives.

[rtpg]

The sales periods are two times in the year. These periods are pretty long (6 weeks?).

There are exceptions for perishable goods and for products that have been rendered obsolete due to technological progress. I think there are some other force majeure exceptions.

It's a bit stifling, but it means that huge retailers can't destroy smaller businesses just due to their huge capital reserves. It helps to preserve competition in the retailing space. And worst case you just have to handle it for a couple of months.

[mc32]

I have not been to France in a bit, but I recall seeing lots of "Soldes" signs (perh clothing nad other retail is considered "seasonal" and therefore can be discounted whenever).

I'm not sure how preventing any time sales helps sole proprietor shops, as big enterprise can simply sell barely above cost till they sink the mom and pops. If they are looking to protect the consumer a better tact is preventing the boost and cut pricing tactic to make a sale seem like a good deal.

So I guess no BOGO/BOGOFs?

[rtpg]

12 weeks out of the year is a pretty huge time, so it's likely you were present during those times. If you were in more touristy areas I think there are huge exceptions there (especially in Paris).

You can totally do things like BOGO if you're selling things way above cost, or if you're not a reseller but the actual manufacturer of the good.

An example of this is take out pizza, which usually offers BOGO if you don't opt for delivery.

The Sales rule is usually about when you are just being a market maker and not part of the production process itself. Similar rules exist for things like book sellers (you can not discount the price of a new book by more than 5% of the MSRP).

[crdoconnor]

>The result you fear--a monopoly with price control--is illegal

Monopolies are not illegal.

[Veen]

> Monopolies are not illegal

No, they aren't. But can you think of any examples of a company that built a monopoly and refrained from exploiting it to the detriment of the market and consumers in the long term?

[TheCoelacanth]

Monopolies are not per se illegal, but it is illegal to create a monopoly.

[vorotato]

Natural monopolies are not illegal, anti-competitive ones however...