[lukesandberg]

You could argue that it makes your furniture cheaper, but isn't it more likely that the additional profit that IKEA accrues due to this complicated scheme is 1. siphoned directly to a small number of individuals 2. divided amongst the shareholders or 3. simply wasted on the tons of accountants and lawyers that it probably takes to keep this system running.

Even if its not the case (at least not entirely) then you can still argue that the fact that IKEA is doing this is anti-competitive, which is surely against your ideology of anti-collectivism because it distorts natural market forces.

Even someone adamantly in the Chicago school of economics would be against a scheme like this because it implies that IKEA is effectively able to compete under markedly different market conditions than its competitors.