[kortilla]

>The mature businesses dial up the greed when there is no competition and dial it down to crush threats. Once the threat is extinguished, up the dial goes again.

You’ve just described what is called “competition”. Having to lower prices to keep up with competitors.

Also, if there is a clear winning pattern of a single player takes all market, that’s super attractive to competitor investors because they only need to outlast your warchest.

What you’ve described is a very unstable game theoretic condition and it’s basically a non-issue everywhere in the US except for markets with regulatory capture (i.e. high government regulation).

I challenge you to point out an example of a one grocery-store city where that strategy has worked to keep competitors out.

[andrewjl]

> You’ve just described what is called “competition”. Having to lower prices to keep up with competitors.

Suppose a larger company is selling a product that competes with yours at a loss so as to undercut you due to other sources of profit. Do you think that sort of competition is fair? Does that result in the best product winning the most market share?

> I challenge you to point out an example of a one grocery-store city where that strategy has worked to keep competitors out.

Not the GP, but recommend The Wal-Mart Effect by Charles Fishman.