Post
"The leader of the party of consumers and taxpayers argued against a measure to increase competition and lower prices because it might upset incumbent capital. In that single statement, the party’s modern priority was laid bare: protecting established businesses now trumps the creation of competitive markets for consumers. The 'consumer' in the party’s name has been forgotten entirely."
#BryceEdwards, 2026
@strypey Bryce is carring the Rulling Class' water. Unwittingly I hope
High supermarket prices are a useful distraction. Some very small changes could be made by more competition, but SFA
The problem is low incomes. The Rulling Class wants you to see a supermarket duopoly as a bogeyman, and not campaign for higher incomes
In the brain dead, and deeply antisocial analysis of the New Zealand elites, higher incomes mean lower profits, so "look at the supermarkets "
FTC
@worik I disagree with every single part of this post, and I'm wondering why you're suddenly channeling Rimmer's corporatist reputation laundering.
(1/2)
@worik
> The Rulling Class wants you to see a supermarket duopoly as a bogeyman, and not campaign for higher incomes
I agree they don't want to give working people higher incomes. The ruling class are the ones who own the supermarkets and other oversized businesses operating as cartels. They don't want people criticising those cartels either, nor do they want criticism of the game of Monopoly they're playing with the property market.
(2/2)
@worik
> higher incomes mean lower profits
... is Economics 101. A business has 3 main inputs; land (raw materials), labour, and capital. The output of a business is split up among the suppliers of each, accounted for as; expenses, wages/ salaries, and profits, respectively.
For one to go up, one of the others has to go down. We have cartels making excessive profits because for decades they've been keeping wage and salary growth low. For incomes to rise, profits must return to Earth.
@strypey that is what they think. It is the micro storey
Increasing income I creases consumption and that I creases profits. It is a virtuous circle. But if you only count what is actually in your hands, you cannot see that
(1/2)
@worik
> Increasing income I creases consumption and that I creases profits
You can't have your cake and eat it too. For wages/ salaries to go up, a higher proportion of what the economy produces has to go to workers. That means that the share taken as profit (return on capital) has to go down.
Increasing income I creases consumption and that I creases *revenue*. But if more of that revenue is going into lifting workers' incomes, it can't also be lifting profits. Pick one.
@strypey they eat each other. So targeting individual businesses is acceptable, but attacking the "low wage" system is not.
The Rulling Class have "class loyalty" but zero collegiality
@worik
> targeting individual businesses is acceptable, but attacking the "low wage" system is not
Sure, but Bryce Edwards is making a structural critique of the "crony capitalism" of NZ corporate culture as a whole. See the follow up piece I've been quoting from this morning, about the chronic incompetence of NZ corporate execs and their dependence on lobbying and campaign donations to keep their dysfunctional businesses afloat.
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
