Skip to main content

View Diary: The curious case of Whole Foods and the FTC. (23 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So you're not defending Whole Foods? (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry, I interpreted some of the editorial commentary to include a defense of Whole Foods, particularly the line I quoted, rather than solely being an exploration of the Appellate decision.

    Whole Foods is a big company. Whole Foods is not a model of worker rights, nor is it a locally-owned, independent health food store. Whole Foods' business model is to replace those local stores with their own store. For all the animosity a company like Wal-Mart generates on sites like this, I find it interesting that there seems to be more defense for other companies that do the same thing.

    I don't really see this action between the FTC and Whole Foods as a matter of precedent. I think it just comes down to the opinion one holds of Whole Foods. One could just as easily write a diary reflecting on the bad precedent set by the District Court in rejecting the FTC's view of the market. This seems to me to be an issue with legitimate disagreement, not something that's going to cause a big change in precedent one way or the other.

    But that's just my opinion, I of course could be mistaken. We'll have to discuss in the future if this sets a precedent that leads to a disturbing decision down the road applied in another situation.

    •  I have no opinion on Whole Foods either way. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lefty Mama, RiaD

      I worry about the FTC saying they can bring about anti-trust cases and not have to define the market they are supposedly protecting from a monopoly. If the FTC wins this case, then there will be a precedent. This case has nothing to do with the Whole Foods business in particular. Whether or not they are anti-union or what else they may be. It has everything to do with the power of the FTC.

      •  Fair enough (0+ / 0-)

        It has everything to do with the power of the FTC.

        Personally, I happen to prefer a powerful FTC. I think it's one of the regulatory checks that can be most beneficial to refereeing private companies in the marketplace. A merger is the kind of thing that's quite final; it's very difficult to undo something five years down the road, while the costs of delaying something six months to investigate aren't usually that great in comparison.

        But I take your point. If you're worried about the power of the FTC, you probably don't like the Appeals Court ruling very much.

      •  Anything to increase the power of the FTC (0+ / 0-)

        regarding prevention of monopolies is a GOOD thing.  The precedent this case would set is needed and would prevent other mergers such as those like the Delta-NWA debacle.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (123)
  • Community (60)
  • Elections (31)
  • Media (31)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Environment (27)
  • Law (26)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Culture (23)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site