Talk:Predatory pricing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the "criticism/opposition" section doesn't address the issues of the "support" side completely. What I mean is: Once the prices are raised (after competitors leave), there is a strong incentive for competition to reimerge.

Errr, barriers to entry is kind of the whole point here.

bluemoon thanks for restoring my material, I agree there is some duplication. The existing organization was odd with a very brief statement of what it is following by "criticism for the theory" then "support for the theory" I'll try to work on it some more. JE

This clause in the first paragraph is overstated and unncecessary: "eventually driving them bankrupt" - it is not essential that the competitor be driven to bankruptcy; it is sufficient if the competitor is driven from the market (for example out of the U.S. or out of Texas, or out of the hair spray business). I am editing this accordingly. JE

The whole thing seems (1) poorly explained in parts, and (2) slanted to the view that "predatory pricing" is so bad that it must not be allowed although it's never actually happened anywhere!

Note that point #2 contradicts itself. --Uncle Ed 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Badness is nothing to do with now often it happens, it is however so bad that it is illegal just about everywhere, I think that this much more important. Also, I couldn't imediately see where it says it has never happened, but certainly I have studied case studies of this practice, and I can tell you it has happened. Martin 19:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the POV. Contrary to rumors, I do not spend my whole day pushing my POV! ;) Read the last 2 sentences of the article:

• By pricing aggressively to start with, even pricing below cost, firms can ensure a base of customers in the future from whom to make a profit.

• However, to date, no empirical example has yet been demonstrated of successful predatory pricing practice by a corporation.

Can we fix this? --Uncle Ed 20:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

To start with I have removed that last sentence. The rest looks largely good to me, though a controversial topic like this needs to be heavily referenced. Martin 09:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As an example of predatory pricing, look at how wal-mart sells at a loss in order to drive competing stores in the vicinity out of business, then raises prices.

[edit] Contradiction Tag

Does this need to remain? I fail to see the contradiction. If it's the issue identified by "Uncle Ed" I think it's been addressed, hasn't it? Psychobabble 01:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No one's replied for a cpl of weeks so I'm removing. Psychobabble 06:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)