Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TopCat who wrote (720470)	6/10/2013 5:48:05 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580832

TopCat, Huge volume buyers cannot dictate the terms of sale because the seller is always free to not sell. The original argument Ali was trying to make was that Walmart is so huge, they can force unfavorable terms on suppliers because said suppliers cannot afford to lose Walmart's business. That is the type of argument that is made in antitrust cases. Hence the reason why I asked whether the customers of Ali's company were colluding in anti-competitive agreements, which he answered in the negative. So since there was no collusion, I don't see how his situation can be anything other than a classic buyer's market, i.e. an oversupply situation. Such a market will correct itself as lesser-able suppliers drop out of the business. As that happens, the remaining suppliers will get more and more power to dictate their own terms of purchasing agreements. Later on, if that leads to less competition, then antitrust law can be applied so that the dominant players don't abuse their position to raise the barriers of competition. Of course, none of this supports Ali's view that Walmart is evil, unless you tend to favor more regulation over free markets. Tenchusatsu