this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
138 points (97.9% liked)

Canada

10430 readers
839 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Octospider@kbin.social 27 points 1 year ago (17 children)

The truth is that Loblaws is working as intended within capitalism. They need continuous profit. The CEO swears an oath to shareholders to prioritize profit quarter after quarter ad infinitum. Prices of everything will always increase, otherwise the investors bail and the house of cards collapses. No boycott is going to ultimately change that. They are always playing a game of: "How high can we increase prices today without people rioting?"

What may help is regulating how prices increase or maybe a crown corporation that isn't driven by endless profit.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

This is a myth. (Moreover, it's an American myth.) People need to stop repeating it.

[–] slowbyrne@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The core argument is that capitalism pushes for this outcome, which your link actually confirms. I also find it a bit odd to claim that "x is a myth" and link to an opinion piece article as if it's a peer reviewed study.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's a link to an article about a legal case where the courts specifically stated this was not the case. In the legal realm, that is the equivalent of a peer review. And absolutely, unfettered capitalism pushes towards this outcome. That doesn't make it a legal requirement.

[–] null@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who said it was a legal requirement?

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They need continuous profit. The CEO swears an oath to shareholders to prioritize profit quarter after quarter ad infinitum.

So root comment did.

[–] null@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Needs = laws?

They'll oust a CEO who doesn't fill that need. No legal action required.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, I see you read the article. Now we're back at the start and you can continue to go in circles without me.

[–] null@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

Huh? You claimed that "need" = "law" -- which is clearly nonsense.

That's where we are.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)