I don't really understand the question but if prices are set too high, fewer customers buy and profits are hit. If they are too low there is too little profit per sale and profits are hit.
If cartel pricing occurs for apples, and that price is too high for me. then I don't buy apples. There are numerous fruit dietary alternatives to apples whose prices may be more tolerable to me. ^apples ^petrol What are my numerous alternatives ?? There are none, Therefore the : - consumer cannot "vote with their feet" - capitalism as you described can only be checked by population unrest (which requires govt intervention)
You always have the option of walking or cycling or not going out in the car at all. I am not trying to defend capitalism but the current government claims it's the best system so will need a big burden of proof to intervene. Obviously the fact that fuel duty exists at all is evidence that the free market by itself gives the wrong outcome.
Interesting debate. Unfortunately the vast majority of my driving is done going to work and back. There is no realistic public transport alternative. Therefore I don't really have an option but to accept whatever prices they throw at me. To offset this I have (1) looked for a different job that means I can use public transport, which is very difficult at my age and (2) cancelled a couple of trips to see friends in the west country, making a kind of bargain in my own head that I've offset that unused fuel against fuel I've used going to work. It's not that satisfactory because I've now convinced myself that I can't justify driving anywhere for pleasure.
vimhawk has given you a typical (and widespread) example of the reality (ie there is no other tolerable means of "voting with your feet" ) . "I am not trying to defend capitalism but the current government claims it's the best system so will need a big burden of proof to intervene. The "capitalism" you described is contrary to the moral consensus of the population. So government is tasked with finding the "sweet spot" between how much profit is too much , and not killing the profit incentive which primarily drives the commercial sector. "Obviously the fact that fuel duty exists at all is evidence that the free market by itself gives the wrong outcome" . Why does any <X> "duty" exist at all ?? What is its primary purpose P, and for every pound collected, what % is spent on P and nothing else ??
The two muslim chaps who bough Asda from the goon chap decided to withdraw from the supermarket price war to sell less but increase profit. Others, Tesco, Morrisons, Sainsburys followed suit. Traditionally supermarket fuel stations made almost no profit to get people in to shop. Removing the price war has added about 20%.
Coming soon: Marjorie Taylor Greene blaming Jewish dentists and their space lasers for the Buffalo shooting
Welcome to post Brexit world. The single biggest divisive issue which not only allowed views consigned to history to re-emerge but to give sucka to people to acquire power and lead us down the road of the f word and justify it as normal. Had the idea of Brexit never been entertained in the first place, the f-word would have been consigned to the internal battles of the tory party where it had always been (and belongs) and not expanded to the rest of the nation where it's poisoned society.
