On: America is stuck at home, but food-delivery companies still struggle to profit

[WalterBright]

There are 3 prices you can set:

1. above the competition - gouging, profiteering

2. below the competition - predatory pricing, unfair competition, dumping

3. same as the competition - price fixing, collusion

All are illegal!

[compiler-guy → WalterBright]

All of those price points in the first column are _necessary_ for the legal consequences in the second column, but not sufficient by any stretch.

[gbear605 → WalterBright]

Alternatively, set your prices based on the actual supply and demand and your costs, not by trying to manipulate the market :)

[fosk → gbear605]

But why? Just let the market do its thing:

- if a market player wants to sell goods or services at a loss, let them do it and it benefits the consumer

- if the competition goes out of business and the prices are raised, somebody else will see the opportunity to enter the market at a lower cost.

Rinse and repeat. The consumers benefit from it either way.

[gbear605 → fosk]

In one option, there’s high turnover (bad for customers, employees, and restaurants) leading to restaurants not signing up with future food delivery companies due to being burned in the past. In the other option, there’s a heathy competition leading to customers paying realistic prices (an undistorted market) and giving delivery workers and restaurants more stability.

[rileymat2 → fosk]

That implies memory of past events would not affect people willing to take the new opportunity.

[amelius → WalterBright]

This isn't about pricing relative to the competition, but relative to the cost of production.