|WikiProject Economics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
We should add some examples of price fixing scandals other than the alleged record company example that everyone uses. How about the Archer Daniels Midland scandal? Are there others? Chadloder 09:54 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)
This needs internationalising. Secretlondon 19:35, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
Pepsi and Coca-Cola have been accused of price fixing
Virgin Atlantic reported BA for price fixing and didn't get fined, while BA did.
How about Apple (30g IPODS for $299.99 everywhere). How about Sony (PSP and PS2, same prices at every store). How do they get away with this? I had a Best Buy employee tell me, the price is fixed by the manufacturer. Also at... I forgot wether it was Sears or Best Buy that if you find something there at a lower price they will pay you the difference. Some places are the same way but most of them are not. --Carmella1993 18:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Carmella1993
You missed the whole meaning of "price fixing". Just because the Ipod is sold at a fixed price of $299 everywhere is not illegal. However, if Apple were to go to its competitor Microsoft (emphasis is on "competitor" not on the store that sells it for you) and say "Hey, let's sale our player at the exact same price and raise it from $299 to $399 so we can steal $100 more from each schmuck" then it's illegal. Declau
I was redirected here from 'price differentiation'. These are not the same thing! they are kindof the same thing. but sometimes are completely different.
The intro of this article doesn't seem clean enough, and I think if I'm being confused a lot of others would be too.
My problem is with the listed methods of price fixing. Limiting discounts? So, when I'm told I can't use double coupons, its price fixing? Discontinuing a free service is illegal? adhering uniformly to previously-announced prices and terms of sale... that seems to imply I have to announce one price and charge another or I break the law. Uniform costs and markups, same reason. Mandatory surcharges? So if a company smacks me with a restocking fee, they break the law?
Something here doesn't make sense.
Thanks, Liastnir 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Edit: I've changed it to a misleading tag more than a cleanup. The grammar and such are just fine ;). Liastnir 21:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- The language must be unclear...for example, it's not that giving discounts is illegal, or that a retailer imposing limitations on discounts is illegal. What's illegal is a conspiracy among two or more retailers to limit discounts in a particular way. I edited the intro; hopefully that's more clear now.-- Beland (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good example is currently in the media, regarding LG, Sharp, Chunghwa, if anyone is up to the task 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Price Fixing vs. Business
I need to know, how does price fixing or "gouging" as some people call it, differ from the normal business practice of setting a price for something? Fact of the matter is, prices must be set; they're not going to give away something for free. Isn't it the whole point of business TO make profit, not break even? Isn't the whole point of capitalism that you make the most profit as possible for as little cost? It just seems like "price fixing" or "price gouging" is a tantrum thrown by someone who was unhappy paying what he did for an item. It would seem that people get "cheated," but in the end, don't people have the option NOT to buy an item? Say a Zune instead of that i-Pod? Or an Inspiron instead of a Vaio? If you become a demanded company, isn't setting a high price for your product a privilege that comes with being much-demanded? Isn't the whole reason Sony and Apple products are expensive because they've made a name for themselves? I think it needs to be made clearer in this Wiki-article why price gouging is looked down upon and even a criminal offense in some countries. I'm no businessman, and I don't own any business, just a consumer, but "price-fixing" seems like a completely normal, natural business practice to me. You make a product, people want it, you should be able to charge whatever it is you want for it. If it's "too expensive," that's just too bad. Don't buy it then. If the product doesn't sell, that means companies have to bring the price down. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? Is it really "capitalist" for a country to intervene and make a producer bring down the price to make it available "for everyone?" THAT, to me, seems a bit more like "fixing," and therefore more socialist/communist. This article could be more detailed, IMO.KogeJoe (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
EDIT: Nokia is currently trying to get money back from LCD makers. How is it the companies' fault that Nokia decided to buy high? How do stocks work? Isn't that a whole business based on price-fixing? Isn't the value of the dollar decided by the Fed? (as opposed to being backed by gold?) It would be nice if this were clearer in the article.KogeJoe (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I reread parts of the article with your statements in mind. The article does state that it's price fixing when there is an agreement between, say, providers of a product to only sell at a particular price. The article does not imply that a business can't set their price how ever they want. Of course they can. But if all sellers agree that they will only sell a product at a given price, without letting free market forces regulate the price, if they for example punish a low seller somehow, then it's price fixing. However, the situation is never clear cut, and often it hasn't been easy to prove that price fixing exists. I made a small adjustment in the lede to state that the 'agreement' between market actors had to be on the same side of the market, as agreements between opposing sides are normal and natural; businesses often lock in the price of supplies for years by long-term purchase agreements. The notion that price fixing is gouging is very dubious and I was tempted to remove the statement. Gouging is commonly when a business charges far in excess of 'fair' markup, because there are no other market players that provide balance or alternative in pricing. Kbrose (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Way to wiki!
List of largest price fixing settlements
Under 'Dynamic random access memory (DRAM)' the following line states "Samsung was the third company to be charged in connection with the international cartel and was fined $300 million, the second largest antitrust penalty in US history."
Then under 'Liquid crystal display', "South Korea–based LG Display would pay $400 million, the second-highest criminal fine that the US Justice Department antitrust division has ever imposed."