Madam, - I am at a loss to understand who, other than its competitors and a handful of bureaucrats and politicians (a small number), can honestly object to Dunnes Stores selling goods at below cost to its customer (a large number).
You report (Business This Week, October 17th) that the independent grocer lobby warns that aggressive discounting by Dunnes could spark a damaging price war between the major multiples.
Good. That means lower prices for shoppers.
RGDATA, the organisation representing smaller retailers, says that although "consumers win through competitive activity in the marketplace", permitting Dunnes to drop its prices so drastically could push many smaller stores to the brink of ruin, costing hundreds of jobs. Are those hundreds more important than the hundreds of thousands of people who will benefit from the lower prices? If they can't compete, shouldn't they be doing something else? The Director of Consumer Affairs, Ms Carmel Foley, disapproves of in-store promotions, believing that keener across-the-board pricing offers better overall value to shoppers. Maybe so, but that's no reason to decry in-store promotions.
Why does no one simply ask shoppers, "Do you want lower prices, taking your chances as to whether that means higher prices in the future, or even lower prices? Or do you prefer to trust industrialists, bureaucrats and politicians when they say paying more today is good for you?" It's time the interests of the many consumers took precedence over those of the few producers and retailers. And we should remember that it is the poorest in society who benefit most from lower prices. Why should they subsidise protected producers and retailers? - Yours, etc.,
TONY ALLWRIGHT, Killiney, Co Dublin.