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

Canada

7204 readers
338 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

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

https://lemmy.ca/


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Octospider@kbin.social 27 points 6 months 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.

[–] Kiosade@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Downvoting you because this is factually incorrect. They WANT the profit, but it’s not illegal to not make a certain amount of profit, that’s silly.

[–] null 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] Kiosade@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Every time this view point is parroted, they either imply or outright state the company will be sued/break the law because they didn’t do their best to make money. Notice how they used words like “need”, “swearing an oath”, etc. I’ve seen it time and time again on here and on Reddit, it’s tiresome at this point. The companies are just greedy, and know they can pretty much get away with stuff like this, end of story.

[–] null 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The shareholders will oust the CEO who doesn't meet that need. No legal action required.

Maybe other people inaccurately say it is a law, but this is not an example of that. Especially since you said "FACTUALLY INCORRECT".

No, no incorrect facts were stated.

load more comments (13 replies)