The ubiquity of their brand and how they’ve an alternative for every product is mind boggling. How this is not deemed destructive? It feels like a monopoly (though it’s technically not). Is this not eliminating entrepreneurial incentives since the biggest store in the world is filling its shelves with its own products?
In: Economics
Just throwing this in here, too:
A lot of these products are made in the exact same factories. Maybe they change recipes, formulations, etc… Maybe they don’t. Either way, the business runs. The workers get paid. There is competition for “the name brand.” (Capitalism loves competition.) People are still gonna buy Campbell’s and Apple and General Mills, either for the perceived “quality” or name recognition.
Extra selection is almost never considered a “problem” to the “Free Market.”
Latest Answers