Editor:
Regarding, Loblaws generic-brand food price freeze, are we struggling consumers supposed to be grateful for Loblaw’s temporary freeze on its already-inflated grocery prices?
It seems that, generally speaking, the more we humans make, all the more we want – nay, need – to make next time.
And when in corporate-CEO form, we’ll typically become far greedier.
But there must be a point at which the status quo – where already large corporate profits are maintained or increased while many people are denied even life’s basic necessities – can and will end up hurting big business’s own monetary interests. I can imagine that a healthy, strong and large consumer base – and not just very wealthy consumers – are needed.
Or could it be that the unlimited profit objective/nature is somehow irresistible, including the willingness to simultaneously allow an already squeezed consumer base to continue so – or even squeezed further?
When it comes to unhindered capitalism, I can see corporate CEOs shrugging their shoulders and defensively saying that their job is to protect shareholders’ bottom-line interests.
The shareholders meanwhile shrug their shoulders while defensively stating that they just collect the dividends and that the CEOs are the ones to make the moral and ethical decisions.
Frank Sterle Jr., White Rock