You are 100% correct that some consumers may pay more because they have a brand loyalty or affinity for Coca-Cola. However, for every consumer that chooses to give up whatever other goods might have been purchased in lieu of paying more for Coke brand, the demand for other, lower priced soft-drinks drops by that consumers demand. In other words, the more of the relatively wealthy who buy Coke because they want it and can afford it, the cheaper the other brands get for those who can't afford to make a "Coke or Nothing" opportunity choice. If this class of wealthier Coke drinkers didn't exist, then all demand for soft drinks would fall upon the lower priced supplier driving up the price. So, if Coke or other "name brands" weren't pricing their commodities higher then all demand would fall on the "bargain" products, out pricing the poorer people who need those lower prices.
That's why competition is good for the poor, and competition cannot exist in a state or other centrally planned economy, because in a planned economy, the people who run the biggest businesses end up running the planners.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|