“HOW DO YOU DEFEND TESCO AS A MONOPOLY”…(?)…Interesting search-engine-string which arrived at this blog yesterday!

“How do you defend Tesco as a monopoly?”

Two ways in which this intrigued me were that (1) somebody other than the guvmint (WHY IS THERE ONLY ONE?) and the “Competition Commission” (WHY IS THERE ONLY ONE?) thinks Tesco might be a monopoly, and (2) the poor wretched outfit might be in need of defence.

This betrays a large measure of misunderstanding, possibly fostered deliberately by our Marxist-dominated schools and this state here, about what monopolies actually are and what the word actually ought to mean (this does not surprise me.)

Yes, Tesco DOES need defending. Its directing-staff may think they can survive in an increasingly Marxist/Mooching/maundering/mingeing western world, gone to the dogs through failure to stay awake after the fall of The Wall. But they can’t; the Stalinist Nazi Wraiths of Wickedness just reincarnated themselves as greens, anti-packagers, organic hippies, ferocious followers of 4x4s, and wind-worshippers. And also as haters of successful provision of cheap food (THE PRINCE OF WALES THINKS CHEAP FOOD IS AN OBSESSION) to poor people.

Monopolies cannot exist naturally, in a market civilisation. I will no longer use the term “market economy” ever again in this blog, for one of these cannot exist for long or on a large enough scale to help Humankind, without a “civilisation” being prepared by broad consent to defend it against assaults by various nefarious “idealists”.

They (idealists) should learn a bit of physics. Every schoolboy knows that physicists deduce theories on the basis of “ideal” or theoretical scenarios about the behaviour of the universe. BUT all the while they know full well that actual observed behaviour only approximately approaches ideality, but THAT IS GOOD ENOUGH for today’s imperfect setup (“we see through a glass, darkly”). Utopians don’t understand the Nature of God and thus therefore can’t stand this state of affairs, and therefore can never, tragically for themselves, be scientists. They have to gas on and on in the Guardian instead like poor sad Polly Toynbee or that ghastly other woman whose name I can’t remember, or if all else fails, get jobs teaching politics and English in Universities while the people who pay for them are sleeping or unconscious.

Tesco wants defending, because (a) it is not a monopoly (these collapse naturally anyway in market civilisations), (b) it provides cheap food for the Prince of Wales’s employees not to mention everybody else, and (c) its tough business model exposes brightly the machinations of greenazis and EuroCAP Nazis to real scrutiny, bringing itself into the political spotlight in the process.

I’m sure the farmers who are in the position of growing Charles’s Duchy Originals can’t themselves afford to subsist on the stuff. I mean, have you SEEN the prices? Fine for Waitrose I guess. But they occupy a different market niche.

3 responses to ““HOW DO YOU DEFEND TESCO AS A MONOPOLY”…(?)…Interesting search-engine-string which arrived at this blog yesterday!

  1. very interesting, but I don’t agree with you

  2. I don’t ask you to agree with me, it’s OK if you don’t.

    Unlike stalinist uber-shoppers (of whom I am sure you are not one!) who pretend to hate 4x4s and out-of-town-supermarkets, because they can afford to send servants to shop for them at “little shops”, thus pretending to be “green” and to be LOCAVORES…. a new word I learned recently!

  3. Sorry! I suffer from what the French call “l’esprit de l’escalier”.

    I also meant to say to you that Tesco cannot be called a monopoly either, by any stretch of the imagination, since it only has at the very, very most, about 1/7th of the UK’s grocery trade, that’s about 14% and a bit.

    Oh and I’m not paid by them either. i just shop there whenever I can because they are embattled, and the natural British bent is to take the side of the underdog against uberdogs, who in these modern centuries are usually Utopiostalinists.