Tariff policies at the federal level appear to be changing by the minute, and economists say that creates a lot of uncertainty for businesses. The operator of a handful of small grocery stores in South Dakota says policymakers already have a tool that can give smaller firms a leg up against corporate chains.
The latest trade war under the Trump administration is stirring debate about whether tariffs are effective. A South Dakota business says a 1936 antitrust law should be embraced to boost the fortunes of smaller domestic companies.
The White House says its aggressive approach with tariffs could lead to more American manufacturing and production. Still, skeptics say it would take too long, forcing businesses and financial markets to grapple with uncertainty for now.
R-F Buche runs six grocery stores in South Dakota, and he feels the longstanding Robinson-Patman Act isn’t getting enough attention. The Robinson-Patman Act is a United States federal law passed in 1936 that prohibits price discrimination in interstate commerce. Its primary goal is to prevent large buyers from gaining an unfair advantage over smaller competitors through discriminatory pricing practices. The Act was created to protect small businesses from being undercut by larger chains that might be able to negotiate lower prices from supplier.
He suggests larger retailers often get a bigger price break, while he has to charge his customers more money for the same item. During the final days of the Biden administration, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) moved to revive the law in some cases. But the FTC’s ideological balance has shifted to a Republican majority, leaving questions about whether this law will sit dormant again.
Some think tanks feel the law is redundant in the current regulatory landscape and could actually harm small businesses and their customers if widely enforced. But Buche says businesses like his have little advantage, noting some of his stores are situated near the poorest Native American communities in the country.
Policy experts say the Robinson-Patman Act became weaker around the 1970s when lobbyists convinced lawmakers it was hurting competition. But backers of reviving it consistently say there’s been too many corporate mergers since then, and that fairer prices for smaller chains could give customers more choices.
