If you see someone stealing food, no you didn’t

If you see someone shoving six bottles of whisky in their coat, yes you did.

There’s a difference between stealing for survival and stealing for profit.

Well I’ll draw the line at alcohol which I see as a public negative. But chocolate?

Can you honestly tell me that the price increases and volume decreases for it have yielded in a better quality product? Someone has to rebalance that scale if the food regulators wont.

This isn’t people stealing chocolate because it’s expensive, it’s people stealing chocolate, cuts of meat, and alcohol etc. to resell. They aren’t ‘rebalancing’ anything, they are organised groups who are stealing in bulk to make a profit. This actually increases prices of those goods for everyone else.

Surely they’re reselling at far lower prices than they’re listed in stores (otherwise who would buy their stolen goods), which forces then the official price for that product to go down in the area, in order to retain shoppers.

For example, there was a time when my cornershop guy was selling 12 packs of Coke for £3.50. I didn’t ask where he got them, but I definitely stopped going to my local Sainsbury’s for a while (which is currently selling 4 packs for £4.50).

The thief got a cut, the cornershop guy got a cut, and the savings were passed on to me. The retailer’s stockholders lost some minor value.

I fail to see how this is not a rebalancing of prices.

Because the targets of theft then have to invest in more security while making less money, raising prices for customers.

The shop that bought the item legitimately has to pay the full price of the item from the manufacturer / distributor. They have to sell the item at cost + VAT + a percentage to make money

The thief can sell at whatever price they like because they have no costs and don’t pay VAT on the sale.

The second shop has to sell the item at the new cost + new VAT + a percentage to make money. They save twice, on the cost of the item and the amount of VAT they pay.

The people who lose from this are:

The legitimate business owners who pay full price and make nothing.

Legitimate customers who pay increased prices

If the legitimate shop goes out of business then the whole system fails. Your cheap coke is being subsidised by honest customers.

The thieves aren’t taking all their warehouse stock and leaving the sales people on their knees tearing their shirts and cursing the sky.

We’re talking 1-2% maximum shrinkage from theft. In the 90s where theft was rampant, such losses were part of doing business, they just soaked it up.

I can believe them upping their security somewhat might incur some cost, but not to the degree of price inflation that we’re seeing