Dollar-stores overcharge customers while promising low prices

Well, why don't the ethical non-predators open up shops in economically disadvantaged areas and offer non-predatory prices? The margins must be huge if they really are predators.

The loot is already spoken for by complements and embedded in real estate prices, stock prices, etc.

Hobbes arguments can rationalize any Nash Equilibrium.

Isn't it just the predators that care about stock price to enrich themselves? Couldn't a co-op exist which offered non-predatory pricing and didn't try to maximize their stock price constantly? And real estate in destitute rural areas is generally dirt cheap.

Of course this could be offered. But, no one wants to do it because it's a thankless job. And if you're going to do a thankless job, you'd probably rather get paid a lot of money to do it than very little

Good question, was on my mind too. The problem I could see is Walmart style - the predator will beat the prices of the non-predator down until the non-predator goes out of business, then raise their prices again.

They can do this because they are operating in other areas with predatory prices, giving them the ability to operate at a loss, and relying on the fact that at least some of those areas are not being challenged by non-predators.

Everybody seems to be playing the game right in this scenario. Interesting to try to come up with a good counter.

Does this actually happen? If a community opened up a co-op shop that started eating into the revenue of a dollar store, would the dollar store company try to fight back, or would they just exit that market?

Yes, I guess well capitalize companies could offer unrealistically low prices, but on the other hand, any kind of co-op or community driven organization has the benefit of not needing the margins. Dollar store investors are there to make a buck, if their capital isn't getting reasonable returns will ultimately exit the business and move somewhere else.

You're ducking the argument. The loot from predatory practices is quickly absorbed not just by the single player perpetuating them, but by their complements in the economic network -- complements which a competitor would have to deal with on the loot-enriched terms, which turn launders exploitation into a "necessity" and transforms any charity into a weakness that will ensure your replacement. That's what Nash Equilibrium is, and it's an elementary result of game theory that Nash Equilibrium can lie very far from the global optimum. Even the global minimum can be a Nash Equilibrium. We should aspire to do better.

Cooperatives do not get rid of the net negative cycle. Ultimately whatever the benevolent entity ends up being, it becomes a contest of who can bear to lose more money.

Cooperatives distribute the losses but it is still a money pit.