The Green Party has unveiled its latest “transformational” policy: nationalising 120 supermarkets at a cost of $2.8 billion. According to their pitch:
"Two companies control what almost everyone in this country eats, and they take about a million dollars a day in excess profit out of our shopping baskets.
This article examines the Greens’ claim of “excess profit,” the actual profitability of New Zealand supermarkets, and the ideological logic behind nationalisation — a logic that has far more to do with Marxist economics than market reality.
The Greens’ Narrative: Excess Profit Everywhere
The Greens’ argument rests on three pillars:
- Two companies “control” the food supply.
- They extract “excess profit.”
- Nationalisation will fix it.
The second claim, however, collapses under scrutiny.
What Do Supermarkets Actually Earn?
The Commerce Commission’s own market study, the report the Greens frequently cite, contains a crucial limitation:
"Our study does not look at other factors affecting grocery prices such as tax, freight, labour costs, inflation, or seasonality.
In other words: It is not a profitability study. It is a competition study.
The closest thing to real profitability data comes from Westpac’s research:
- EBITDA margin: ~4%
- International comparison: ~3%
Total grocery sales in 2021 were $26 billion.
A 4% margin yields:
- $1.04 billion in operating profit
- The Commission’s “desired” margin (~3%) would yield $780 million
That is not the Greens’ claim of “$1 million per day” (≈$712,000 per day). It is less than a third of that.
Even if one accepts the Greens’ framing, the numbers simply do not match their rhetoric.
The Greens’ Problem: Not All Supermarket Goods Are Food
The Greens’ pitch implies supermarkets are extracting “excess profit” from what “everyone eats.”
But supermarkets sell:
- cleaning products
- toiletries
- pet food
- alcohol
- chocolate
- stationery
- hardware
- cosmetics
- and yes, meat — which many Greens would happily regulate out of existence
Their argument is built on a category error.
The Ideological Engine Behind Nationalisation
So, if the numbers don’t support nationalisation, what does?
The answer is ideological, not economic.
Modern Green economics is a fusion of:
- Classical Marxism (private property = oppression)
- Neo‑Marxism (corporate structures = systemic harm)
- Critical Theory (power dynamics override market dynamics)
- Intersectional Marxism (moral narratives replace material analysis)
- Profit is inherently suspect.
- Private ownership is inherently exploitative.
- Centralised control is inherently virtuous.
- Nationalisation is inherently “justice.”
Profit is not being measured. Profit is being moralised.
The Nationalisation Logic: If Profit Exists, Abolish It
The Greens’ argument follows a familiar Marxist pattern:
- Identify a sector with visible profit.
- Declare the profit “excessive.”
- Claim the profit is “extracted” from the people.
- Propose nationalisation as the moral solution.
- energy
- housing
- banking
- transport
- healthcare
- and now groceries
The Real Consequences of Nationalising Supermarkets
Nationalisation would:
- require billions in taxpayer funds
- eliminate private investment
- politicise supply chains
- reduce innovation
- create bureaucratic rationing
- turn grocery retail into a state‑run monopoly
- expose food supply to political cycles
- and inevitably lead to shortages, inefficiencies, and ideological meddling
Every one.
The Greens’ Policy Is Not About Groceries — It’s About Power
The Greens’ supermarket nationalisation plan is not a response to:
- competition issues
- supply chain issues
- inflation
- freight costs
- labour costs
- tax burdens
- or actual profitability
The Greens do not want cheaper groceries. They want State control of groceries.
They do not want more competition. They want centralised ownership.
They do not want market reform. They want market abolition.
This is not economics. It is political theology.
Conclusion: The Numbers Don’t Justify Nationalisation — But Ideology Does
The Greens’ claim of “excess profit” is not supported by:
- Commerce Commission data
- Westpac analysis
- international comparisons
- or basic arithmetic
Nationalisation is not a policy response. It is a doctrinal reflex.
The Greens’ supermarket plan is not about groceries. It is about the abolition of private property — one sector at a time.
And as always, the numbers are optional. The ideology is mandatory.
Supermarket Profit — Claim vs Reality
What the Greens say vs what the numbers show.
Click to view
The Greens’ “excess profit” narrative collapses under basic arithmetic. Actual margins are modest, the Commission didn’t study profit, and supermarket revenue isn’t all food. The nationalisation push is ideological — not evidence‑based.
Various Sources
Growing supermarket profit margins are a ‘red flag’, Commissioner says | interest.co.nz
Supermarkets’ super profits – where’s the fair pricing for
The ‘audacity’ of supermarkets | interest.co.nz
Supermarkets making profits of around $1m a day; Govt announces steps to lower prices
Market-study-into-the-retail-grocery-sector-Draft-report-Executive-summary-29-July-2021.pdf
Supermarkets set to receive first annual report card
Research-Papers_Grocery-retailing_bulletin.pdf
Election 2026: Greens promise to nationalise 120 supermarkets, costing $2.8 billion – NZ Herald
Supermarkets’ super profits – where’s the fair pricing for
The ‘audacity’ of supermarkets | interest.co.nz
Supermarkets making profits of around $1m a day; Govt announces steps to lower prices
Market-study-into-the-retail-grocery-sector-Draft-report-Executive-summary-29-July-2021.pdf
Supermarkets set to receive first annual report card
Research-Papers_Grocery-retailing_bulletin.pdf
Election 2026: Greens promise to nationalise 120 supermarkets, costing $2.8 billion – NZ Herald
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.