The New York Times has a news article about what it says is a decline in the number of Korean grocers in New York City. Toward the end there is a passage about competition: "Whole Foods, Fresh Direct and pharmacy chains have cut into his profits, he said. The fruit carts that City Hall has helped proliferate, including one across Broadway from his store, undercut his prices."
I'm always a believer that competition needn't be zero-sum, but this is an example of how well-intentioned government action (or even private charitable action, since the city's fruit cart program is aided by private donations) can have unintended adverse consequences. To some degree, you can't fault the city or the donors for the fruit cart program, because part of what they were doing was eliminating an existing government-imposed barrier to entry by increasing the limited number of city-required permits for fruit carts. And if the goal is to get people to eat more fruit, lowering prices is one way to do that. I'm a descendant of New York City street fruit vendors, so I certainly have a built-in reservoir of sympathy and goodwill for them. But if you are a Korean grocer, or a grocer of any origin, for that matter, who has been working long hours and investing your own capital for years to build a family business, it can't be too pleasant to have City Hall backing your competition. And as a matter of justice, you have to wonder if it's fair to tax the Korean grocer and use the money to help his competition.
And the Times article doesn't even mention the city's Greenmarket farmer's market program, in which two of the Times reporter's relatives are involved, and which also compete with Korean markets in the fruit, vegetable, bread, milk, juice, and cheese departments.
