>>Do you think that supermarkets selling house brands hurts consumers?
Don't dismiss it.
If a $10 store brand shirt lasts you 5 washes, then you were hurt by not buying a $20 brand one that lasts you years. (granted that you may not have $20 at the same time you need a T-shirt)
Same for food items: store brands might be xx cents cheaper but lesser taste, quality and nutrition might put you in red.
If I search for Coca Cola and Amazon shows me "Amazon-Cola" and I ultimately scroll down and see Coca Cola -- no big deal. If Amazon decides to not sell Coca Cola at all, I'm still not buying "Amazon Cola." If you're shopping for name brands already, there really isn't much discovery necessary. If you aren't, then the competing brands should do something to differentiate themselves -- lower prices, higher quality, better advertising perhaps. If I'm buying a generic product to begin with, I don't particularly care what "store brand" it happens to be. And, if we want to talk manufacturing -- the "brands" are all that could be "hurt" -- the actual manufacturing of the product still happens, regardless of who sticks their label on it. A wheat farmer doesn't particularly care what brand the distributor sticks on the final package. He's still getting paid the prevailing price of wheat.
Do you think that supermarkets selling house brands hurts consumers?