Stimulus Bill and Hyperinflation

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce instead of buying your yuppie coffee at starbucks for $3 you could buy one of the same quality for only $1.80quote>

That's the power of brand name recognition. People are wiling to pay more for something they're familiar with and know will be good, and the stuff that's just as good or better and cheaper but less well known doesn't sell as well.

And yes, Fourbucks Starbucks Coffee is a horrible business. Especially how they're all over the freaking place.

The verb "to starbucks" means "to place two identical or very similar things in close proximity to each other"

[hym 358]

just now the car industry in the USA is begging for money, do you honestly think that they'll be able to make the car industry stay there?quote>

GM, Ford, and Chrysler aren't looking to leave the country in droves.  They are simply trying to get labor costs and whatnot down to more reasonable levels.  You don't have to leave the US to accomplish that.

hym: do you think there is no alternative to buying groceries from 7-11 and tescoquote>

For some of us, there literally is no other alternative.  I'm one of those people.   So, yes, in my particular case, I think there is alternative to buying anywhere but the nationally recognized stores.

there are such a thing as non chain shops you know, ones owned by some guy who isn't spectacularly wealthy but not poor that kind of shop you tend to find them in cities now when they used to be everywherequote>

Whether non-chain shops are available to someone is highly questionable.

for example instead of buying your yuppie coffee at starbucks for $3 you could buy one of the same quality for only $1.80 quote>

The fact that someone buys coffee from Starbucks does not automatically make them a yuppie, or any other such thing.  For example, the local water sucks, so I usually have soda on hand to wash out the taste (or just avoid the local water entirely).  Used to be that I could go to the local Walmart and pick up a 2 liter bottle for $0.88.  Now they're charging $1.38 (which still isn't bad but I'm trying to live dirt cheap).  That's more expensive than a generic equivalent brand, so I tried out the generic.  Couldn't stand the taste of it, so I'm sticking with the brand name stuff.  I'm not doing it for appearance.  I'm doing it because I can't stand the taste of the generic knockoffs.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: hym

For some of us, there literally is no other alternative.  I'm one of those people.   So, yes, in my particular case, I think there is alternative to buying anywhere but the nationally recognized stores.

Whether non-chain shops are available to someone is highly questionable.quote>

It depends on where you live, of course. Local shops still thrive in cities but the suburbs are near completely overrun with chains.

For a glaring example, let's compare the video game stores where I go to school (Kingsbridge, The Bronx - urban) and where I live (Stamford, CT - suburban).

Kingsbridge: There's GameStop (national chain), Game and Comic Station (local store), and Game Depot (local store)

Stamford: There's two GameStops. That's it. Nothing that's not a national chain in town.

Another reason to live in a city.

The fact that someone buys coffee from Starbucks does not automatically make them a yuppie, or any other such thing. quote>

I'm going to put forward a motion that we cease using the word "yuppie", seeing as it's derogatory.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: hym

just now the car industry in the USA is begging for money, do you honestly think that they'll be able to make the car industry stay there?quote>

GM, Ford, and Chrysler aren't looking to leave the country in droves.  They are simply trying to get labor costs and whatnot down to more reasonable levels.  You don't have to leave the US to accomplish that.

hym: do you think there is no alternative to buying groceries from 7-11 and tescoquote>

For some of us, there literally is no other alternative.  I'm one of those people.   So, yes, in my particular case, I think there is alternative to buying anywhere but the nationally recognized stores.quote>

Who buys gorcieries at a 7-11? it's ok if you want to pay  4 dollars for a loaf of bread.
Here they are all conveniance stores, very little in the way of actual grocieries unlesss you want frozen burritos and hot dogs.

[TwelveToneMusic 0]

Frozen burritos and hotdogs... Mmm.

[duack 14]

I regret earlier when I said "Only governments should have savings not individuals". I meant to say, governments should save money during times of economic prosperity so that they can then spend it when there's a reccession. Also, individuals should have some savings, but I mean they shouldn't stockpile funds like governments should, they should spend most of it as spending is the sole contributor to the economy. Sure, investment makes a large part of growth, but if people weren't spending, there wouldn't be much to invest into, and savings in banks would go uninvested.

Anywho, on the topic of big vs small business, very simply, big businessess are better otherwise they wouldn't be big. They're only good now because they were the most competitive and good management have got them there. So I support big business, so long as its not a monopoly. Small businessess on the other hand are innefficient and often waste resources, because so many fail which means labour was wasted, people loss their assets and jobs in small businessess are less secure than jobs in big businessess. People just get the impression that big business jobs aren't safe because whenever they have a cut, its on the news, but when small businessess have  cut, only their employees know about it.

Btw, on the starbucks coffee argument, do they have a gloria jeans coffee's in the US? Or is starbucks a monopoly?

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: duack

Btw, on the starbucks coffee argument, do they have a gloria jeans coffee's in the US? Or is starbucks a monopoly?quote>

I used to see more of them, but they've mostly disappeared in the Chicago area to my knowledge. Pretty weak sauce, IMO. Getting busted for importing cocaine in the beans didn't help them any.

[Danlikebooks 6]

And yes, Fourbucks Starbucks Coffee is a horrible business. Especially how they're all over the freaking place.

The verb "to starbucks" means "to place two identical or very similar things in close proximity to each other"quote>

Ah, Starbucks.  I was setting up my parent's GPS and I hit the cafe/diner button on accident.  It showed this:

Starbucks .1 miles NW

Starbucks .3 miles SE

Starbucks .6 miles SW

Starbucks .6 miles NE

Caribou Coffee 1 miles N

Denise's Diner 1.2 miles E

Starbucks 1.3 miles W

Starbucks 1.4 miles N

And so on.  Its creeping me out.

Frozen burritos and hotdogs... Mmm. quote>

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Btw, on the starbucks coffee argument, do they have a gloria jeans coffee's in the US? Or is starbucks a monopoly? quote>

Starbucks is all over place, but it is not by any means a monopoly.  The next biggest competiter is Caribou Coffee... which makes 1/3 of what Starbucks does.

[saltandsauce 0]

actually small businesses are better at keeping jobs than big business, it's easier for the owner of a hairdressers to say "look you all know business is quiet right now, i either have to sack one of you or give you all a paycut which is it to be? and since employees know if this is true or not, they are more willing to take the paycut.

on the corner shop/ chain supermarket arguement, here you have a choice of both you can go to the corner shop for eggs, milk flour, sweets whatever since it's less hassle than driving to a supermarket. on a saturday you get the other things(these are the shopping habits of the Brits btw) your situation is an oligopoly of targets, 7-11s, Wal-Marts and a few other supermarket chains and oligopolies are not good either.

the reason supermarkets are cheaper is because they buy out suppliers or hammer them down as low as legally possible which isn't good for jobs. it's harder to work for yourself in the western world you always work for somebody else.

plus inflation IS bad to every level because it extracts more wealth and puts it in those who already have it it's not good for employment since it can lead to strikes (over under inflation pay rises) and generally people get poorer and thus borrow ergo our situation is inevitable

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: duack I meant to say, governments should save money during times of economic prosperity so that they can then spend it when there's a reccession. quote>

An interesting thought, although that's not how capitalism works (or at least it's not how it's supposed to work).

Really, the deciding point is whether or not you trust the government with the power and the responsibility to do that. I, for one, do not.

very simply, big businessess are better otherwise they wouldn't be big. quote>

There are upsides and downsdes to big businesses. There are upsides and downsides to everything.

They're only good now because they were the most competitive and good management have got them there. quote>

In theory, perhaps, but that's not always the case. Often, business rise to the top through throat cutting and back stabbing. Are they better than small business who play clean and honest but stay small? I think not.

Consider those "evil" corporations: EA, Wal-Mart, Starbucks....

Notice that they're all huge national or multi-national businesses.

Now, that's not to say that all big corporations are evil corporations (far from it), but all evil corporations are big corporations. Being large is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

The other problem is that being a big business is a self-preserving condition, due to the brand name recognition effect. Even if you got to the top by legitimately being the best, you don't have to stay the best to stay on top.

Small businessess on the other hand are innefficient and often waste resources, because so many fail which means labour was wasted, people loss their assets and jobs in small businessess are less secure than jobs in big businessess. quote>

Yeah, but the reason so many of those small businesses fail is because the big box chain stores run them out of town.

Something Home Depot, for instance, is notorious for: open a store with really low prices to outcompete the local mom and pop hardware stores and push them to close. Then, when they've all gone out of business, jack up the prices so people are now paying more than they were before at the mom and pop stores - and have no choice since the alternatives were all killed.

Tell me, do they really deserve to be on top? Are they better than the stores they replaced?

Here's a hint: the answer begins with "H" and ends with "ell no".

on the starbucks coffee argument, do they have a gloria jeans coffee's in the US? Or is starbucks a monopoly?quote>

I can't say I've ever heard of them. Must be/have been regional. Around here, the other big coffee place is Dunkin' Donuts... although it's cheaper and less sophisticated. For one thing, they sell donuts (sic), not pastries. For another, they sell their coffee in "small", "medium", and "large". Not "tall", "grande", and "venti" - which, if you translate the Italian (hey, if it's in Italian, it must be fancy, right?), just means "tall", "big", and "twenty". Doesn't sound so fancy now, does it?

Apparently the logic behind the name "venti" is that it's 20 ounces (that's 591 mL, for you metric folks).

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Danlikebooks

Starbucks is all over place, but it is not by any means a monopoly.  The next biggest competiter is Caribou Coffee... which makes 1/3 of what Starbucks does.quote>

Dunkin' Donuts sells far more coffee in the US than Starbuck's does; about 1 billion cups per year. They are priced about the same, but Dunkin's been losing ground for various reasons; like very poor service and an overwhelming number of franchise owners from other countries, which has alienated many longtime customers.

Originally posted by: Duke87

Now, that's not to say that all big corporations are evil corporations (far from it), but all evil corporations are big corporations. Being large is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

quote>

It only seems that way because we don't hear of the little companies that are evil. I've worked for several over the years that were as crooked as they come; but they weren't household names. Evil comes in all sizes, we only hear of supersize on the news and on the street. Hence, the perception of the 'evil large conglomerate'. Trust me, the corner store can be just as crooked, just on a smaller scale.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce actually small businesses are better at keeping jobs than big business, it's easier for the owner of a hairdressers to say "look you all know business is quiet right now, i either have to sack one of you or give you all a paycut which is it to be? and since employees know if this is true or not, they are more willing to take the paycut.quote>

Not necessarily.  That is assuming conditions that may or may not be true.

on the corner shop/ chain supermarket arguement, here you have a choice of both you can go to the corner shop for eggs, milk flour, sweets whatever since it's less hassle than driving to a supermarket. on a saturday you get the other thingsquote>

Or you could just go to the supermarket, get it all in one trip, and then not have to get groceries for the rest of the week.  Personally, I'd go with the latter.

your situation is an oligopoly of targets, 7-11s, Wal-Marts and a few other supermarket chainsquote>

Just for the record, in the US, 7-11 is more like a convenience store than a supermarket.  The few that I've been in didn't sell much more than automotive stuff, junk food products, bottled drinks, lottery tickets, and beer.  Additionally, a lot of Targets don't sell much if anything in the way of food.

Walmart isn't the only supermarket chain out there; it's just the most widely recognized one.  There are others like HEB, Kroger, Dierbergs, and Shnucks to name a few.  (Though the last two have fallen under the near dictatorial rule of local unions that are run by crazed lunatics.)

the reason supermarkets are cheaper is because they buy out suppliers or hammer them down as low as legally possiblequote>

Yes, that is part of why Walmart is cheaper, but it's actually only a small component.  Sam Walton (the founder) was a very driven business person who was never happy with the status quo; he always wanted to push it one step further.  When the first Walmart opened, Walton operated off really cheap stuff so his prices were lower.  But that wasn't enough.  Walton shopped the competition.  When he found that a competitor was using different shelving that customers liked better, Walton bought all new shelving to remove his competitor's advantage.  Meanwhile, Walton was doing research into how to reduce the waste of his company.  Walmart became obessed with reducing corporate waste and inefficiency, and this would prove to be a defining characteristic of Walmart's management for decades.  While others were content to simply keep the company running and the customers happy, Walmart was busy cutting itself to the bone to cut out all the waste it could.  When other companies realized that cutting corporate waste and inefficiency was a good idea, Walmart was already helping cut inefficiency out of its suppliers.  When other companies were cutting waste from their suppliers, Walmart was busy cutting waste out of the supplier's suppliers, and the suppliers of those suppliers.  While other companies were bemoaning the cost of their shipping and logistics departments, Walmart was busy building a new shipping and logistics paradigm.  (It's worth noting that Walmart's supply method was so successful that it eventually became the industry standard.)  Finally, when Walton and many of the earlier executives stepped down due to age, Walmart's management was put in the hands of many young executives who were even more agressive than their predecessors.  They had spent years being bred for their role, they knew how to play it, and they played with a tenacity that dwarfed that of the earlier executives.

So yes, buying more for less allowed Walmart to undercut the competition, but that has only been a small part of Walmart's business model.

plus inflation IS bad to every level because it extracts more wealth and puts it in those who already have it it's not good for employment since it can lead to strikes (over under inflation pay rises) and generally people get poorer and thus borrow ergo our situation is inevitablequote>

Minor inflation is a lot better than undercontrolled deflation.  People can cope with inflation if it's low enough and they are actually trying to cope for it.  Dealing with deflation is something that creeps out even the most seasoned economists.

[Easy Bakes 253]

I'll bet Mc Donalds sells a lot more coffee then starbucks does.

[saltandsauce 0]

hym: who's side are you on?  the consumers side or the corporate side

things work differently in the US i know but i will say to you "have you ever run out of ONE thing in the middle of the week" would you drive to some supermarket?

price shouldn't be such a huge decider since your stuck with two varieties both end up as chains

1, really overpriced, higher quality stuff

2, cheap bog standard stuff

say there is a mexican food restraunt, it sells tacos fajitas and variations thereof. it's the real deal with proper spices and decent food but is 30cents more expensive on average.

then taco bell moves in next door and sells it's "food" the trade will move from the good restraunt to the shop selling slime in a taco shell. it's a shop that its more "intermediate" as in-between variety 1 and 2

now hym i know you must be someone who loves the corporate model as if you actually owned a chain but at least let new competition start

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce hym: who's side are you on?  the consumers side or the corporate side quote>

Who said I was on a side?  IMO, taking an "us versus them" viewpoint is a very juvenile way of looking at the issue, and is only going to serve to perpetuate the problem, rather than actually attempting to solve anything.

"have you ever run out of ONE thing in the middle of the week" quote>

Yes, I have, but those are very rare instances.  I make it a rule to plan my shopping so nothing ever runs out at an inconvenient time.

would you drive to some supermarket?quote>

Why wouldn't I?  If in the event that I actually need something, why wouldn't I go out and go get it?  Especially considering there is a perfectly suitable place just a few miles away.  I can be over there, get my stuff, and be back in my dorm room in 45 minutes flat.

say there is a mexican food restraunt, it sells tacos fajitas and variations thereof. it's the real deal with proper spices and decent food but is 30cents more expensive on average.

then taco bell moves in next door and sells it's "food" the trade will move from the good restraunt to the shop selling slime in a taco shell. it's a shop that its more "intermediate" as in-between variety 1 and 2quote>

If the quality is worth the additional 30 cents, I'll buy from there.  If not, I'll buy from Taco Bell.  (See earlier comment about my experiment with a generic soda.)

now hym i know you must be someone who loves the corporate model as if you actually owned a chain but at least let new competition startquote>

That assumption is inaccurate and misses the driving criteria behind my decision.  I like systems that work (comes from my engineering tendencies).  I can't possibly care any less about what size they are.

And I have absolutely nothing wrong with competition.  Ignoring some fanboy tendencies, I welcome competition.  But be prepared to truly compete.  Most people make a half-hearted attempt and call that "competition."  That isn't going to cut it in the real world.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce hym: who's side are you on?  the consumers side or the corporate side quote>

If there were "sides", the corporation would lose, as the consumer votes with their wallet. Walmart succeeds because people shop there, despite the whining. If people didn't like shopping there, they wouldn't... and there wouldn't be a Walmart.

things work differently in the US i know but i will say to you "have you ever run out of ONE thing in the middle of the week" would you drive to some supermarket?

price shouldn't be such a huge decider since your stuck with two varieties both end up as chains

1, really overpriced, higher quality stuff

2, cheap bog standard stuffquote>

You're missing several parts of the equation; stores that just plain overprice regular goods,  which could be grocery stores like Jewel/Albertsons, or Dominicks/Safeway (the same chain has different names in different regions) or Macy's. Walmart and Target do sell some quality goods not made in China, but at more reasonable prices.

now hym i know you must be someone who loves the corporate model as if you actually owned a chain but at least let new competition start

quote>

Why would someone let competition start? The gov't has laws to insure it, but no businessman in his right mind would help his competition. That would be foolish, and not the kind of thing that's taught to Business majors in college. Business depends on common sense.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

OK, last comments on the coffee thing... I do pay about $1.80 for my coffee at Starbucks, when I don't make it at home. Satisfied, everyone? My coffee habits should not be fodder for those who spend their own money in ways I could criticize, I'm sure.quote>

 

The coffee thing is just an example but I can use different examples to make the point:  a "little bit" of money, if spent repeatedly, adds up.

Take gasoline, for example.   My ex-brother-in-law liked to laugh at how I went about buying gasoline.   It's fairly simple:  keep an eye on the prices along my normal route of travel and buy the gas at the cheapest price I see.   His point of view was, it's just a dime, what's the big deal?  My point of view was I used 500 gallons a year and, at a dime extra a gallon, that $50 spent for nothing.

Take debit card fees.   Some banks charge 50 cents per transaction.   Not a big deal, right?  Except that, at 4 transactions a week, 52 weeks a year, that $104 spent for nothing.

Take check cashing fees.  Let's say you make $100 a week and go to a place that charges $1.30 to cash your check.   $1.30 a week for 52 week $67.60 a year spent for nothing.

These things add up.   One of the tricks to not being broke is watching when you are spending little bits of money when you don't need to.

 

 

[PhantomOwl 3]

Hmm... I wonder if you would necessarily have to back the currency with a physical commodity that has a static or diminishing ultimate supply (like gold, silver, platinum... oil, etc). Those are things that industry uses, so wouldn't backing currencies with them mean that we'd have a lot less to work with? That would mess up the supply demand dynamic that establishes the values for those commodities.

Why not use something like kilowatt-hours? kWh are basically units of energy consumption. They're not things that stick around, unless you plug in a battery to charge. And aren't basically all goods and services just embodied energy? It takes energy to extract a resource, build a product and ship it, and all of the people working to make that product or service require energy for themselves. And the volume of economic activity in a country is generally proportional to energy consumption. If the idea of backing a currency is basically pegging it to a capital good, why not just follow the idea to its logical conclusion and peg it to the source of all goods?

Energy is defined by physics as the ability to do work, and in economic terms, money is embodied work, or the ability to purchase work. In the US, a kWh goes for around $0.10, depending on the source and demand.

[hamsterTK 93]

For $20 bucks you can go to Trader Joe's and buy the most upscale ground coffee, some creamer and flavored syrup for like 20 bucks. Divide this by 40 which is roughly what I get from one bag and that's 50 cents a cup. Maybe with filters and extra syrup it would cost 75 cents a cup

[duack 14]

An interesting thought, although that's not how capitalism works (or at least it's not how it's supposed to work). quote>

Well no, but pure capitalism is not a good idea as it creates extreme business cycles that go through periods of really fast growth, and very severe reccesions. So obviously governments have to intervene to slow down growth during times when its too fast, and then boost the economy when its slow.

Really, the deciding point is whether or not you trust the government with the power and the responsibility to do that. I, for one, do not.  quote>

Why not? Australia has been doing this quite successfully since the 80's. Obviously, election time can ruin this pattern but in Australia, the Reserve Bank (which sets the interest rates) is its own private company so that the government can't control it so at least interest rates are controlled by the level of economic activity. 

A point on the "evilness" of companies, I would go as far to say that big businessess are actually better than small businessess. My main reason for this is that big businessess are not going to do illegal activties, because anyone can squel and have them fined heavily. Plus, consumer watchdog groups and governing bodies are always watching the big players. Small businessess can get away with illegal activities here and there, and nobody would notice, as they are usually run by family and friends. Ive heard of some people who have had dodgy managers that underpaid them. These things wouldn't happen in a larger business, because then the manager would lose their job.

Also, big businessess dont always kill the competition by price fixing. Thats actually illegal. I know in australia, the ACCC watches business activities and makes sure there is competition in the market. Also, in a global economy, there are more businessess now than there ever have been. Sometimes increasing competition means alowing foreign competitiors to run shop locally, which is still a better option. This especially happens a lot in Australia, because its a small country and we dont have many big players so its either that or monopolies.

Someone earlier implied that made in China goods are poor quality, but Ill have to disagree. Basically, all goods made in China are very labour intensive, which means they take a lot of time to produce and we do not yet have the techonology to produce it by machine. As a result, it is produced in China were labour is cheap (for now). Take an ipod for example. It is produced mostly by hand, in China. If it was produced in lets say, Germany, Than it would still have to be produced by hand but a German's hands are just as flimsy as a Chinese person's hands, so it wouldn't make it any better quality, it would just cost more. Oh wait, I guess that makes it better . Also, labour intensive goods by nature tend to be things that break easily, like simple electronics. Especially now that electronics have so many more features and parts to it, there is a higher chance of it breaking because usually if one thing breaks, the whole damn thing stops working.

On an end note, skigeek mentioned he looks around for the cheapest petrol but have you heard of the annabelle principal? It takes into acount how much petrol you spend looking for cheap petrol, or in your case driving to the cheapest place from your route, and how much more you have to save to make up for the money lost looking for petrol. 
Now if you had a car accident looking for petrol...

[saltandsauce 0]

top gear illustrated how expensive a brand name costs, "a plate of sick ok , utterly worthless but if i put a BMW badge on it it's now worth £40"

there is one great example of how small businesses are better than big ones.

there  is a small ice cream shop in a nearby town and it is famous all over, it's the only reason people ever visit that town, now that shop is lucky since it's owned by the family and was set up in 1909. it has had a chance to build up and is doing well even now. but if it started now, some chain shop would open next door and dry it up and then sell it's gelatinated gum based crap as McDonalds

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: duack 

On an end note, skigeek mentioned he looks around for the cheapest petrol but have you heard of the annabelle principal? It takes into acount how much petrol you spend looking for cheap petrol, or in your case driving to the cheapest place from your route, and how much more you have to save to make up for the money lost looking for petrol. 

Now if you had a car accident looking for petrol... quote>

I think what she meant was she dont spend any more gas going to  the cheaper place.

 say Ski drives 15 miles to work every day along the hiway, she passes 8  exits on that route,

every exit has a gas staion or 2. exiting at exit 4 to get her gas takes no more gas then exiting at exit 7.But she saves that  10 cents/gallon at the cheaper station.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce top gear illustrated how expensive a brand name costs, "a plate of sick ok , utterly worthless but if i put a BMW badge on it it's now worth £40"

there is one great example of how small businesses are better than big ones.quote>

1) Small businesses don't have the resources to carry out projects that the larger companies do.  Years ago, GlaxoSmithKline ran an ad where a father was talking about a heart drug that had recently be developed.  When the father started work on that drug, his son wasn't even born.  When the drug was finally ready for the market, his son was just finishing up high school.  GlaxoSmithKline spent billions of dollars and waited roughly 20 years before that drug could become a reality.  Do you want family dying because there are no businesses with reserves large enough to afford financing drug research for 15 years that costs multi-billions of dollars?

2) Small businesses can have brand recognition also.  There are a couple of ice cream shops in St. Louis that are famous.  And I know that they charge more for their ice cream than the ice cream truck does.  If you'd like another example, there is a Mexican restaurant not far from where I live.  They serve good food, they know they serve good food, and they charge more for it.  Why?  Because they know everyone knows they sell good food, and will eat there regardless of the higher prices.  They've built name recognition, they're charging more for it, and all three of those companies are small businesses.

3) Brand name may cost more, but for some brands, their name is a indicator of quality (and I'm not talking the "Oh, it's made by GE, so it must be good." type).  I'm a PC hardware enthusiast.  When I get around to building my own computer, the power supply unit will bear the "PC Power and Cooling" sticker.  Why?  Because they make the best power supplies, bar none.  When I start buying some power tools, they will likely bear the name "RIGID."  Why?  Because they have built their reputation on having some of the best power tools available, and they are dead set on keeping that reputation.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

 

Originally posted by: duack 

On an end note, skigeek mentioned he looks around for the cheapest petrol but have you heard of the annabelle principal? It takes into acount how much petrol you spend looking for cheap petrol, or in your case driving to the cheapest place from your route, and how much more you have to save to make up for the money lost looking for petrol. 

Now if you had a car accident looking for petrol... quote>

I think what she meant was she dont spend any more gas going to  the cheaper place.

 say Ski drives 15 miles to work every day along the hiway, she passes 8  exits on that route,

every exit has a gas staion or 2. exiting at exit 4 to get her gas takes no more gas then exiting at exit 7.But she saves that  10 cents/gallon at the cheaper station.

quote>

 

Thank you, EB, that was what I meant.  The gas stations around my place and around my parents' place are more expensive than the stations in between.   So I stop and get gas along the way.    It's not difficult.

I use less gas now that I'm retired and have a Prius but, being retired, I can't afford to throw money away for no reason.

 

 

 

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: duackWhy not? quote>

I generally have trouble trusting the government with anything and would rather power be kept out of its hands as much as practically possible.

Simply because if you have too much power in the hands of too few people, that power corrupts and it's very easy and very tempting to misuse or abuse it.

Take the whole bailout thing for instance: who gets to decide what companies deserve or need what amount of money and who will get how much? What's to stop politicians from giving a little extra to companies that supported their campaign and agree with their ideologies, and/or giving less or none to companies that supported their opponents and disagree with them? What's to stop them from throwing money into black holes by spending on things which accomplish nothing practical but look nice and win votes (which happens all. the. forking. time.)?

Solution: spread the power out. Leave things up to the individual as much as possible. A person who has power only over themselves won't be corrupted like a person who has power over millions will.

big businessess are not going to do illegal activties, because anyone can squel and have them fined heavily. Plus, consumer watchdog groups and governing bodies are always watching the big players. quote>

Whether they get away with or not, shady dealings happen in big business all the time. And often, their offenses are things which are perfectly legal but are nevertheless immoral or detrimental to society. In which case, calling them out on it solves nothing.

Small businessess can get away with illegal activities here and there, and nobody would notice, as they are usually run by family and friends. Ive heard of some people who have had dodgy managers that underpaid them. quote>

True, but then again, when they do it, they only hurt a few people as opposed to thousands.

And sometimes, people do notice and they do get in trouble. So it's not like they're completely immune to scrutiny, either.

These things wouldn't happen in a larger business, because then the manager would lose their job. quote>

And yet, they do. Just look at Wal-Mart if you want an example of dodgy management and employee abuse. It's been noticed, it's been publicised, but nothing's been done about it since we don't want to give up the ability to buy crap dirt cheap.

It's just the way people work. You tell them "Walmart abuses and underpays its employees" and they say "that's horrible, something should be done!". Then you tell them that if something's done that all the stuff in the stores will become more expensive since the money for those extra wages and benefits won't just come out of thin air, and all of a sudden they're not so outraged anymore.

Isn't consumerism awesome?

Also, big businessess dont always kill the competition by price fixing. Thats actually illegal.quote>

True, but that doesn't always stop them. Especially since it can be hard to prove in court.

Someone earlier implied that made in China goods are poor quality, but Ill have to disagree. Basically, all goods made in China are very labour intensive, which means they take a lot of time to produce and we do not yet have the techonology to produce it by machine. As a result, it is produced in China were labour is cheap (for now). Take an ipod for example. It is produced mostly by hand, in China. If it was produced in lets say, Germany, Than it would still have to be produced by hand but a German's hands are just as flimsy as a Chinese person's hands, so it wouldn't make it any better quality, it would just cost more. Oh wait, I guess that makes it better .quote>

The working conditions issue aside, yes, stuff from China tends to be of inferior quality. Not because Chinese workers are necessarily any less skilled than workers in Western countries (although sometimes they definitely are, since training is often sparser), but because companies there tend to be more than willing to do shady things to turn a profit, or reduce the quality of things to make them cheaper. Remember that whole melamine thing?

skigeek mentioned he quote>

Notice something: Ski's label is "Cyber Mom". That ought to give you a hint as to which pronoun to use.

skigeek mentioned he looks around for the cheapest petrol but have you heard of the annabelle principal? It takes into acount how much petrol you spend looking for cheap petrol, or in your case driving to the cheapest place from your route, and how much more you have to save to make up for the money lost looking for petrol. quote>

The point was, she doesn't actively look for cheap gas. She, as she's driving along the way she would drive regardless, makes note of prices and waits for a cheaper station as opposed to just pulling into the first one she sees. So the amount she spends looking for a better bargain is none.

Usually, if you're familiar with the area, you probably know which station is going to have the cheapest gas since while the prices themselves shift, which one is highest and which one is lowest usually doesn't change much. There are four gas stations near where I am right now: Mobil at Broadway and 251st Street, Sunoco at Broadway and 240th, Lukoil at Broadway and 238th, and BP at Broadway and 234th. For at least the past year, Lukoil has been the cheapest of them. So, I don't need to look for the cheapest gas, I already know where it is.

Still, sometimes you have to draw the line as to what you'll go through to save money. In Stamford (CT) the cheapest gas in town is usually at Shell on Summer Street, and so my father tends to like going there (he nearly passes right by it on his way to work, so it's no major detour), and my mother is by there fairly often, too (Summer St is a main drag), and she also has been known to use it. I, however, don't like getting gas there. Why? Well, it's no big secret that it's the cheapest gas in town and so if you go there you'll usually find no pumps available and have to wait for someone to pull away. Me, I have no patience and I'll gladly pay a little extra if it means being able to pull right up as opposed to having to wait on line first.

[duack 14]

Im not American, so I dont know much about Walmart, but the giant budget stores we have here generally treat their employees better than the small businessess, because if they didn't it would be easy for the government to prosecute them.

With the government controlling the money to even out business cycles, the point Im making is that the government wont spend it on bailouts. It would just be given out to the general public when they need it most. Kind of like compulsory savings and payouts that create optimal economic conditions. Plus, democracy prevents one person from having all the power. You can't just have complete free markets because then we'd see inequality like that in the 1800's. 

In regards to China, you can't let a few bad apples, or media articles, contradict economic theory. I take it your not an economist, or if you are then you're against globalization for some reason. The theory of relative advantage states that China would be better at producing these goods than a developed country.

Also, price fixing is very easy to detect. All the governing body would have to present are the prices over time, the date the competitior went bankrupt, and evidence that consumer demand for the product never rose, or that production costs havn't risen since then and the company would get prosecuted. Collaboration on the other hand is hard to detect.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: duack

Collaboration on the other hand is hard to detect.

quote>

I think you mean collusion, and it's only detectable if someone squeals. But it happens all the time, most often by food companies historically, if I'm not mistaken.

[hym 358]

Also, price fixing is very easy to detect.quote>

Not so. It may be easy to prove where you live, but in the US, it's much harder. The amount of information needed, and the legal requirements that must be met so the authorities can get that information, render it largely impossible to successfully prove that there was intent on the part of the business in question.

All the governing body would have to present are the prices over time, the date the competitior went bankrupt, and evidence that consumer demand for the product never rose, or that production costs havn't risen since then and the company would get prosecuted.quote>

That isn't enough to prove intent. All that proves is that the company in question undercut it's competitor (which is perfectly illegal) and then raised its prices after the competitor was a non-issue (which by itself is likewise not illegal). Sure, it may look shady, but it doesn't prove any wrongdoing.

[saltandsauce 0]

something economists don't seem to grasp is that "better" is not the same as "cheaper"

[hym 358]

It depends on the frame of reference. In terms of quality, "better" does not equal "cheaper." However, that isn't the viewpoint that duack was speaking from. Assuming I have the right term, he was talking about something economists know as "comparative advantage." When looking from that standpoint, "better" often is the same as "cheaper."