EPTSales should be Illegal - Page 2
| Blogs > FiWiFaKi |
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9159 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On December 28 2013 12:51 itsjustatank wrote: having perfect information that 300 dollar jeans are the same as 20 dollar jeans won't prevent people from buying the 300 dollar jeans. not everyone has the same perceived form of rationality that you may think is optimal. and if people are going to be dumb with their money, so be it. Two cars, completely alike. At one dealership it costs $20,000 after all the extra fee's, and at one it costs $25,000 before fees but there's a sale on it right now so it costs $18,000 before fees. Which one do you buy? The answer is, you don't know. I agree that having perfect information will solve every problem, but it will solve many, and I would argue most. In my opinion, people buy 300 jeans because they don't think it's the same. The Diesel jeans supposedly last longer, because they are better raw denim or whatever they last longer, they fit your body better through continuous wear, not to mention you wear a brand that adds value to a good for some people that way. I'm not saying this is true, but these are the reasons that lead people to buying expensive jeans - whether you think its stupid or not. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On December 28 2013 12:56 sam!zdat wrote: lol that's one of the dumber things I've heard this week You haven't really provided much of a counter argument to anything provided so it's not easy to have a discussion with you. | ||
|
MichaelDonovan
United States1453 Posts
| ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9159 Posts
| ||
|
KaiserChuck
United States79 Posts
These days you'll find manufacturers don't really have much of a say in final pricing of consumer goods, most of the power lies with retailers - especially the mega-national or international corps whose goal is often to force a sales dependency upon the manufacturer in order to dictate more favorable terms. I'm aware of a half-dozen or so smaller regional manufacturers that have been forced out of business in the past decade due to this kind of leverage from a certain ruthless retail chain. Once a retailer constitutes more than 30% of your overall footprint they can fuck with your business hard. These types of sales simply result from retailers' strategies in manipulating the buying habits of consumers, in order to hit quarterly public numbers or internal, departmental goals, or to achieve conditions from the manufacturers themselves. Oftentimes the short-term profit is only a secondary goal; it's more important to move inventory in order to hit a contract milestone and break into a new product pricing tier for the next quarter. The revenue is, of course, welcome; it's just that a contract price-break can be worth millions more. All that being said, I don't see manufacturers regaining the power to control prices anytime soon. That leaves door number two, government. I think the question of putting a panel of bureaucrats in charge of complex economic matters should be fairly obvious to anyone who has kept up with fiscal policy of the past three or four decades. Also, barring shipping, every fee listed in your second post come from government regulation of some form or another, be it sales/carbon taxes or cost-recovery fees. So the solution is more government control? Meh. | ||
|
DeltaSigmaL
United States205 Posts
1) no sales 2) one price 1) you argue that sales create inefficiency, and that this inefficiency is caused by a lack of consumer info. To begin with, if information can create "inefficiency" you could say that about any type of product info. Right now you are referring to price, as in "what is the price of x". With no sales you hope that this question will be removed, increasing "efficiency". However a product has many aspects beyond price. Brand image, product quality, attributes etc. all need to be evaluated. A case could be made that products with too much info "#1 in town vs best around" decrease efficiency as well. If your argument is against inefficiency, then you sales are just a small part of your target If you are against sales entirely, then take the case of a new store opening on the block. To promote itself it has a sale. Sale attracts customers, informing them of stores existence, maybe existence of new goods. Perhaps a company would like customers to try a product, so it has a sale. Both cases only see to create consumer awareness where none existed before. Also consider a firesale. Maybe a company has had a huge flop, hp touch, and needs to liquidate asap. The only way is through a sale, since the value of these things sink as they sit in inventory and no one will touch them at market rates. This is efficient as well, the company takes less of a hit, and consumers buy goods whose benefit to them was less than the market price, but more than the firesale price. oneprice: this is probably bad because it'll hide things like taxes. Price can be jacked up, and instead of blaming associated tax, you'll blame evil corporation. Happens on airline tickets (i think) | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On December 28 2013 13:02 MichaelDonovan wrote: And who do you expect to actually do the banning? The government? Do you want the government to tell companies how much they're allowed to charge for their products, and how often they're allowed to change the price? That seems a little odd to me. A regulating body created by the government. The government would not be telling the companies how much they can charge. There would be a law put into place to ensure there are no sales or hidden pricing, and a Market Surveillance Administrator to enforce it. It happens and it has happened in many industries throughout history as well as today. It really is not as foreign of a concept as it appears. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9159 Posts
On December 28 2013 13:04 FiWiFaKi wrote: A regulating body created by the government. The government would not be telling the companies how much they can charge. There would be a law put into place to ensure there are no sales or hidden pricing, and a Market Surveillance Administrator to enforce it. It happens and it has happened in many industries throughout history as well as today. It really is not as foreign of a concept as it appears. so. more government. in fact, central planning. | ||
|
DeltaSigmaL
United States205 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On December 28 2013 13:02 itsjustatank wrote: no, they derive more value out of the brand and feeling cool about the brand, and perhaps even about flaunting their money because of how much money they spent. use-value is funny in that in the way our system works, one can be divorced from merely considering goods valuable based on what you get out of them, but also on the intangibles. Exactly, but that feel good feeling of looking rich to other people is worth the $300 to them. So yes, they are paying more, but they are getting extra. (You or I may not get extra from buying $300 jeans, but they would, so whatever) | ||
|
KaiserChuck
United States79 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On December 28 2013 13:06 DeltaSigmaL wrote: you're right that the concept isn't entirely foreign. For example, it's illegal to take a 100$ good, raise the price to 200$, then cut it back to 100$ and claim 50% off. lol how do you establish the exchange value of the thing? People do this all the time. Ever gotten a guitar center catalog? | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On December 28 2013 13:06 DeltaSigmaL wrote: you're right that the concept isn't entirely foreign. For example, it's illegal to take a 100$ good, raise the price to 200$, then cut it back to 100$ and claim 50% off. However this is what sales practically do. Mall clothing stores have a sale practically every weekend (friday-sunday)... And is that not essentially the same thing as what you just mentioned? On December 28 2013 13:06 itsjustatank wrote: so. more government. in fact, central planning. Yes, more government. I guess more government just means more bad to most people. I suppose I can't what you will think about that... But the government does good too. | ||
|
DeltaSigmaL
United States205 Posts
On December 28 2013 13:08 sam!zdat wrote: lol how do you establish the exchange value of the thing? People do this all the time. Ever gotten a guitar center catalog? its a process, but usually it involves reporting such action to consumer affairs, then they send somebody. paperwork.... and ya. I mean, probably doesnt happen for collectors goods, but if you're doing that on a can of tomato soup, ya that's a fine. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9159 Posts
| ||
|
DeltaSigmaL
United States205 Posts
On December 28 2013 13:11 FiWiFaKi wrote: + Show Spoiler + However this is what sales practically do. Mall clothing stores have a sale practically every weekend (friday-sunday)... And is that not essentially the same thing as what you just mentioned? On December 28 2013 13:06 itsjustatank wrote: so. more government. in fact, central planning. Yes, more government. I guess more government just means more bad to most people. I suppose I can't what you will think about that... But the government does good too. That's true, but their "normal" price is inflated, so they can't be nailed like that. Like i said, JC penny went with no inflation "normal" pricing allowing their "normal" to be lower, but not lower than a sale. Items on sale often are sold for loss, with retail simply trying to attract customers to show up, perhaps purchase something else (more expensive). You could even say that those who only buy sales save more money than if no sales were available ever. edit: infact, you can prove that. JCP prices were lower, but not lower than items on sale, meaning that if all retail gave up sales, JCP pricing is roughly what you'd get, aka prices higher than sales pricing. | ||
| ||
