Calumet files Chapter 7

On 24/03/2014 14:11, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:07:11 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

This isn't a failure of capitalism. It's a failure of a few
individuals to successfully manage a business in a changing market.
Other capitalists reacted more intelligently to the changing market
and provided competition that Calumet couldn't keep up with.

Actually I think it is a failure of capitalism in that people these days
buy the cheapest online and screw over the honest dealers. High streets
are now increasingly half empty or worse still occupied by charity shops
selling tat and payday loan sharks stolen goods.

That's a shift, not a failure of capitalism. The online sources are
capitalistic ventures. Capitalism means an individual can set up shop
on the high street or online. Capitalism allows that venture to set
pricing in such a way to attract the business that would otherwise go
to competitors.

It may be that bricks and mortar stores are now intrinsically doomed.
Click and collect catalogue style stores may be as close as it gets.

Amazon and Google are a pretty interesting examples in the UK with
incredibly complex tax avoidance schemes in place to avoid contributing
anything to the running of the country. The playing field is not level!

There is nothing inherently "honest" about setting high prices for
goods, and nothing "dishonest" about undercutting high prices.

But there is something inherently dishonest about pretend customers
going and exploiting the expertise of the handful of remaining bricks
and mortar stores and then buying their stuff online for slightly less.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...

Your "barest definition" of capitalism is too bare. Capitalism relies on
the
creation of corporate entities that can act as though they were
individuals or
groups of individuals, while insulating their owners from much of the
financial liability that individuals would have to assume. In effect, the
people strike a bargain with a corporation's owners, based on the
assumption
(the hope, really) that in the long run the societal benefit (in economic
activity, jobs created, etc.) will be worth the risk.

There are two major problems with the way capitalism is practiced today
(at
least in the U.S. and probably elsewhere):

- Governments are far too reluctant to pull the plug on corporations that
no
longer serve the public interest well enough to justify their existence.
Sometimes a corporation behaves so egregiously that the government that
issued
its corporate charter should simply cancel it and revert the corporation
to a
proprietorship or an unlimited partnership. The company's stock price
would
probably fall to near (or even below) zero, but the owners would have had
it
coming. And the threat of such an action would be a powerful motivator to
promote good corporate citizenship.

- Corporations, at least in the U.S., have routinely (and almost always
successfully) promoted, almost as a constitutional right, the notion that
governments have no business competing with the private sector, even in
cases
where the latter are behaving in a monopolistic manner and screwing the
public. But in fact the U.S. Constitution favors no economic system over
any
other. Even socialism or communism would be constitutional, though I'm not
advocating either system. What I am suggesting is that public-sector
corporations should be created to compete with the private sector whenever
the
latter exhibits a self-interested indifference to the public good. And
where
is it written that even good corporations should be insulated from any
form of
public ownership? Corporations aren't reluctant to seek public "bailouts",
willingly trading bonds or ownership stakes to get them. But when things
turn
good, they howl if the Government wants to keep its stake long enough to
make
a profit on the public's investment.

Enough ranting. It's not that I'm an actual economist or anything. :^)

Bob

The U.S. Constitution does not give any authority to the federal government
to compete with private business. The founders were distrustful of
government, and rightly so. The Constitution is designed to LIMIT the power
of the federal government.

In article , Martin Brown
wrote:

It may be that bricks and mortar stores are now intrinsically doomed.

unless they change their business model, they are doomed. they need to
offer something extra to justify their higher prices or stop ripping
off the customer. some stores understand this. others don't.

Click and collect catalogue style stores may be as close as it gets.

Amazon and Google are a pretty interesting examples in the UK with
incredibly complex tax avoidance schemes in place to avoid contributing
anything to the running of the country. The playing field is not level!

there's nothing wrong with legally avoiding taxes. in fact, it's
encouraged. if you don't like the laws that allow that, then try to get
them changed.

if you have evidence that they are illegally avoiding taxes, then you
should notify the appropriate agencies.

There is nothing inherently "honest" about setting high prices for
goods, and nothing "dishonest" about undercutting high prices.

But there is something inherently dishonest about pretend customers
going and exploiting the expertise of the handful of remaining bricks
and mortar stores and then buying their stuff online for slightly less.

there is something inherently dishonest about charging high prices
without offering anything in return, ripping off the customers. why
would anyone want to shop in a store where they get ripped off?

and the difference is not slightly less. it's a *lot* less online.

if stores were competitive, then the customers wouldn't need to test
drive a product in a store and buy online for less. stop blaming the
customers. they're not the problem.

In article , nospam
wrote:

there is something inherently dishonest about charging high prices
without offering anything in return, ripping off the customers. why
would anyone want to shop in a store where they get ripped off?

Disagree. Stupid, but not dishonest. Problem is perception of value. I,
personally, perceive a lot of value in simply being able to hold the
product in my hands before purchase, and have my questions answered by
a (presumed) expert. Unfortunately, customers have overwhelmingly voted
they place little-to-no value on that, by purchasing elsewhere.
Dishonesty comes in on the customers side, where they TAKE that value
(showroom demonstration) without paying for it (making the purchase at
the dealer offering it).

and the difference is not slightly less. it's a *lot* less online.

Retail stores have an almost impossible task in being "competitive."
Manufacturers reward large mail order resellers with vast quantity
discounts. Even by ordering quarterly, rather than monthly, and co-op
buying with other small resellers, I typically couldn't get my
wholesale under NYC mail order retail.

Also, I didn't have access to grey market ("parallel") imports, so I
was constantly explaining that my merchandise came with a different,
better warranty than much of the mail order stuff. For the most part,
they didn't understand the difference, or didn't care.

if stores were competitive, then the customers wouldn't need to test
drive a product in a store and buy online for less. stop blaming the
customers. they're not the problem.

Bull****, for the reasons stated above. "Competitive" would be selling
below cost. How much margin do you think there is in a camera, anyway?

On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:36:05 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 23/03/2014 00:37, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 10:38:49 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

And where
is it written that even good corporations should be insulated from any form of
public ownership? Corporations aren't reluctant to seek public "bailouts",
willingly trading bonds or ownership stakes to get them.

It takes _two_ willing parties to do a deal.

No it doesn't. Try negotiating on price with a ticking bomb on the table
and a gun held to your head, when you have toothache with a dentist, or
bleeding to death with a US medic...

I am sure any one of those motivations will make you willing to do a
deal.

The banks were "too big to fail" and as such were able to completely
screw over the tapayers in a "heads we win tails you lose" scam.

Shareholders never halt the increase the remuneration for CEOs in an
unending spiral whilst simultaneously laying off workers to drive wages
for the peons down. US and UK CEO to median wage ratios are obscene.

It is no surprise that they all sit on each others remuneration
committees and make trite claims like "we are all in it together".
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 3/24/2014 10:20 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

snip


But there is something inherently dishonest about pretend customers
going and exploiting the expertise of the handful of remaining bricks
and mortar stores and then buying their stuff online for slightly less.


folks who do that don't seem to realize that they are ultimately costing
themselves a valuable source of information.

I grew up as a street kid. When I see glowing reviews on the Internet, I
become suspicious. If the brick and mortar stores don't stay in
business, it will e a great loss to society. Creative directors will
determine our purchasing habits.

--
PeterN

On 3/24/2014 10:33 AM, PAS wrote:

snip

The U.S. Constitution does not give any authority to the federal government
to compete with private business. The founders were distrustful of
government, and rightly so. The Constitution is designed to LIMIT the power
of the federal government.


You got it backwards. the Constitution is designed to grant certain
limited powers to the Federal government.

We need go no further than the "savings clause." the Tenth amendment
makes it clear that the federal government has only only the enumerated
powers.





--
PeterN

In article , Scott Schuckert
wrote:

there is something inherently dishonest about charging high prices
without offering anything in return, ripping off the customers. why
would anyone want to shop in a store where they get ripped off?

Disagree. Stupid, but not dishonest. Problem is perception of value. I,
personally, perceive a lot of value in simply being able to hold the
product in my hands before purchase, and have my questions answered by
a (presumed) expert. Unfortunately, customers have overwhelmingly voted
they place little-to-no value on that, by purchasing elsewhere.

that's because the presumed expert isn't usually an expert, other than
in knowing how to make a sale and sometimes lying to do so. they aren't
interested in what's best for the customer and will push the product
with the highest spiff.

give customers a reason to buy locally and they more than likely will.
there are some stores that do just that and they generally are the ones
that are still in business.

Dishonesty comes in on the customers side, where they TAKE that value
(showroom demonstration) without paying for it (making the purchase at
the dealer offering it).

the dishonesty is in offering a product for confiscatory prices and
pushing products with the highest spiff when it's not really what the
customer wants, then push additional high markup products, such as
filters, bags, etc., that the customer doesn't really need at all.

and the difference is not slightly less. it's a *lot* less online.

Retail stores have an almost impossible task in being "competitive."
Manufacturers reward large mail order resellers with vast quantity
discounts. Even by ordering quarterly, rather than monthly, and co-op
buying with other small resellers, I typically couldn't get my
wholesale under NYC mail order retail.

nonsense. price isn't everything.

offer something that warrants buying from a store. if all you're going
to do is hand the customer a box, why should they pay more, sometimes a
lot more?? i've seen some products double the price in a store than at
an online seller.

Also, I didn't have access to grey market ("parallel") imports, so I
was constantly explaining that my merchandise came with a different,
better warranty than much of the mail order stuff. For the most part,
they didn't understand the difference, or didn't care.

you could if you wanted to.

b&h, for instance, sells both usa and grey market products and lets the
user choose which one they want.

and most mail order stuff is not grey market anyway, other than from
the sleazehole vendors.

if stores were competitive, then the customers wouldn't need to test
drive a product in a store and buy online for less. stop blaming the
customers. they're not the problem.

Bull****, for the reasons stated above. "Competitive" would be selling
below cost. How much margin do you think there is in a camera, anyway?

competitive doesn't mean below cost.

however, it does mean not charging as much as twice the price as
available elsewhere, for the same item.

offer products and services to make customers want to buy from you,
otherwise they aren't going to. it's really that simple.

either adapt to the changing landscape of online shopping or be gone.
that's harsh but that's just how it is.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

But there is something inherently dishonest about pretend customers
going and exploiting the expertise of the handful of remaining bricks
and mortar stores and then buying their stuff online for slightly less.

folks who do that don't seem to realize that they are ultimately costing
themselves a valuable source of information.

not really. most stores have salespeople who want to close a sale,
whether or not it's a good choice for the customer. there isn't a whole
lot of information, and sometimes it's not even correct.

I grew up as a street kid. When I see glowing reviews on the Internet, I
become suspicious.

read more of them.

If the brick and mortar stores don't stay in
business, it will e a great loss to society.

the better stores will stay. the not so good ones won't.

if the customer saves money by buying online, that's a *gain* to
society because they have more money to spend elsewhere.

and the not so good stores will be replaced with better stores, which
is also a gain.

Creative directors will
determine our purchasing habits.

nonsense.

"PeterN" wrote in message
On 3/24/2014 10:33 AM, PAS wrote:

snip

The U.S. Constitution does not give any authority to the federal
government
to compete with private business. The founders were distrustful of
government, and rightly so. The Constitution is designed to LIMIT the
power
of the federal government.


You got it backwards. the Constitution is designed to grant certain
limited powers to the Federal government.

We need go no further than the "savings clause." the Tenth amendment makes
it clear that the federal government has only only the enumerated powers.


Perhaps it's a matter of semantics but enumerating limited powers to the
federal government IS limiting their power which is what the Constitution
does. The 10th Amendment does indicate that the federal government is
limited to the powers granted to it by the Constitution. "The powers not
delegated to the United Stated by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." To
me, this makes it crystal clear the federal government has, for quite a long
time, acted unconstitutionally and continues to. The bailouts, the ACA, and
a whole host of others are unconstitutional.