Calumet files Chapter 7

On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 18:09:48 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

As much as something may benefit us, if the federal government has no
Constitutional authority to do it, then they simply should not do it.

Yup! Except that there is clear Constitutional authority. Indeed the
prime reason for a government is to provide for the welfare of the
people.

The prime reason for a government is to defend the realm.

All else is icing on the cake.

Where you and I differ is that you are relying on your church to
provide for well being. Not very long ago each ethnic group took care
of its own. e.g. If you were Jewish and needed a job, there were some
Jewish owned companies that would hire you. If you were not Jewish, that
company would only hire you if they really needed your services, and no
Jewish person could be found to fill that position. Similarly, most
ethnic group took care of its own. Once we rightly determined that
refusal to hire because of race or religion, etc., it became the duty of
the government to provide for the general welfare.
I commend Article I Section 8 to your reading.
I also recognize that you do not agree with my interpretation of the
Welfare Clause, and call it a redistribution of wealth. To paraphrase
Madison, the Constitution must be interpreted using common sense.

I will be happy to discuss the further offline.
BTW are you going to the PFLI Spring Spectacular?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 17:35:52 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Scott Schuckert
wrote:

So, the actual price of the product is just one parameter of many when you
decide how "competitive" a retail vendor is.

Well, you certainly SEEMED to make it about price. When I had my
stores, I offered all the amenities I mentioned before, and like to
think I did a good job at them. I still lost customers to mail order,
over price differences of 10% or less.

you weren't offering what people wanted.

And what people wanted was the lowest price.

So I ask again, in two ways: On price, how close is close enough; on
services, what more do customers need to justify a price difference of,
say, 15% or 20%, my additional operating costs over the mail order
guys?

I already know the answer - customers won't pay for services. But
convince me...

some do, some don't.

in your case, not enough did or they didn't consider what you offered
to be all that useful to them.

.... or they got it for nothing - and then went off and found the
lowest price.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 17:35:51 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Scott Schuckert
wrote:

I'm just not what "position" that's supposed to be, here? I mean, the
points he posted above are just basic facts.

The first; "competitve doesn't mean below cost" is just a very truthful
statement. One can be competitive without undercutting competitors, just
look at Apple.

Apples and oranges, if I may be so bold. Apple doesn't compete with
anyone;

nonsense. apple competes with every other company making similar
products, including computers, phones, tablets, mp3 players and
numerous accessories.

He's not talking about Apple. He's talking about Apple sales outlets.

no one but Apple (or it's very small number of authorized
resellers, who are tightly price-controlled) sells Apple products.

so what?

So there is no real competition between Apple sales outlets, at least
not to the extent that there is between independent camera stores.

also, that 'very small number of authorized resellers' includes best
buy and walmart, which have a *lot* of stores, and there definitely are
discounts to be had there, almost always unadvertised.

Back to the conversation, did you not understand the part of my prior
post - based on many years in the industry - where I explained that
selling below cost might not even match the price of some online
sellers? With that in mind, I'll ask you the same as I asked the other
guy - what's a competitive price? Match it? 5% more? 10%?

all that means is you can't compete anymore and should be selling
something else.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 26 Mar 2014 22:25:17 GMT, Sandman wrote:

Consider the situation where you are sitting there eating your breakfast
and your wife loosens a tirade of charges that you don't pick up your
dirty laundry from the floor, don't help out around the house, and spend
too much time on the computer. You sit there in stony silence and
continue to eat your Croonchy Stars. You offer no response.

Are you not ignoring her?

Of course. But if I have my headset on at the time and didn't hear her,
then I'm not.

Umm. While you may not be deliberately ignoring her, you are still
ignoring her.

Me ignoring her is a choice and an action, even though I am
passive as far as speech or response goes. One can be passive with regards
to something while at the same time being active with regards to something.
You slouching on the sofa means you're passive in term of movement, but
you're actively learning something from the book you're actively reading.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

When I bought my iPad, no one at the Apple store tried to tell me
that an $89 tablet would be a better buy for my needs. I would not
expect them to, and I would not want them to.

That's only because the Apple Store is not a reseller of tablets,

Oh, then, your defense of nospam's contention is that a store will
only tell you need something less expensive because they don't think
you need the expensive item *if* they also carry less expensive items?

why would a store tell you you need something they don't sell? then you
will go buy somewhere else.

obviously if you walk into an apple store and ask if they have a
microsoft surface they'll say we don't carry that and tell you to go
elsewhere, but if you say you need a tablet or phone they'll try to
sell you an ipad or iphone, because that's what they sell.

they're not going to say 'based on what you've said you would be better
off with a surface tablet or android phone'.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

So, the actual price of the product is just one parameter of many when
you decide how "competitive" a retail vendor is.

Well, you certainly SEEMED to make it about price. When I had my
stores, I offered all the amenities I mentioned before, and like to
think I did a good job at them. I still lost customers to mail order,
over price differences of 10% or less.

you weren't offering what people wanted.

And what people wanted was the lowest price.

and that was not available at his stores, just like i said. they didn't
care about the extra stuff. that's why his store and many other stores
are no more.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm just not what "position" that's supposed to be, here? I mean, the
points he posted above are just basic facts.

The first; "competitve doesn't mean below cost" is just a very truthful
statement. One can be competitive without undercutting competitors, just
look at Apple.

Apples and oranges, if I may be so bold. Apple doesn't compete with
anyone;

nonsense. apple competes with every other company making similar
products, including computers, phones, tablets, mp3 players and
numerous accessories.

He's not talking about Apple. He's talking about Apple sales outlets.

same thing in this case. the stores compete with non-apple stores
selling non-apple products (and even apple products).

no one but Apple (or it's very small number of authorized
resellers, who are tightly price-controlled) sells Apple products.

so what?

So there is no real competition between Apple sales outlets, at least
not to the extent that there is between independent camera stores.

nonsense. of course there is.

On 29 Mar 2014 17:17:40 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , PeterN wrote:

Savageduck:
Perhaps a virtual inundation of substantiations was meant to
imply a metaphoric onslaught. ...maybe a flood, or even a
plethora of substantiations might end up described so?

Sandman:
Or maybe just a large quantity of substantiations that Tony has
had a hard time coping with? I.e. what actually has happened
everytime I've used the word.

Only the times when you use an inappropriate word.

You are free to point to any such time, Peter. Be my guest. I am happy to
be corrected when I make mistakes. Be sure to point to the post of my
inappropiate usage and substantiation for how and why it was inappropriate.

Isn't that what the present argument is about?

I'm waiting.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 4/3/2014 2:56 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

nospam:
everyone does that. that's what drives discussions. who goes into
a discussion thinking that they're wrong??

Must resist temptation. Must resist temptation. Must resist
temptation.

Yeh! I resisted temptation.

Good point, I think Peter here usually enters a discussion knowing he's
wrong.

nospam:
i am *always* able to back up what i say. as i said in another
post, i was looking for a lens case and a local store had one for
around $30 and b&h had it for $17 or so (i don't remember exact
prices). that's about double.

i didn't say cameras were twice the price, but way back when i
bought my nikon d50, the difference was $200 from online versus
store, which was about 1/3rd the price of the camera ($400 v.
$600).

I see you are as good with your arithmatic, as you are with
business.

Huh? Does peter not think that $200 is a third of the price of $600? Or was
he just unable to read to save his life again?



So says the one who complains about butting into a conversation.

--
PeterN

On 4/3/2014 2:58 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

Neil Ellwood:
I thought you claimed expert English. You
shouldn't be baffled.

PeterN:
The pontificating popinjay just wants free English
grammar lessons. He refuses to learn, and discussion is
pointless.

Sandman:
When did you ever discuss anything, Peter?

Neil Ellwood:
Go back to the beginning of this thread and re-read it all
through very carefully.

Sandman:
Hot air might be welcome, but spring is already here in Sweden,
but thanks anyway.

If you have something specific, you're welcome to share, just
adding a series of empty words means exactly nothing.

Good thing you understand what you the true meaning of what you say.

Indeed I do, given the fact that I always elaborate on my views and
positions, provide ample substantiations, quotes and links to back it up. I
don't go around making empty claims, as you know.


I sure do.

--
PeterN