Nikon raises prices and LIES about the cost of raw materials increasing

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

RichA:
Commodities, metals, everything that uses energy for production
has FALLEN in price thanks to dropping demand and much lower
fuel costs. Nikon is full of s--- and is simply trying to rape
existing customers because they aren't getting enough NEW
customers. In 2000, insurance companies in Canada tried raising
rates 100% b

hiccup. The insurers tried raising rates because they lost money
in the stock market so they tried to make it back using their near
monopolistic positions in the Canadian market to rip-off
insurances users. Same thing with Nikon.

You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on your
house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to buy a
camera.

Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not sure what you
meant here.

Not sure what Rich means either, since he posted no link to something
concerning his claims

--
Sandman

On 1/30/2016 7:22 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

RichA:
Commodities, metals, everything that uses energy for production
has FALLEN in price thanks to dropping demand and much lower
fuel costs. Nikon is full of s--- and is simply trying to rape
existing customers because they aren't getting enough NEW
customers. In 2000, insurance companies in Canada tried raising
rates 100% b

hiccup. The insurers tried raising rates because they lost money
in the stock market so they tried to make it back using their near
monopolistic positions in the Canadian market to rip-off
insurances users. Same thing with Nikon.

You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on your
house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to buy a
camera.

Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not sure what you
meant here.

Not sure what Rich means either, since he posted no link to something
concerning his claims


Which is nothing more than a troll. He seems to think the world has an
obligation to him.

--
PeterN

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

RichA:
Commodities, metals, everything that uses energy for
production has FALLEN in price thanks to dropping demand and
much lower fuel costs. Nikon is full of s--- and is simply
trying to rape existing customers because they aren't
getting enough NEW customers. In 2000, insurance companies
in Canada tried raising rates 100% b

hiccup. The insurers tried raising rates because they lost
money in the stock market so they tried to make it back using
their near monopolistic positions in the Canadian market to
rip-off insurances users. Same thing with Nikon.

Tony Cooper:
You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on
your house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to
buy a camera.

Sandman:
Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not
sure what you meant here.

If you have a car or a house, you are required to insure it. There
is no requirement at all to buy a camera, so comparing insurance
rate increases to camera cost increases is nonsensical.

Right, but what you said makes more sense if you would have said that you're
not required to buy a house, car or a camera, but only when you buy a house or
car are you required to insure it - unlike a camera, that has no requirement.

That, or I'm missing the point you were trying to make.

The point is that it's a legitimate complaint about insurance rates
because it affects most people. Complaining about Nikon prices is
not a legitimate contention. Price increases by Nikon affect only
those who choose to buy a new Nikon and do not affect people who
already own a Nikon.

Wait, ok, so I maybe get what you're saying here. Sorry for my confusion.
You're comparing Rich's complaints with current Nikon prices to his complaint
about past insurance prices, expenditures that at the time were mandatory if
you were a house or car owner, which as such is not analogous to current camera
prices which aren't mandatory expenses. Sorry again

--
Sandman

On 2016-01-30 17:37:29 +0000, Sandman said:

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

RichA:
Commodities, metals, everything that uses energy for
production has FALLEN in price thanks to dropping demand and
much lower fuel costs. Nikon is full of s--- and is simply
trying to rape existing customers because they aren't
getting enough NEW customers. In 2000, insurance companies
in Canada tried raising rates 100% b

hiccup. The insurers tried raising rates because they lost
money in the stock market so they tried to make it back using
their near monopolistic positions in the Canadian market to
rip-off insurances users. Same thing with Nikon.

Tony Cooper:
You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on
your house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to
buy a camera.

Sandman:
Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not
sure what you meant here.

If you have a car or a house, you are required to insure it. There
is no requirement at all to buy a camera, so comparing insurance
rate increases to camera cost increases is nonsensical.

Right, but what you said makes more sense if you would have said that you're
not required to buy a house, car or a camera, but only when you buy a house or
car are you required to insure it - unlike a camera, that has no requirement.

I was fortunate enough to have my camera, (and other items usually kept
at home) covered by my AllState homeowner's insurance. So no seperate
insurance coverage was needed to replace my camera when it was stolen
on a trip. Out here in California I have other things to consider, so I
also have earthquake insurance as a rider to my homeowner's policy.

As for those folks who haven't bought a house, they are well advised to
buy renter's insurance if they value their property at all.

That, or I'm missing the point you were trying to make.

The point is that it's a legitimate complaint about insurance rates
because it affects most people. Complaining about Nikon prices is
not a legitimate contention. Price increases by Nikon affect only
those who choose to buy a new Nikon and do not affect people who
already own a Nikon.

Wait, ok, so I maybe get what you're saying here. Sorry for my confusion.
You're comparing Rich's complaints with current Nikon prices to his complaint
about past insurance prices, expenditures that at the time were mandatory if
you were a house or car owner, which as such is not analogous to current camera
prices which aren't mandatory expenses. Sorry again

Rich just has a propensity to whine when it comes to prices of anything
that is priced higher in Canada when compared to anywhere else.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on your
house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to buy a
camera.

Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not sure what
you
meant here.

If you have a car or a house, you are required to insure it.

not always.

On 2016-01-30 22:37:03 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on your
house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to buy a
camera.

Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not sure what
you
meant here.

If you have a car or a house, you are required to insure it.

not always.

In California proof of insurance is a requirement for annual registration.
If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your
investment. If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to
require insurance.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2016013014581534441-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on your
house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to buy a
camera.

Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not sure what
you
meant here.

If you have a car or a house, you are required to insure it.

not always.

In California proof of insurance is a requirement for annual registration.

http://www.dmv.org/nh-new-hampshire/car-insurance.php
New Hampshire is among a small handful of states that has no
mandatory car insurance laws.

http://www.dmv.org/va-virginia/car-insurance.php
Virginia law requires that all drivers have a way to pay for injuries
or property damage resulting from a car accident. You can satisfy
this financial responsibility law by EITHER:
€ Purchasing car insurance.
€ OR
€ Paying Virginia's Department of Motor Vehicles to drive uninsured.

http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/car-insurance.php
Buying car insurance is the most common way to fulfill your financial
responsibility requirements, but it isn't your only option.

Other options to meet the requirement include:
€ A $35,000 cash deposit with the CA Department of Motor Vehicles.
€ A Certificate of Self-Insurance from the DMV.
€ A surety bond of $35,000 from any company licensed to do business
in CA.

If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your
investment.

it usually is, but the point is that it's not required.

If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to
require insurance.

that's because the lender owns a portion of the property.

On 2016-01-30 23:07:53 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2016013014581534441-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on your
house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to buy a
camera.

Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not sure what
you
meant here.

If you have a car or a house, you are required to insure it.

not always.

In California proof of insurance is a requirement for annual registration.

http://www.dmv.org/nh-new-hampshire/car-insurance.php
New Hampshire is among a small handful of states that has no
mandatory car insurance laws.

So? I don't live in NH and I don't believe we have too many NH
residents lurking in this NG.

http://www.dmv.org/va-virginia/car-insurance.php
Virginia law requires that all drivers have a way to pay for injuries
or property damage resulting from a car accident. You can satisfy
this financial responsibility law by EITHER:
€ Purchasing car insurance.
€ OR
€ Paying Virginia's Department of Motor Vehicles to drive uninsured.

http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/car-insurance.php
Buying car insurance is the most common way to fulfill your financial
responsibility requirements, but it isn't your only option.

Other options to meet the requirement include:
€ A $35,000 cash deposit with the CA Department of Motor Vehicles.
€ A Certificate of Self-Insurance from the DMV.
€ A surety bond of $35,000 from any company licensed to do business
in CA.

So? There isn't a free ride? You either have to buy insurance or you
have to self-insure. $35,000 isn't going to get you very far in this
age of litigation, but if you want to gamble go ahead.


If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your
investment.

it usually is, but the point is that it's not required.

If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to
require insurance.

that's because the lender owns a portion of the property.

....and requires insurance as a condition of the loan.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2016013015345093904-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on your
house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to buy a
camera.

Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not sure
what
you
meant here.

If you have a car or a house, you are required to insure it.

not always.

In California proof of insurance is a requirement for annual registration.

http://www.dmv.org/nh-new-hampshire/car-insurance.php
New Hampshire is among a small handful of states that has no
mandatory car insurance laws.

So? I don't live in NH and I don't believe we have too many NH
residents lurking in this NG.

so what?

the point is that insurance is not always required.

http://www.dmv.org/va-virginia/car-insurance.php
Virginia law requires that all drivers have a way to pay for injuries
or property damage resulting from a car accident. You can satisfy
this financial responsibility law by EITHER:
? Purchasing car insurance.
? OR
? Paying Virginia's Department of Motor Vehicles to drive uninsured.

http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/car-insurance.php
Buying car insurance is the most common way to fulfill your financial
responsibility requirements, but it isn't your only option.

Other options to meet the requirement include:
? A $35,000 cash deposit with the CA Department of Motor Vehicles.
? A Certificate of Self-Insurance from the DMV.
? A surety bond of $35,000 from any company licensed to do business
in CA.

So? There isn't a free ride? You either have to buy insurance or you
have to self-insure. $35,000 isn't going to get you very far in this
age of litigation, but if you want to gamble go ahead.

i don't make the rules.

if you think it's too low, contact the state of california and get them
to raise it.

If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your
investment.

it usually is, but the point is that it's not required.

If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to
require insurance.

that's because the lender owns a portion of the property.

...and requires insurance as a condition of the loan.

and can be cancelled after the loan is granted...

On 2016-01-30 23:46:40 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2016013015345093904-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on your
house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to buy a
camera.

Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not sure
what
you
meant here.

If you have a car or a house, you are required to insure it.

not always.

In California proof of insurance is a requirement for annual registration.

http://www.dmv.org/nh-new-hampshire/car-insurance.php
New Hampshire is among a small handful of states that has no
mandatory car insurance laws.

So? I don't live in NH and I don't believe we have too many NH
residents lurking in this NG.

so what?

the point is that insurance is not always required.

http://www.dmv.org/va-virginia/car-insurance.php
Virginia law requires that all drivers have a way to pay for injuries
or property damage resulting from a car accident. You can satisfy
this financial responsibility law by EITHER:
? Purchasing car insurance.
? OR
? Paying Virginia's Department of Motor Vehicles to drive uninsured.

http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/car-insurance.php
Buying car insurance is the most common way to fulfill your financial
responsibility requirements, but it isn't your only option.

Other options to meet the requirement include:
? A $35,000 cash deposit with the CA Department of Motor Vehicles.
? A Certificate of Self-Insurance from the DMV.
? A surety bond of $35,000 from any company licensed to do business
in CA.

So? There isn't a free ride? You either have to buy insurance or you
have to self-insure. $35,000 isn't going to get you very far in this
age of litigation, but if you want to gamble go ahead.

i don't make the rules.

if you think it's too low, contact the state of california and get them
to raise it.

I think it is just fine, but you might find yourself making up the
difference if you lose in court in a case where you will have to pay
for counsel, rather than have an insurance company deal with that
little detail. I know what I can afford, and I can't afford to
self-insure.

If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your
investment.

it usually is, but the point is that it's not required.

If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to
require insurance.

that's because the lender owns a portion of the property.

...and requires insurance as a condition of the loan.

and can be cancelled after the loan is granted...

Granted? Don't you mean repaid?

BTW: Do you own a home clear, or are you making mortgage payments?
....or are you renting?

--
Regards,

Savageduck