{Politics so we don't have to change the subject.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 12:10:15 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 04:40:16 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 20:42:28 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/22/2020 8:28 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 19:48:54 -0500, AMuzi
wrote:

For example, I note that the government is going to sue Walmart about
opioids as, I read, "Opioid addiction claimed roughly 400,000 lives
in the US from 1999 to 2017" (or an average of some 23,000 annually).
Oh! My! God! what a tragedy!

And on the other hand I read that, in the U.S., some 228,367 have
died of the virus since the 15th of February, or, if one extend the
numbers to a full year, perhaps 332 thousand a year, and I'm assured
that this is "nothing to worry about".


In re Walmart (a firm I dislike and do not patronize):

Each and every prescription was written by an MD, purchases and sales
are meticulously recorded and reported to the FDA,
and every opiate was delivered to the prescription holder with a valid
ID. Criminalizing regular business in a highly regulated environment
is shameful even against scum like Walmart. The prosecution is so vile
I am forced to defend those jerks. oy!

It diverts from the fact that the opoid epidemic cam about by GovCo
deliberately ignoring the early statements of warning by the medical
profession.. Pick your boogie man and go after them. The masses will
watch n the idiot box.

As Andrew wrote there doesn't seem to be any claims that anything
illegal was done, the prescriptions were legally written, they were
legally filled and they were legally accepted by those for whom the
prescription had been written.

The whole thing is similar to the fool that buys a hammer, hits himself
on the thumb and then sues the hammer manufacturer for breaking his
thumb

No argument with that. I was merely commenting on GovCo's motivation for
'action'.
F

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 06:12:56 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 04:40:16 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 20:42:28 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/22/2020 8:28 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 19:48:54 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

For example, I note that the government is going to sue Walmart about
opioids as, I read, "Opioid addiction claimed roughly 400,000 lives in
the US from 1999 to 2017" (or an average of some 23,000 annually). Oh!
My! God! what a tragedy!

And on the other hand I read that, in the U.S., some 228,367 have died
of the virus since the 15th of February, or, if one extend the numbers
to a full year, perhaps 332 thousand a year, and I'm assured that this
is "nothing to worry about".


In re Walmart (a firm I dislike and do not patronize):

Each and every prescription was written by an MD, purchases and sales
are meticulously recorded and reported to the FDA,
and every opiate was delivered to the prescription holder with a valid
ID. Criminalizing regular business in a highly regulated environment is
shameful even against scum like Walmart. The prosecution is so vile I am
forced to defend those jerks. oy!

It diverts from the fact that the opoid epidemic cam about by GovCo
deliberately ignoring the early statements of warning by the medical
profession.. Pick your boogie man and go after them. The masses will
watch n the idiot box.

As Andrew wrote there doesn't seem to be any claims that anything
illegal was done, the prescriptions were legally written, they were
legally filled and they were legally accepted by those for whom the
prescription had been written.

The whole thing is similar to the fool that buys a hammer, hits
himself on the thumb and then sues the hammer manufacturer for
breaking his thumb

Maybe more akin to handing out air nailers with no safeties out to whoever
needs to drive a nail.


Well, if you say so.... but they aren't "handling out" they are
provided as a medicine that is prescribed by an individual's doctor to
provide them with relief from some sort of malady.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/23/2020 1:53 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:54:33 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 5:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:27:42 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 1:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/20/2020 8:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

O.K., let's get Andrew onboard and test out your theory. Andrew, start selling all you stock below cost and vanquish your competitors. You will be Walmart in no time. Andre will bankroll you, at least until the Yellow Jersey IPO -- or bankruptcy, whichever comes first.

-- Jay Beattie.

Are you trying to say that Andre's theory of losing money on everything
you sell but making it up on the volume, doesn't work in the real world?

It does work, at least until all your investors tire of pumping in
money. That's when you go IPO and find a lot of clueless small investors
to lose money. The founders often do get rich before the whole thing
collapses.

I was told that one start-up I worked at was a "rocketship to the moon"
by the recruiter. It was a lot of fun, but my stock options were
worthless by the time I could exercise them. But the founders made out
like bandits.

I hope that bike shops enjoy the current boom.
Another humorous thing is that you can sell below [your] cost and still be selling above other's costs. Our family owned a drug store, and my father was a Kodak dealer with preferred pricing, but we could still buy flashbulbs/flashcubes (remember those?) cheaper on sale at the carpet-bagging Thrifty Drug that moved into town in the '60s. They had purchase limits, so my entire family would go over in shifts and buy them out. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/d9...670ea166e8.jpg (boo, hiss).

You can get half of everything in the QBP catalog cheaper from Wiggle or PBK. Shimano pulled the plug on those two, but other brands are still cheaper than QBP. There is no way a local bike shop can price compete -- except moving close-out, seconds or others' overstock. Rivercity does millions in sales, but not because they are cheap. https://tinyurl.com/y3bgpbfn

-- Jay Beattie.
Why am I not surprised that you don't understand anything about investing? No one sells below their price unless they are attempting to put a competitor out of business. And that NEVER works for mom and pop establishments.

And yet successful examples abound where the instigator has
a plan and enough capital to last out the losses and his
victim does not.
Sure. But those are outliers. The question to ask is: "After Mom & Pop have driven XYZ-1 out of business and restored prices to a profitable level, what will it cost XYZ-2 to enter in competition to Mom & Pop?" The answer, even in generalities, demonstrates why this works best when the competitors are large and few; clearcut examples in oligopoly situations abound: Microsoft and Google both grew so fast by simply consuming their competitors. It also works when the aggressor is huge and amorphous, which is the case in the many supermarket chain/multitude of smaller suppliers driven into positions where the supermarket chain can buy them out, which is why management consultants or academic economists, called in to advise the government about antitrust policy, say as they come through the door, and keep saying in different ways, "First you have to block vertical integration of suppliers and retailers, or you'll never get a grip on this abuse."

Andre Jute
Economics doesn't need to be "the dismal science": Malthus and Riccardo are dead, and Marx and Engels disgraced.

Yes, every such situation is temporary because markets are
inherently volatile.

Hence my utter opposition to 'anti trust' theory which is a
political cudgel (even when used against despicable jerks)
without economic justification.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Eh? You don't see that monopoly -- or its practically more familiar sister, oligopoly -- is an abuse against the public weal? Would it help if I told you that oligopoly is an extreme case of Adam Smith's nightmare of businessmen conspiring against consumers? and that economists with government chops can cite long lists of cases in which government-fostered oligopolies inevitably became a burden on taxpayers; the most notorious case in the States is the mortgage of private homes being guaranteed by the government.

I am aware that "trust-busting" has been selectively applied since Teddy Roosevelt's time. But I was sorry that when Washington had Bill Gates dead to rights, they let him off with a finger-wagging -- and permitted him to keep Microsoft together, which was too large an error to be merely incompetent and must therefore be evil.

Andre Jute
Everything in moderation


The problem needs only a tincture or time to resolve itself.
There was a time when Sears and KMart (along with Pennys and
Woolworths) were dominant in US retail. That time passed.
Not all that long ago IBM was the gorilla in the room for
small computers. Same. Markets are dynamic.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 10/23/2020 1:59 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 2:01:07 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:04:19 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 6:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 3:54:33 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 5:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:27:42 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 1:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/20/2020 8:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

O.K., let's get Andrew onboard and test out your theory. Andrew, start selling all you stock below cost and vanquish your competitors. You will be Walmart in no time. Andre will bankroll you, at least until the Yellow Jersey IPO -- or bankruptcy, whichever comes first.

-- Jay Beattie.

Are you trying to say that Andre's theory of losing money on everything
you sell but making it up on the volume, doesn't work in the real world?

It does work, at least until all your investors tire of pumping in
money. That's when you go IPO and find a lot of clueless small investors
to lose money. The founders often do get rich before the whole thing
collapses.

I was told that one start-up I worked at was a "rocketship to the moon"
by the recruiter. It was a lot of fun, but my stock options were
worthless by the time I could exercise them. But the founders made out
like bandits.

I hope that bike shops enjoy the current boom.
Another humorous thing is that you can sell below [your] cost and still be selling above other's costs. Our family owned a drug store, and my father was a Kodak dealer with preferred pricing, but we could still buy flashbulbs/flashcubes (remember those?) cheaper on sale at the carpet-bagging Thrifty Drug that moved into town in the '60s. They had purchase limits, so my entire family would go over in shifts and buy them out. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/d9...670ea166e8.jpg (boo, hiss).

You can get half of everything in the QBP catalog cheaper from Wiggle or PBK. Shimano pulled the plug on those two, but other brands are still cheaper than QBP. There is no way a local bike shop can price compete -- except moving close-out, seconds or others' overstock. Rivercity does millions in sales, but not because they are cheap. https://tinyurl.com/y3bgpbfn

-- Jay Beattie.
Why am I not surprised that you don't understand anything about investing? No one sells below their price unless they are attempting to put a competitor out of business. And that NEVER works for mom and pop establishments.

And yet successful examples abound where the instigator has
a plan and enough capital to last out the losses and his
victim does not.
Sure. But those are outliers. The question to ask is: "After Mom & Pop have driven XYZ-1 out of business and restored prices to a profitable level, what will it cost XYZ-2 to enter in competition to Mom & Pop?" The answer, even in generalities, demonstrates why this works best when the competitors are large and few; clearcut examples in oligopoly situations abound: Microsoft and Google both grew so fast by simply consuming their competitors. It also works when the aggressor is huge and amorphous, which is the case in the many supermarket chain/multitude of smaller suppliers driven into positions where the supermarket chain can buy them out, which is why management consultants or academic economists, called in to advise the government about antitrust policy, say as they come through the door, and keep saying in different ways, "First you have to block vertical integration of suppliers and retailers, or you'll never get a grip on this abuse."

Andre Jute
Economics doesn't need to be "the dismal science": Malthus and Riccardo are dead, and Marx and Engels disgraced.

Yes, every such situation is temporary because markets are
inherently volatile.

Hence my utter opposition to 'anti trust' theory which is a
political cudgel (even when used against despicable jerks)
without economic justification.

In Google, Facebook Twitter and Yahoos cases it is not financial but survival of a Constitutional government. These people do NOT believe in the Constitution or that anyone should have the slightest control on anything they do. If they were fair and ethical the point would never have arisen but they are not and in order to save our country we must destroy these despotic wannabees.


Then charge them with sedition. It's at least a more honest
charge than anti trust.
+1! Although the anti-trust complaint passes the smell test, its obviously retaliatory.

The people who yell the loudest about the First Amendment seem to understand it the least. Facebook is not the government. If you don't like their policies, unplug. Vote with your feet, or your fingers.

-- Jay Beattie.

Tell me then, Jay, why does the government license use of the airwaves for radio and television? -- Andre Jute


Power.
See also railroad right-of-way permits and highway routes.

Example- Denny Hastert bought land in central Illinois and
then moved the route for an Interstate to 'improve' his
properties.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:59:11 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 2:01:07 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:04:19 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 6:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 3:54:33 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 5:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:27:42 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 1:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/20/2020 8:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

O.K., let's get Andrew onboard and test out your theory. Andrew, start selling all you stock below cost and vanquish your competitors. You will be Walmart in no time. Andre will bankroll you, at least until the Yellow Jersey IPO -- or bankruptcy, whichever comes first.

-- Jay Beattie.

Are you trying to say that Andre's theory of losing money on everything
you sell but making it up on the volume, doesn't work in the real world?

It does work, at least until all your investors tire of pumping in
money. That's when you go IPO and find a lot of clueless small investors
to lose money. The founders often do get rich before the whole thing
collapses.

I was told that one start-up I worked at was a "rocketship to the moon"
by the recruiter. It was a lot of fun, but my stock options were
worthless by the time I could exercise them. But the founders made out
like bandits.

I hope that bike shops enjoy the current boom.
Another humorous thing is that you can sell below [your] cost and still be selling above other's costs. Our family owned a drug store, and my father was a Kodak dealer with preferred pricing, but we could still buy flashbulbs/flashcubes (remember those?) cheaper on sale at the carpet-bagging Thrifty Drug that moved into town in the '60s. They had purchase limits, so my entire family would go over in shifts and buy them out. https://i..pinimg.com/originals/c4/d...670ea166e8.jpg (boo, hiss).

You can get half of everything in the QBP catalog cheaper from Wiggle or PBK. Shimano pulled the plug on those two, but other brands are still cheaper than QBP. There is no way a local bike shop can price compete -- except moving close-out, seconds or others' overstock. Rivercity does millions in sales, but not because they are cheap. https://tinyurl.com/y3bgpbfn

-- Jay Beattie.
Why am I not surprised that you don't understand anything about investing? No one sells below their price unless they are attempting to put a competitor out of business. And that NEVER works for mom and pop establishments.

And yet successful examples abound where the instigator has
a plan and enough capital to last out the losses and his
victim does not.
Sure. But those are outliers. The question to ask is: "After Mom & Pop have driven XYZ-1 out of business and restored prices to a profitable level, what will it cost XYZ-2 to enter in competition to Mom & Pop?" The answer, even in generalities, demonstrates why this works best when the competitors are large and few; clearcut examples in oligopoly situations abound: Microsoft and Google both grew so fast by simply consuming their competitors. It also works when the aggressor is huge and amorphous, which is the case in the many supermarket chain/multitude of smaller suppliers driven into positions where the supermarket chain can buy them out, which is why management consultants or academic economists, called in to advise the government about antitrust policy, say as they come through the door, and keep saying in different ways, "First you have to block vertical integration of suppliers and retailers, or you'll never get a grip on this abuse."

Andre Jute
Economics doesn't need to be "the dismal science": Malthus and Riccardo are dead, and Marx and Engels disgraced.

Yes, every such situation is temporary because markets are
inherently volatile.

Hence my utter opposition to 'anti trust' theory which is a
political cudgel (even when used against despicable jerks)
without economic justification.

In Google, Facebook Twitter and Yahoos cases it is not financial but survival of a Constitutional government. These people do NOT believe in the Constitution or that anyone should have the slightest control on anything they do. If they were fair and ethical the point would never have arisen but they are not and in order to save our country we must destroy these despotic wannabees.


Then charge them with sedition. It's at least a more honest
charge than anti trust.
+1! Although the anti-trust complaint passes the smell test, its obviously retaliatory.

The people who yell the loudest about the First Amendment seem to understand it the least. Facebook is not the government. If you don't like their policies, unplug. Vote with your feet, or your fingers.

-- Jay Beattie.

Tell me then, Jay, why does the government license use of the airwaves for radio and television? -- Andre Jute

What does this have to do with Google? The government regulates the airwaves in the same way it regulates the use of public parks, grazing land, water, mineral resources, etc. The airwaves are a limited government asset that is licensed to users.

ISPs are subject to regulation under the Communications Act of 1934 as common carriers, which falls squarely within Congress' Commerce Clause authority. The last time I checked, however, nothing in the Act gives the government the right to regulate speech on the internet. Requiring any private service provider or platform to carry a message favorable to any party is compelled speech and against the First Amendment. All of the alt-right victims whining about free speech rights are actually calling for the government to infringe on the well established right not to speak, viz., Facebook, Google, etc. right not to carry a message with which they disagree. Even the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine, and it never applied to newspapers or the internet -- just FCC licensees. And if that doctrine had been enforced after the '60s, Faux News would have died on the vine.

Moreover, the anti-trust suit has nothing to do with the content of speech. It has to do with anti-competitive behavior. The actual purpose of the suit, however, is to punish Google and others for being critical of Donald Trump.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/23/2020 9:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:59:11 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 2:01:07 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:04:19 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 6:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 3:54:33 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 5:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:27:42 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 1:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/20/2020 8:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

O.K., let's get Andrew onboard and test out your theory. Andrew, start selling all you stock below cost and vanquish your competitors. You will be Walmart in no time. Andre will bankroll you, at least until the Yellow Jersey IPO -- or bankruptcy, whichever comes first.

-- Jay Beattie.

Are you trying to say that Andre's theory of losing money on everything
you sell but making it up on the volume, doesn't work in the real world?

It does work, at least until all your investors tire of pumping in
money. That's when you go IPO and find a lot of clueless small investors
to lose money. The founders often do get rich before the whole thing
collapses.

I was told that one start-up I worked at was a "rocketship to the moon"
by the recruiter. It was a lot of fun, but my stock options were
worthless by the time I could exercise them. But the founders made out
like bandits.

I hope that bike shops enjoy the current boom.
Another humorous thing is that you can sell below [your] cost and still be selling above other's costs. Our family owned a drug store, and my father was a Kodak dealer with preferred pricing, but we could still buy flashbulbs/flashcubes (remember those?) cheaper on sale at the carpet-bagging Thrifty Drug that moved into town in the '60s. They had purchase limits, so my entire family would go over in shifts and buy them out. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/d9...670ea166e8.jpg (boo, hiss).

You can get half of everything in the QBP catalog cheaper from Wiggle or PBK. Shimano pulled the plug on those two, but other brands are still cheaper than QBP. There is no way a local bike shop can price compete -- except moving close-out, seconds or others' overstock. Rivercity does millions in sales, but not because they are cheap. https://tinyurl.com/y3bgpbfn

-- Jay Beattie.
Why am I not surprised that you don't understand anything about investing? No one sells below their price unless they are attempting to put a competitor out of business. And that NEVER works for mom and pop establishments.

And yet successful examples abound where the instigator has
a plan and enough capital to last out the losses and his
victim does not.
Sure. But those are outliers. The question to ask is: "After Mom & Pop have driven XYZ-1 out of business and restored prices to a profitable level, what will it cost XYZ-2 to enter in competition to Mom & Pop?" The answer, even in generalities, demonstrates why this works best when the competitors are large and few; clearcut examples in oligopoly situations abound: Microsoft and Google both grew so fast by simply consuming their competitors. It also works when the aggressor is huge and amorphous, which is the case in the many supermarket chain/multitude of smaller suppliers driven into positions where the supermarket chain can buy them out, which is why management consultants or academic economists, called in to advise the government about antitrust policy, say as they come through the door, and keep saying in different ways, "First you have to block vertical integration of suppliers and retailers, or you'll never get a grip on this abuse."

Andre Jute
Economics doesn't need to be "the dismal science": Malthus and Riccardo are dead, and Marx and Engels disgraced.

Yes, every such situation is temporary because markets are
inherently volatile.

Hence my utter opposition to 'anti trust' theory which is a
political cudgel (even when used against despicable jerks)
without economic justification.

In Google, Facebook Twitter and Yahoos cases it is not financial but survival of a Constitutional government. These people do NOT believe in the Constitution or that anyone should have the slightest control on anything they do. If they were fair and ethical the point would never have arisen but they are not and in order to save our country we must destroy these despotic wannabees.


Then charge them with sedition. It's at least a more honest
charge than anti trust.
+1! Although the anti-trust complaint passes the smell test, its obviously retaliatory.

The people who yell the loudest about the First Amendment seem to understand it the least. Facebook is not the government. If you don't like their policies, unplug. Vote with your feet, or your fingers.

-- Jay Beattie.

Tell me then, Jay, why does the government license use of the airwaves for radio and television? -- Andre Jute

What does this have to do with Google? The government regulates the airwaves in the same way it regulates the use of public parks, grazing land, water, mineral resources, etc. The airwaves are a limited government asset that is licensed to users.

ISPs are subject to regulation under the Communications Act of 1934 as common carriers, which falls squarely within Congress' Commerce Clause authority. The last time I checked, however, nothing in the Act gives the government the right to regulate speech on the internet. Requiring any private service provider or platform to carry a message favorable to any party is compelled speech and against the First Amendment. All of the alt-right victims whining about free speech rights are actually calling for the government to infringe on the well established right not to speak, viz., Facebook, Google, etc. right not to carry a message with which they disagree. Even the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine, and it never applied to newspapers or the internet -- just FCC licensees. And if that doctrine had been enforced after the '60s, Faux News would have died on the vine.

Moreover, the anti-trust suit has nothing to do with the content of speech. It has to do with anti-competitive behavior. The actual purpose of the suit, however, is to punish Google and others for being critical of Donald Trump.

-- Jay Beattie.


Well written.

I repeat that we should not want to live in a country with
some dweeb in a government office able to monitor and censor
our opinions, distasteful or wacky as those opinions may
sometimes be.

No civilization has benefited more from such a voluminous
and colorful public discourse than we under our beloved
First Amendment. Tamper with that at your peril.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 10/22/2020 9:35 PM, AMuzi wrote:

Similarly, I used to buy the Times somewhat regularly (couple a week)
but I just had enough of Paul Krugman one day and quit. Science News on
Tuesdays was not worth the spike in blood pressure nor the screaming.

So you switched to the New York Post?

"Secret tape shows Joe Biden's cousin playing Russian Roulette with two
headed space alien!" with a sidebar article "All the Kardashians forget
to wear pants on the same day!"

Journalism at its finest! ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/22/2020 9:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:


... re Walmart (a firm I dislike and do not patronize): ...

+1


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/22/2020 8:46 PM, jbeattie wrote:
https://s7d5.scene7.com/is/image/Specialized/inside-specialized_about-us?$hybris-nav$ I stopped by the warehouse for a ride with Hans Heim (now CEO of Ibis), Charlie Mack, both down front -- and Mike S. and some others. They did a regular ride around the reservoirs in Almaden Valley.

??? Bikes with racks?? And bags?? And cantilever brakes??

Also, there are people touching bicycles but not wearing foam plastic hats.

You're lucky to have survived.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:04:19 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 6:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 3:54:33 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 5:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:27:42 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 1:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/20/2020 8:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

O.K., let's get Andrew onboard and test out your theory. Andrew, start selling all you stock below cost and vanquish your competitors. You will be Walmart in no time. Andre will bankroll you, at least until the Yellow Jersey IPO -- or bankruptcy, whichever comes first.

-- Jay Beattie.

Are you trying to say that Andre's theory of losing money on everything
you sell but making it up on the volume, doesn't work in the real world?

It does work, at least until all your investors tire of pumping in
money. That's when you go IPO and find a lot of clueless small investors
to lose money. The founders often do get rich before the whole thing
collapses.

I was told that one start-up I worked at was a "rocketship to the moon"
by the recruiter. It was a lot of fun, but my stock options were
worthless by the time I could exercise them. But the founders made out
like bandits.

I hope that bike shops enjoy the current boom.
Another humorous thing is that you can sell below [your] cost and still be selling above other's costs. Our family owned a drug store, and my father was a Kodak dealer with preferred pricing, but we could still buy flashbulbs/flashcubes (remember those?) cheaper on sale at the carpet-bagging Thrifty Drug that moved into town in the '60s. They had purchase limits, so my entire family would go over in shifts and buy them out. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/d9...670ea166e8.jpg (boo, hiss)..

You can get half of everything in the QBP catalog cheaper from Wiggle or PBK. Shimano pulled the plug on those two, but other brands are still cheaper than QBP. There is no way a local bike shop can price compete -- except moving close-out, seconds or others' overstock. Rivercity does millions in sales, but not because they are cheap. https://tinyurl.com/y3bgpbfn

-- Jay Beattie.
Why am I not surprised that you don't understand anything about investing? No one sells below their price unless they are attempting to put a competitor out of business. And that NEVER works for mom and pop establishments.

And yet successful examples abound where the instigator has
a plan and enough capital to last out the losses and his
victim does not.
Sure. But those are outliers. The question to ask is: "After Mom & Pop have driven XYZ-1 out of business and restored prices to a profitable level, what will it cost XYZ-2 to enter in competition to Mom & Pop?" The answer, even in generalities, demonstrates why this works best when the competitors are large and few; clearcut examples in oligopoly situations abound: Microsoft and Google both grew so fast by simply consuming their competitors.. It also works when the aggressor is huge and amorphous, which is the case in the many supermarket chain/multitude of smaller suppliers driven into positions where the supermarket chain can buy them out, which is why management consultants or academic economists, called in to advise the government about antitrust policy, say as they come through the door, and keep saying in different ways, "First you have to block vertical integration of suppliers and retailers, or you'll never get a grip on this abuse."

Andre Jute
Economics doesn't need to be "the dismal science": Malthus and Riccardo are dead, and Marx and Engels disgraced.

Yes, every such situation is temporary because markets are
inherently volatile.

Hence my utter opposition to 'anti trust' theory which is a
political cudgel (even when used against despicable jerks)
without economic justification.

In Google, Facebook Twitter and Yahoos cases it is not financial but survival of a Constitutional government. These people do NOT believe in the Constitution or that anyone should have the slightest control on anything they do. If they were fair and ethical the point would never have arisen but they are not and in order to save our country we must destroy these despotic wannabees.

Then charge them with sedition. It's at least a more honest
charge than anti trust.
Sedition is a nearly impossible charge to prove in court as I'm sure that Jay will chime in. But rather than anti-trust I think that a better thing would be to use section 230 of the communications code to 1. make it impossible to censor anyone. 2. since China has been making a concerted effort to assault the American form of government simply put the location from which postings come from. People are hardly going to give any credit to Chinese or Russian or Iranian postings that are anti-Trump.