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

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

On 10/22/2020 7:22 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 17:54:23 -0500, 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.

The theory, like most of the liberal "schemes" seems to be geared
toward appeasing the masses, or perhaps educating the masses to a
"problem" which is then cured by those in power.

Witness the breakup of Standard Oil of New Jersey, now known as Exxon,
I believe, and as 2018 (latest numbers I can find) the largest oil
company in the U.S.


When John D Rockefeller started in the oil business,
kerosene was $1 per gallon, By 1890 the going rate was ten
cents. Where's the harm to oil lamp consumers?

As an aside, it was Rockefeller who 'saved the whales'.
Cheap kerosene snuffed the whale oil industry which had
formerly lit America's lamps.

I'm open to anyone who wants to attempt a defense of
anti-trust. Bring it on.

But you are a minority, or at least that is the impression I have of
the U.S., that the majority seem to have difficulties determining the
difference between the daily news and reality.

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!

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

On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:48:49 -0700, 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/d9/60/
c4d9607a154bee2a80c9a2670ea166e8.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.
--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

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?"

I've already asked that.

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.

The false assumption there is that everyone wants the same 'product'.
Product differentiation is a good niche that to be in.

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.

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
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 6:42:39 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 8:28 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 19:48:54 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/22/2020 7:22 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 17:54:23 -0500, 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.

The theory, like most of the liberal "schemes" seems to be geared
toward appeasing the masses, or perhaps educating the masses to a
"problem" which is then cured by those in power.

Witness the breakup of Standard Oil of New Jersey, now known as Exxon,
I believe, and as 2018 (latest numbers I can find) the largest oil
company in the U.S.


When John D Rockefeller started in the oil business,
kerosene was $1 per gallon, By 1890 the going rate was ten
cents. Where's the harm to oil lamp consumers?

As an aside, it was Rockefeller who 'saved the whales'.
Cheap kerosene snuffed the whale oil industry which had
formerly lit America's lamps.

I'm open to anyone who wants to attempt a defense of
anti-trust. Bring it on.

But you are a minority, or at least that is the impression I have of
the U.S., that the majority seem to have difficulties determining the
difference between the daily news and reality.

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!

+1 again. The DEA also watches this like a hawk. My dad got investigate by the DEA for moving a lot of cocaine through his pharmacy. He sold to an ENT clinic populated by old ENTs who still used cocaine -- instead of novocaine/procaine, etc. I remember delivering glass bottles (that looked like little pickle jars) of crystal cocaine to that clinic, and my father telling me "if you drop that, don't come back." It cost $50! Schedule three narcotics aren't just given out like dinner mints.

-- Jay Beattie.

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.

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

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

On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 5:35:45 AM UTC+1, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:48:49 -0700, 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/d9/60/
c4d9607a154bee2a80c9a2670ea166e8.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.
--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

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?"
I've already asked that.

Too bad. I read only enough of your posts to catch a giggle.\

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.

Are you plagiarising me again. That looks like something I wrote.

The false assumption there is that everyone wants the same 'product'.
Product differentiation is a good niche that to be in.

Oh, you poor dingbat. You claim to know everything about me. But you appear not to know that I worked in advertising, nor that I created many premium niche products, mostly still out there in the top five spots in their category. Whatever makes you think I would be interested in homogenous goods with small margins? (Well, except toothpaste, which I used to use to prove to lefty ladies that I was universal benefactor, by bringing the price within reach of poor people. Even dentists, playing more golf because they had fewer patients, were more healthy and thus should also be grateful to me, though of course they aren't.) You really should admit to yourself that you don't know the first thing about me; you'd embarrass yourself less often.

In any event, a monopoly or oligopoly supplier like Google, Facebook or Twitter offers only one product and buys competitors to offer the appearance of competition or simply to shut them down. The tendency within each firm is towards a homogenous product, with a thin overlay of customisation available for really big buyers of their advertising. But they deliver the same thing: eyes on ads, so profitably that now Amazon is joining the cabal (a point on Muzi's side of the ledger) despite the horrendous cost of entry.

Andre Jute
Whose ether is it anyhow?

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 00:21:58 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 5:35:45 AM UTC+1, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:48:49 -0700, 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/d9/60/
c4d9607a154bee2a80c9a2670ea166e8.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.
--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

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?"
I've already asked that.

Too bad. I read only enough of your posts to catch a giggle.\

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.

Are you plagiarising me again. That looks like something I wrote.

Lol, guess who can not follow a thread.

The false assumption there is that everyone wants the same 'product'.
Product differentiation is a good niche that to be in.

Oh, you poor dingbat. You claim to know everything about me.

So,. you concede my point above. Thank You.

But you
appear not to know that I worked in advertising,

Is there anyone here who doesn't know you were a **** and wind merchant
from the time you 'left school'.

....snip drivel...

In any event, a monopoly or oligopoly supplier like Google, Facebook or
Twitter offers only one product and buys competitors to offer the
appearance of competition or simply to shut them down. The tendency
within each firm is towards a homogenous product, with a thin overlay of
customisation available for really big buyers of their advertising. But
they deliver the same thing: eyes on ads, so profitably that now Amazon
is joining the cabal (a point on Muzi's side of the ledger) despite the
horrendous cost of entry.

None of your reply counters my point. Not everyone wants a homogenous
product and plenty of business effectively counter the big places.

If you actually looked around during your time in Australia, you would
have seen the bread duopoly shattered by thousands of local hot bread
shops.


Andre Jute Whose ether is it anyhow?