Two weeks early, like many many other greedy retailers ...
On Mon, 10 Nov 2025 20:51:48 +1300, Your Name wrote:
Two weeks early, like many many other greedy retailers ...
How dare they cut prices early to try to get an edge over other
retailers!!
They should all agree on a start date for Black Friday deals, and all
start discounting together!!! Make the punters pay full price until then,
so they canrCOt shop around!!!!!!!
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ...
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ...
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round rCLsalerCY. And the
Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
On 2025-11-10 22:27:45 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ...
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round rCLsalerCY. And >> the Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
Obviously not very well since many retailers have a near-continuous
sale. Briscoes being the most obvious, but there are others too.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 12:34:51 +1300, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-11-10 22:27:45 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ...
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round rCLsalerCY. And >>> the Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
Obviously not very well since many retailers have a near-continuous
sale. Briscoes being the most obvious, but there are others too.
And yet you complain about it as rCLgreedy retailersrCY.
On 2025-11-10 23:45:55 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 12:34:51 +1300, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-11-10 22:27:45 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ...
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round rCLsalerCY. >>>> And the Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
Obviously not very well since many retailers have a near-continuous
sale. Briscoes being the most obvious, but there are others too.
And yet you complain about it as rCLgreedy retailersrCY.
The two aren't connected.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:47:47 +1300, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-11-10 23:45:55 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 12:34:51 +1300, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-11-10 22:27:45 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ...
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round rCLsalerCY. >>>>> And the Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
Obviously not very well since many retailers have a near-continuous
sale. Briscoes being the most obvious, but there are others too.
And yet you complain about it as rCLgreedy retailersrCY.
The two aren't connected.
You previously said:
> Two weeks early, like many many other greedy retailers ...
If your idea of rCLgreedyrCY had nothing to do with the duration of sales, then what was it to do with?
On 2025-11-10 23:45:55 +0000, Lawrence D|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 12:34:51 +1300, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-11-10 22:27:45 +0000, Lawrence D|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ...
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round osaleo. And >>>> the Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
Obviously not very well since many retailers have a near-continuous
sale. Briscoes being the most obvious, but there are others too.
And yet you complain about it as ogreedy retailerso.
The two aren't connected. Plus, if they can sell them at the "sale"
price while still making a profit (which they mostly do), then
obviously the "normal" price is greedily excessive to begin with.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:47:47 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-11-10 23:45:55 +0000, Lawrence D|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 12:34:51 +1300, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-11-10 22:27:45 +0000, Lawrence D|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ...
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round osaleo. And >>>>> the Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
Obviously not very well since many retailers have a near-continuous
sale. Briscoes being the most obvious, but there are others too.
And yet you complain about it as ogreedy retailerso.
The two aren't connected. Plus, if they can sell them at the "sale"
price while still making a profit (which they mostly do), then
obviously the "normal" price is greedily excessive to begin with.
Except that the large retailers extract reduced pricing from their
suppliers to support their sale prices. This is particularly true of
The Warehouse, Harvey Norman, PB Tech et al. They don't drop their
margins, their suppliers do.
There are 2 angles for this: a supplier who wants to move products
through their retailers, and retailers looking for suppliers wanting to
get their products included with competitive pricing in upcoming
retailer sales.
On 2025-11-11 07:59:14 +0000, Crash said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:47:47 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-11-10 23:45:55 +0000, Lawrence D|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 12:34:51 +1300, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-11-10 22:27:45 +0000, Lawrence D|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ...
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round osaleo. And >>>>>> the Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
Obviously not very well since many retailers have a near-continuous
sale. Briscoes being the most obvious, but there are others too.
And yet you complain about it as ogreedy retailerso.
The two aren't connected. Plus, if they can sell them at the "sale"
price while still making a profit (which they mostly do), then
obviously the "normal" price is greedily excessive to begin with.
Except that the large retailers extract reduced pricing from their
suppliers to support their sale prices. This is particularly true of
The Warehouse, Harvey Norman, PB Tech et al. They don't drop their
margins, their suppliers do.
Doesn't really change the point that the original price was greedily >excessive - whether that's due to the retailer or the manufacturer, or
more likely both.
There are 2 angles for this: a supplier who wants to move products
through their retailers, and retailers looking for suppliers wanting to
get their products included with competitive pricing in upcoming
retailer sales.
"Competitive pricing" is largely a myth. All the store brands basically >collude on a price. If one store drops the price by a couple of
dollars, all the others follow suit. If one brand raises the price by a >couple of dollars, all the others follow suit. That's why you don't
really find much savings by 'shopping around' (although there are some >brands like Noel Leemings that are pretty much always more expensive).
That's the first rule of greedy big business: scam your customer for as
much as money you can get away with.
On 2025-11-10 22:27:45 +0000, Lawrence D|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ...
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round osaleo. And the >> Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
Obviously not very well since many retailers have a near-continuous
sale. Briscoes being the most obvious, but there are others too.
Doesn't really change the point that the original price was greedily excessive ...
"Competitive pricing" is largely a myth. All the store brands basically collude on a price.
That's the first rule of greedy big business: scam your customer for as
much as money you can get away with.
On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 10:57:31 +1300, Your Name wrote:
Doesn't really change the point that the original price was greedily
excessive ...
So if they start discounting from that original price earlier in the year, doesnrCOt that reduce the time that they can charge the higher price? Is
that rCLmorerCY greedy, or rCLlessrCY?
"Competitive pricing" is largely a myth. All the store brands basically
collude on a price.
The Commerce Commission has collected quite a few scalps on its belt from prosecuting such cases.
That's the first rule of greedy big business: scam your customer for as
much as money you can get away with.
Does early discounting help with that?
On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 10:57:31 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-11-11 07:59:14 +0000, Crash said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:47:47 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-11-10 23:45:55 +0000, Lawrence D|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 12:34:51 +1300, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-11-10 22:27:45 +0000, Lawrence D|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ...
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round osaleo. And >>>>>>> the Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
Obviously not very well since many retailers have a near-continuous >>>>>> sale. Briscoes being the most obvious, but there are others too.
And yet you complain about it as ogreedy retailerso.
The two aren't connected. Plus, if they can sell them at the "sale"
price while still making a profit (which they mostly do), then
obviously the "normal" price is greedily excessive to begin with.
Except that the large retailers extract reduced pricing from their
suppliers to support their sale prices. This is particularly true of
The Warehouse, Harvey Norman, PB Tech et al. They don't drop their
margins, their suppliers do.
Doesn't really change the point that the original price was greedily
excessive - whether that's due to the retailer or the manufacturer, or
more likely both.
There are 2 angles for this: a supplier who wants to move products
through their retailers, and retailers looking for suppliers wanting to
get their products included with competitive pricing in upcoming
retailer sales.
"Competitive pricing" is largely a myth. All the store brands basically
collude on a price. If one store drops the price by a couple of
dollars, all the others follow suit. If one brand raises the price by a
couple of dollars, all the others follow suit. That's why you don't
really find much savings by 'shopping around' (although there are some
brands like Noel Leemings that are pretty much always more expensive).
That's the first rule of greedy big business: scam your customer for as
much as money you can get away with.
Lets put that a little differently. The first rule of business: sell
your product for the highest price you can get for it. By definition,
if a product sells to a willing buyer, then the price is excessive
only to socialists or communists.
On 2025-11-12 02:04:43 +0000, Crash said:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 10:57:31 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-11-11 07:59:14 +0000, Crash said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:47:47 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-11-10 23:45:55 +0000, Lawrence D|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 12:34:51 +1300, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-11-10 22:27:45 +0000, Lawrence D|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ...
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round osaleo. And
the Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
Obviously not very well since many retailers have a near-continuous >>>>>>> sale. Briscoes being the most obvious, but there are others too.
And yet you complain about it as ogreedy retailerso.
The two aren't connected. Plus, if they can sell them at the "sale"
price while still making a profit (which they mostly do), then
obviously the "normal" price is greedily excessive to begin with.
Except that the large retailers extract reduced pricing from their
suppliers to support their sale prices. This is particularly true of
The Warehouse, Harvey Norman, PB Tech et al. They don't drop their
margins, their suppliers do.
Doesn't really change the point that the original price was greedily
excessive - whether that's due to the retailer or the manufacturer, or
more likely both.
There are 2 angles for this: a supplier who wants to move products
through their retailers, and retailers looking for suppliers wanting to >>>> get their products included with competitive pricing in upcoming
retailer sales.
"Competitive pricing" is largely a myth. All the store brands basically
collude on a price. If one store drops the price by a couple of
dollars, all the others follow suit. If one brand raises the price by a
couple of dollars, all the others follow suit. That's why you don't
really find much savings by 'shopping around' (although there are some
brands like Noel Leemings that are pretty much always more expensive).
That's the first rule of greedy big business: scam your customer for as
much as money you can get away with.
Lets put that a little differently. The first rule of business: sell
your product for the highest price you can get for it. By definition,
if a product sells to a willing buyer, then the price is excessive
only to socialists or communists.
Except the buyers only have two choices: buy the product at an
excessive price or don't buy the product at all. When it's an necessary >product like bread, milk, etc, there is no actual choice (other than >starving).
And, as I said, since the companies basically collude on pricing, most
of the milk (or whatever) products are pretty much the same price,
so again, no actual choice. If there was real competitive pricing, then
some company would come along and sell milk (or whatever) for $2 while
still covering all their real expenses, instead of $5 to cover
excessive greed like all the others ... guess which company would then
sell the most.
On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 17:48:23 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-11-12 02:04:43 +0000, Crash said:That is not correct. Even with milk, there are multiple choices of
On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 10:57:31 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-11-11 07:59:14 +0000, Crash said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:47:47 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 2025-11-10 23:45:55 +0000, Lawrence D|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 12:34:51 +1300, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-11-10 22:27:45 +0000, Lawrence D|Oliveiro said:And yet you complain about it as ogreedy retailerso.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ...
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round osaleo. And
the Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
Obviously not very well since many retailers have a near-continuous >>>>>>>> sale. Briscoes being the most obvious, but there are others too. >>>>>>>
The two aren't connected. Plus, if they can sell them at the "sale" >>>>>> price while still making a profit (which they mostly do), then
obviously the "normal" price is greedily excessive to begin with.
Except that the large retailers extract reduced pricing from their
suppliers to support their sale prices. This is particularly true of >>>>> The Warehouse, Harvey Norman, PB Tech et al. They don't drop their
margins, their suppliers do.
Doesn't really change the point that the original price was greedily
excessive - whether that's due to the retailer or the manufacturer, or >>>> more likely both.
There are 2 angles for this: a supplier who wants to move products
through their retailers, and retailers looking for suppliers wanting to >>>>> get their products included with competitive pricing in upcoming
retailer sales.
"Competitive pricing" is largely a myth. All the store brands basically >>>> collude on a price. If one store drops the price by a couple of
dollars, all the others follow suit. If one brand raises the price by a >>>> couple of dollars, all the others follow suit. That's why you don't
really find much savings by 'shopping around' (although there are some >>>> brands like Noel Leemings that are pretty much always more expensive). >>>>
That's the first rule of greedy big business: scam your customer for as >>>> much as money you can get away with.
Lets put that a little differently. The first rule of business: sell
your product for the highest price you can get for it. By definition,
if a product sells to a willing buyer, then the price is excessive
only to socialists or communists.
Except the buyers only have two choices: buy the product at an
excessive price or don't buy the product at all. When it's an necessary
product like bread, milk, etc, there is no actual choice (other than
starving).
And, as I said, since the companies basically collude on pricing, most
of the milk (or whatever) products are pretty much the same price,
so again, no actual choice. If there was real competitive pricing, then
some company would come along and sell milk (or whatever) for $2 while
still covering all their real expenses, instead of $5 to cover
excessive greed like all the others ... guess which company would then
sell the most.
brand and price point. I was in the supermarket yesterday and 500g
butter was available under the Pam's brand for $8.50/500g. Anchor was available at $9.50/500g. There was also a French brand available for $7.00/200g.
By definition, if Anchor can sell at their price when the same product
is available cheaper, then the price of Anchor is fair because
customers made that choice. Yes Anchor and Pam's are from the same
source, but customers decided what the fair price was for them, even
those who choose to by the French product.
It is the customer who decides, given multiple choices. The same
applies to milk.
Two weeks early, like many many other greedy retailers ...
PB Tech Black Friday Sale
In-store only: 5:00pm - 9:00pm, Friday, 14 November, 2025
Online: from 9:00pm, Friday, 14 November, 2025
In-store & online: Saturday, 15 November - Wednesday, 3 December, 2025
On 2025-11-11 07:59:14 +0000, Crash said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:47:47 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-11-10 23:45:55 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 12:34:51 +1300, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-11-10 22:27:45 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ...
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round -osale-o. And >>>>>> the Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
Obviously not very well since many retailers have a near-continuous
sale. Briscoes being the most obvious, but there are others too.
And yet you complain about it as -ogreedy retailers-o.
The two aren't connected. Plus, if they can sell them at the "sale"
price while still making a profit (which they mostly do), then
obviously the "normal" price is greedily excessive to begin with.
Except that the large retailers extract reduced pricing from their
suppliers to support their sale prices. This is particularly true of
The Warehouse, Harvey Norman, PB Tech et al. They don't drop their
margins, their suppliers do.
Doesn't really change the point that the original price was greedily excessive - whether that's due to the retailer or the manufacturer, or
more likely both.
There are 2 angles for this: a supplier who wants to move products
through their retailers, and retailers looking for suppliers wanting to
get their products included with competitive pricing in upcoming
retailer sales.
"Competitive pricing" is largely a myth. All the store brands basically collude on a price. If one store drops the price by a couple of
dollars, all the others follow suit. If one brand raises the price by a couple of dollars, all the others follow suit.
really find much savings by 'shopping around' (although there are some brands like Noel Leemings that are pretty much always more expensive).
That's the first rule of greedy big business: scam your customer for as
much as money you can get away with.
On 2025-11-12 02:04:43 +0000, Crash said:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 10:57:31 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-11-11 07:59:14 +0000, Crash said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:47:47 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-11-10 23:45:55 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 12:34:51 +1300, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-11-10 22:27:45 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ...
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round -osale-o. And
the Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
Obviously not very well since many retailers have a near-continuous >>>>>>> sale. Briscoes being the most obvious, but there are others too.
And yet you complain about it as -ogreedy retailers-o.
The two aren't connected. Plus, if they can sell them at the "sale"
price while still making a profit (which they mostly do), then
obviously the "normal" price is greedily excessive to begin with.
Except that the large retailers extract reduced pricing from their
suppliers to support their sale prices. This is particularly true of
The Warehouse, Harvey Norman, PB Tech et al. They don't drop their
margins, their suppliers do.
Doesn't really change the point that the original price was greedily
excessive - whether that's due to the retailer or the manufacturer, or
more likely both.
There are 2 angles for this: a supplier who wants to move products
through their retailers, and retailers looking for suppliers wanting to >>>> get their products included with competitive pricing in upcoming
retailer sales.
"Competitive pricing" is largely a myth. All the store brands basically
collude on a price. If one store drops the price by a couple of
dollars, all the others follow suit. If one brand raises the price by a
couple of dollars, all the others follow suit. That's why you don't
really find much savings by 'shopping around' (although there are some
brands like Noel Leemings that are pretty much always more expensive).
That's the first rule of greedy big business: scam your customer for as
much as money you can get away with.
Lets put that a little differently. The first rule of business: sell
your product for the highest price you can get for it. By definition,
if a product sells to a willing buyer, then the price is excessive
only to socialists or communists.
Except the buyers only have two choices: buy the product at an
excessive price or don't buy the product at all. When it's an necessary product like bread, milk, etc, there is no actual choice (other than starving).
And, as I said, since the companies basically collude on pricing, most
of the milk (or whatever) products are pretty much the same price, so
again, no actual choice. If there was real competitive pricing, then
some company would come along and sell milk (or whatever) for $2 while
still covering all their real expenses, instead of $5 to cover
excessive greed like all the others ... guess which company would then
sell the most.
On 2025-11-12 06:55:02 +0000, Crash said:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 17:48:23 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-11-12 02:04:43 +0000, Crash said:That is not correct. Even with milk, there are multiple choices of
On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 10:57:31 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-11-11 07:59:14 +0000, Crash said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:47:47 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2025-11-10 23:45:55 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:Except that the large retailers extract reduced pricing from their >>>>>> suppliers to support their sale prices. This is particularly true of >>>>>> The Warehouse, Harvey Norman, PB Tech et al. They don't drop their >>>>>> margins, their suppliers do.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 12:34:51 +1300, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-11-10 22:27:45 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:And yet you complain about it as -ogreedy retailers-o.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round -osale-o. And
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ... >>>>>>>>>>
the Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
Obviously not very well since many retailers have a near-continuous >>>>>>>>> sale. Briscoes being the most obvious, but there are others too. >>>>>>>>
The two aren't connected. Plus, if they can sell them at the "sale" >>>>>>> price while still making a profit (which they mostly do), then
obviously the "normal" price is greedily excessive to begin with. >>>>>>
Doesn't really change the point that the original price was greedily >>>>> excessive - whether that's due to the retailer or the manufacturer, or >>>>> more likely both.
There are 2 angles for this: a supplier who wants to move products >>>>>> through their retailers, and retailers looking for suppliers wanting to >>>>>> get their products included with competitive pricing in upcoming
retailer sales.
"Competitive pricing" is largely a myth. All the store brands basically >>>>> collude on a price. If one store drops the price by a couple of
dollars, all the others follow suit. If one brand raises the price by a >>>>> couple of dollars, all the others follow suit. That's why you don't
really find much savings by 'shopping around' (although there are some >>>>> brands like Noel Leemings that are pretty much always more expensive). >>>>>
That's the first rule of greedy big business: scam your customer for as >>>>> much as money you can get away with.
Lets put that a little differently. The first rule of business: sell
your product for the highest price you can get for it. By definition, >>>> if a product sells to a willing buyer, then the price is excessive
only to socialists or communists.
Except the buyers only have two choices: buy the product at an
excessive price or don't buy the product at all. When it's an necessary
product like bread, milk, etc, there is no actual choice (other than
starving).
And, as I said, since the companies basically collude on pricing, most
of the milk (or whatever) products are pretty much the same price,
so again, no actual choice. If there was real competitive pricing, then
some company would come along and sell milk (or whatever) for $2 while
still covering all their real expenses, instead of $5 to cover
excessive greed like all the others ... guess which company would then
sell the most.
brand and price point. I was in the supermarket yesterday and 500g
butter was available under the Pam's brand for $8.50/500g. Anchor was
available at $9.50/500g. There was also a French brand available for
$7.00/200g.
By definition, if Anchor can sell at their price when the same product
is available cheaper, then the price of Anchor is fair because
customers made that choice. Yes Anchor and Pam's are from the same
source, but customers decided what the fair price was for them, even
those who choose to by the French product.
It is the customer who decides, given multiple choices. The same
applies to milk.
I knew that was going to happen. "Milk" was simply an example product,
not an actual product. Too many people take everything written on the internet as being 120% literal. :-\
On 2025-11-12 02:04:43 +0000, Crash said:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 10:57:31 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-11-11 07:59:14 +0000, Crash said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:47:47 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-11-10 23:45:55 +0000, Lawrence D|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 12:34:51 +1300, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-11-10 22:27:45 +0000, Lawrence D|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ...
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round osaleo. And
the Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
Obviously not very well since many retailers have a near-continuous >>>>>>> sale. Briscoes being the most obvious, but there are others too.
And yet you complain about it as ogreedy retailerso.
The two aren't connected. Plus, if they can sell them at the "sale"
price while still making a profit (which they mostly do), then
obviously the "normal" price is greedily excessive to begin with.
Except that the large retailers extract reduced pricing from their
suppliers to support their sale prices. This is particularly true of
The Warehouse, Harvey Norman, PB Tech et al. They don't drop their
margins, their suppliers do.
Doesn't really change the point that the original price was greedily
excessive - whether that's due to the retailer or the manufacturer, or
more likely both.
There are 2 angles for this: a supplier who wants to move products
through their retailers, and retailers looking for suppliers wanting to >>>> get their products included with competitive pricing in upcoming
retailer sales.
"Competitive pricing" is largely a myth. All the store brands basically
collude on a price. If one store drops the price by a couple of
dollars, all the others follow suit. If one brand raises the price by a
couple of dollars, all the others follow suit. That's why you don't
really find much savings by 'shopping around' (although there are some
brands like Noel Leemings that are pretty much always more expensive).
That's the first rule of greedy big business: scam your customer for as
much as money you can get away with.
Lets put that a little differently. The first rule of business: sell
your product for the highest price you can get for it. By definition,
if a product sells to a willing buyer, then the price is excessive
only to socialists or communists.
Except the buyers only have two choices: buy the product at an
excessive price or don't buy the product at all. When it's an necessary >product like bread, milk, etc, there is no actual choice (other than >starving).
And, as I said, since the companies basically collude on pricing, most
of the milk (or whatever) products are pretty much the same price, so
again, no actual choice. If there was real competitive pricing, then
some company would come along and sell milk (or whatever) for $2 while
still covering all their real expenses, instead of $5 to cover
excessive greed like all the others ... guess which company would then
sell the most.
On 2025-11-11, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-11-11 07:59:14 +0000, Crash said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:47:47 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-11-10 23:45:55 +0000, Lawrence D|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 12:34:51 +1300, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-11-10 22:27:45 +0000, Lawrence D|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ...
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round ?sale?. And >>>>>>> the Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
Obviously not very well since many retailers have a near-continuous >>>>>> sale. Briscoes being the most obvious, but there are others too.
And yet you complain about it as ?greedy retailers?.
The two aren't connected. Plus, if they can sell them at the "sale"
price while still making a profit (which they mostly do), then
obviously the "normal" price is greedily excessive to begin with.
Except that the large retailers extract reduced pricing from their
suppliers to support their sale prices. This is particularly true of
The Warehouse, Harvey Norman, PB Tech et al. They don't drop their
margins, their suppliers do.
Doesn't really change the point that the original price was greedily
excessive - whether that's due to the retailer or the manufacturer, or
more likely both.
So it is more than you are pepaid to pay. Don't buy the goods, this is how
it works in theory. Haggle, that is supposed to work.
There are 2 angles for this: a supplier who wants to move products
through their retailers, and retailers looking for suppliers wanting to >>> get their products included with competitive pricing in upcoming
retailer sales.
"Competitive pricing" is largely a myth. All the store brands basically
collude on a price. If one store drops the price by a couple of
dollars, all the others follow suit. If one brand raises the price by a
couple of dollars, all the others follow suit.
Think about this. You are only going to sell at a lower price than the >competition if you can make on volume. You are in business to make a profit.
So we agree that the street value is the same in all shops.
That's why you don't--
really find much savings by 'shopping around' (although there are some
brands like Noel Leemings that are pretty much always more expensive).
That's the first rule of greedy big business: scam your customer for as
much as money you can get away with.
On 2025-11-12, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-11-12 02:04:43 +0000, Crash said:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 10:57:31 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-11-11 07:59:14 +0000, Crash said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:47:47 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 2025-11-10 23:45:55 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 12:34:51 +1300, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-11-10 22:27:45 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:And yet you complain about it as -ogreedy retailers-o.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ...
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round -osale-o. >>>>>>>>>And
the Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
Obviously not very well since many retailers have a near-continuous >>>>>>>> sale. Briscoes being the most obvious, but there are others too. >>>>>>>
The two aren't connected. Plus, if they can sell them at the "sale" >>>>>> price while still making a profit (which they mostly do), then
obviously the "normal" price is greedily excessive to begin with.
Except that the large retailers extract reduced pricing from their
suppliers to support their sale prices. This is particularly true of >>>>> The Warehouse, Harvey Norman, PB Tech et al. They don't drop their
margins, their suppliers do.
Doesn't really change the point that the original price was greedily
excessive - whether that's due to the retailer or the manufacturer, or >>>> more likely both.
There are 2 angles for this: a supplier who wants to move products
through their retailers, and retailers looking for suppliers wanting to >>>>> get their products included with competitive pricing in upcoming
retailer sales.
"Competitive pricing" is largely a myth. All the store brands basically >>>> collude on a price. If one store drops the price by a couple of
dollars, all the others follow suit. If one brand raises the price by a >>>> couple of dollars, all the others follow suit. That's why you don't
really find much savings by 'shopping around' (although there are some >>>> brands like Noel Leemings that are pretty much always more expensive). >>>>
That's the first rule of greedy big business: scam your customer for as >>>> much as money you can get away with.
Let the buyer be aware.
Yes, some countries struggle with it, however no alternative to capitalism has ever worked. All attempts at an alternative failed after a few years with poverty and oppression being the result.
Lets put that a little differently. The first rule of business: sell
your product for the highest price you can get for it. By definition,
if a product sells to a willing buyer, then the price is excessive
only to socialists or communists.
Except the buyers only have two choices: buy the product at an
excessive price or don't buy the product at all. When it's an necessary
product like bread, milk, etc, there is no actual choice (other than
starving).
This is when competition should arrive on the scene and attack the "exessive" >prices with the buyers all making it clear that the price is too high.
Unfortunately the buyers do not act with "force", so the execssive prices
are paid.
I'll agree that capitalism does not scale well.
And, as I said, since the companies basically collude on pricing, most
of the milk (or whatever) products are pretty much the same price, so
again, no actual choice. If there was real competitive pricing, then
some company would come along and sell milk (or whatever) for $2 while
still covering all their real expenses, instead of $5 to cover
excessive greed like all the others ... guess which company would then
sell the most.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2025-11-12, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-11-12 02:04:43 +0000, Crash said:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 10:57:31 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-11-11 07:59:14 +0000, Crash said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:47:47 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2025-11-10 23:45:55 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:Except that the large retailers extract reduced pricing from their >>>>>> suppliers to support their sale prices. This is particularly true of >>>>>> The Warehouse, Harvey Norman, PB Tech et al. They don't drop their >>>>>> margins, their suppliers do.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 12:34:51 +1300, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-11-10 22:27:45 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:And yet you complain about it as -ogreedy retailers-o.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round -osale-o.
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ... >>>>>>>>>>
And the Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
Obviously not very well since many retailers have a near-continuous >>>>>>>>> sale. Briscoes being the most obvious, but there are others too. >>>>>>>>
The two aren't connected. Plus, if they can sell them at the "sale" >>>>>>> price while still making a profit (which they mostly do), then
obviously the "normal" price is greedily excessive to begin with. >>>>>>
Doesn't really change the point that the original price was greedily >>>>> excessive - whether that's due to the retailer or the manufacturer, or >>>>> more likely both.
There are 2 angles for this: a supplier who wants to move products >>>>>> through their retailers, and retailers looking for suppliers wanting to >>>>>> get their products included with competitive pricing in upcoming
retailer sales.
"Competitive pricing" is largely a myth. All the store brands basically >>>>> collude on a price. If one store drops the price by a couple of
dollars, all the others follow suit. If one brand raises the price by a >>>>> couple of dollars, all the others follow suit. That's why you don't
really find much savings by 'shopping around' (although there are some >>>>> brands like Noel Leemings that are pretty much always more expensive). >>>>>
That's the first rule of greedy big business: scam your customer for as >>>>> much as money you can get away with.
Let the buyer be aware.
Lets put that a little differently. The first rule of business: sell
your product for the highest price you can get for it. By definition, >>>> if a product sells to a willing buyer, then the price is excessive
only to socialists or communists.
Except the buyers only have two choices: buy the product at an
excessive price or don't buy the product at all. When it's an necessary
product like bread, milk, etc, there is no actual choice (other than
starving).
This is when competition should arrive on the scene and attack the
"exessive" prices with the buyers all making it clear that the price is
too high.
Unfortunately the buyers do not act with "force", so the execssive prices
are paid.
I'll agree that capitalism does not scale well.
Yes, some countries struggle with it, however no alternative to capitalism has
ever worked. All attempts at an alternative failed after a few years with poverty and oppression being the result.
And, as I said, since the companies basically collude on pricing, most
of the milk (or whatever) products are pretty much the same price, so
again, no actual choice. If there was real competitive pricing, then
some company would come along and sell milk (or whatever) for $2 while
still covering all their real expenses, instead of $5 to cover
excessive greed like all the others ... guess which company would then
sell the most.
On 2025-11-17 17:51:56 +0000, Tony said:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2025-11-12, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-11-12 02:04:43 +0000, Crash said:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 10:57:31 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 2025-11-11 07:59:14 +0000, Crash said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:47:47 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2025-11-10 23:45:55 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:Except that the large retailers extract reduced pricing from their >>>>>>> suppliers to support their sale prices. This is particularly true of >>>>>>> The Warehouse, Harvey Norman, PB Tech et al. They don't drop their >>>>>>> margins, their suppliers do.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 12:34:51 +1300, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-11-10 22:27:45 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:And yet you complain about it as -ogreedy retailers-o.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round >>>>>>>>>>>-osale-o.
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ... >>>>>>>>>>>
And the Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
Obviously not very well since many retailers have a near-continuous >>>>>>>>>> sale. Briscoes being the most obvious, but there are others too. >>>>>>>>>
The two aren't connected. Plus, if they can sell them at the "sale" >>>>>>>> price while still making a profit (which they mostly do), then >>>>>>>> obviously the "normal" price is greedily excessive to begin with. >>>>>>>
Doesn't really change the point that the original price was greedily >>>>>> excessive - whether that's due to the retailer or the manufacturer, or >>>>>> more likely both.
There are 2 angles for this: a supplier who wants to move products >>>>>>> through their retailers, and retailers looking for suppliers wanting to
get their products included with competitive pricing in upcoming >>>>>>> retailer sales.
"Competitive pricing" is largely a myth. All the store brands basically >>>>>> collude on a price. If one store drops the price by a couple of
dollars, all the others follow suit. If one brand raises the price by a >>>>>> couple of dollars, all the others follow suit. That's why you don't >>>>>> really find much savings by 'shopping around' (although there are some >>>>>> brands like Noel Leemings that are pretty much always more expensive). >>>>>>
That's the first rule of greedy big business: scam your customer for as >>>>>> much as money you can get away with.
Let the buyer be aware.
Lets put that a little differently. The first rule of business: sell >>>>> your product for the highest price you can get for it. By definition, >>>>> if a product sells to a willing buyer, then the price is excessive
only to socialists or communists.
Except the buyers only have two choices: buy the product at an
excessive price or don't buy the product at all. When it's an necessary >>>> product like bread, milk, etc, there is no actual choice (other than
starving).
This is when competition should arrive on the scene and attack the
"exessive" prices with the buyers all making it clear that the price is >>> too high.
Unfortunately the buyers do not act with "force", so the execssive prices >>> are paid.
I'll agree that capitalism does not scale well.
Yes, some countries struggle with it, however no alternative to capitalism >>has
ever worked. All attempts at an alternative failed after a few years with
poverty and oppression being the result.
There is no other country that has tried any other alternative system >*properly*. The so-called "Communist" countries like USSR, China, etc.
were / are really just the greedy selfish fat cats at the top creaming
off wealth for themselves while every else suffers - it's not actually
true communism and not a lot different to the western countries either.
As the saying goes: "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
Well Cuba and Iraly both tried and failed. Karl Marx believed communism (marxism) would work and it failed.And, as I said, since the companies basically collude on pricing, most >>>> of the milk (or whatever) products are pretty much the same price, so
again, no actual choice. If there was real competitive pricing, then
some company would come along and sell milk (or whatever) for $2 while >>>> still covering all their real expenses, instead of $5 to cover
excessive greed like all the others ... guess which company would then >>>> sell the most.
On 2025-11-17 17:51:56 +0000, Tony said:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2025-11-12, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-11-12 02:04:43 +0000, Crash said:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 10:57:31 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 2025-11-11 07:59:14 +0000, Crash said:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:47:47 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2025-11-10 23:45:55 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:Except that the large retailers extract reduced pricing from their >>>>>>> suppliers to support their sale prices. This is particularly true of >>>>>>> The Warehouse, Harvey Norman, PB Tech et al. They don't drop their >>>>>>> margins, their suppliers do.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 12:34:51 +1300, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-11-10 22:27:45 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:And yet you complain about it as -ogreedy retailers-o.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:54:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
There are laws in NZ against that kind of bogus year-round >>>>>>>>>>>-osale-o.
A. There are near-continuous sales at many retailers ... >>>>>>>>>>>
And the Commerce Commission does enforce the law.
Obviously not very well since many retailers have a near-continuous >>>>>>>>>> sale. Briscoes being the most obvious, but there are others too. >>>>>>>>>
The two aren't connected. Plus, if they can sell them at the "sale" >>>>>>>> price while still making a profit (which they mostly do), then >>>>>>>> obviously the "normal" price is greedily excessive to begin with. >>>>>>>
Doesn't really change the point that the original price was greedily >>>>>> excessive - whether that's due to the retailer or the manufacturer, or >>>>>> more likely both.
There are 2 angles for this: a supplier who wants to move products >>>>>>> through their retailers, and retailers looking for suppliers wanting to
get their products included with competitive pricing in upcoming >>>>>>> retailer sales.
"Competitive pricing" is largely a myth. All the store brands basically >>>>>> collude on a price. If one store drops the price by a couple of
dollars, all the others follow suit. If one brand raises the price by a >>>>>> couple of dollars, all the others follow suit. That's why you don't >>>>>> really find much savings by 'shopping around' (although there are some >>>>>> brands like Noel Leemings that are pretty much always more expensive). >>>>>>
That's the first rule of greedy big business: scam your customer for as >>>>>> much as money you can get away with.
Let the buyer be aware.
Lets put that a little differently. The first rule of business: sell >>>>> your product for the highest price you can get for it. By definition, >>>>> if a product sells to a willing buyer, then the price is excessive
only to socialists or communists.
Except the buyers only have two choices: buy the product at an
excessive price or don't buy the product at all. When it's an necessary >>>> product like bread, milk, etc, there is no actual choice (other than
starving).
This is when competition should arrive on the scene and attack the
"exessive" prices with the buyers all making it clear that the price is >>> too high.
Unfortunately the buyers do not act with "force", so the execssive prices >>> are paid.
I'll agree that capitalism does not scale well.
Yes, some countries struggle with it, however no alternative to capitalism >>has
ever worked. All attempts at an alternative failed after a few years with
poverty and oppression being the result.
There is no other country that has tried any other alternative system >*properly*. The so-called "Communist" countries like USSR, China, etc.
were / are really just the greedy selfish fat cats at the top creaming
off wealth for themselves while every else suffers - it's not actually
true communism and not a lot different to the western countries either.
As the saying goes: "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
Well Cuba and Iraly both tried and failed. Karl Marx believed communism (marxism) would work and it failed.And, as I said, since the companies basically collude on pricing, most >>>> of the milk (or whatever) products are pretty much the same price, so
again, no actual choice. If there was real competitive pricing, then
some company would come along and sell milk (or whatever) for $2 while >>>> still covering all their real expenses, instead of $5 to cover
excessive greed like all the others ... guess which company would then >>>> sell the most.
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:<snip>
On 2025-11-17 17:51:56 +0000, Tony said:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2025-11-12, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-11-12 02:04:43 +0000, Crash said:
Lets put that a little differently. The first rule of business: sell >>>>>> your product for the highest price you can get for it. By definition, >>>>>> if a product sells to a willing buyer, then the price is excessive only >>>>>> to socialists or communists.
Except the buyers only have two choices: buy the product at an
excessive price or don't buy the product at all. When it's an necessary >>>>> product like bread, milk, etc, there is no actual choice (other than >>>>> starving).
This is when competition should arrive on the scene and attack the
"exessive" prices with the buyers all making it clear that the price is >>>> too high.
Unfortunately the buyers do not act with "force", so the execssive prices >>>> are paid.
I'll agree that capitalism does not scale well.
Yes, some countries struggle with it, however no alternative to capitalism >>> has ever worked. All attempts at an alternative failed after a few
years with poverty and oppression being the result.
There is no other country that has tried any other alternative system
*properly*. The so-called "Communist" countries like USSR, China, etc.
were / are really just the greedy selfish fat cats at the top creaming
off wealth for themselves while every else suffers - it's not actually
true communism and not a lot different to the western countries either.
As the saying goes: "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
Well Cuba and Iraly both tried and failed. Karl Marx believed communism (marxism) would work and it failed.
Some countries have tried - all failed.
On 2025-11-18 02:25:06 +0000, Tony said:Not to start with and that is exactly my point. They became corrupted by their greed, but before that the leaders genuinely wanted a fairer system. That is historically correct.
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:<snip>
On 2025-11-17 17:51:56 +0000, Tony said:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2025-11-12, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-11-12 02:04:43 +0000, Crash said:
Lets put that a little differently. The first rule of business: sell >>>>>>> your product for the highest price you can get for it. By definition, >>>>>>> if a product sells to a willing buyer, then the price is excessive only
to socialists or communists.
Except the buyers only have two choices: buy the product at an
excessive price or don't buy the product at all. When it's an necessary >>>>>> product like bread, milk, etc, there is no actual choice (other than >>>>>> starving).
This is when competition should arrive on the scene and attack the
"exessive" prices with the buyers all making it clear that the price is >>>>> too high.
Unfortunately the buyers do not act with "force", so the execssive prices >>>>> are paid.
I'll agree that capitalism does not scale well.
Yes, some countries struggle with it, however no alternative to capitalism >>>> has ever worked. All attempts at an alternative failed after a few
years with poverty and oppression being the result.
There is no other country that has tried any other alternative system
*properly*. The so-called "Communist" countries like USSR, China, etc.
were / are really just the greedy selfish fat cats at the top creaming
off wealth for themselves while every else suffers - it's not actually
true communism and not a lot different to the western countries either.
As the saying goes: "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
Well Cuba and Iraly both tried and failed. Karl Marx believed communism
(marxism) would work and it failed.
Some countries have tried - all failed.
Cuba and "Iraly" ;-) are / were in reality the same as USSR and China -
in reality all socialst countries with a "communist" government
creaming off the wealth for themselves.
There has never been any country that was *truly* communist. None ofAs above, that happened after the corruption. The original ruling classes started out with good intentions. (not true in Russia or China of course, they were never after a fair system).
those countries western people use the terms for actually even
described themselves as being that. The simple fact that there is a
ruling class, government, etc. means it is not actually communism.
Whether or not true communism would work or simply be highly chaotic isI personally believe it could never work, it is based on the idea of human beings all wanting to be equal, and that is not the case - we are a greedy bunch.
very different question. :-)
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-11-18 02:25:06 +0000, Tony said:Not to start with and that is exactly my point. They became corrupted by their
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:<snip>
On 2025-11-17 17:51:56 +0000, Tony said:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2025-11-12, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-11-12 02:04:43 +0000, Crash said:
Lets put that a little differently. The first rule of business: sell >>>>>>>> your product for the highest price you can get for it. By definition,
if a product sells to a willing buyer, then the price is excessive only
to socialists or communists.
Except the buyers only have two choices: buy the product at an
excessive price or don't buy the product at all. When it's an necessary
product like bread, milk, etc, there is no actual choice (other than >>>>>>> starving).
This is when competition should arrive on the scene and attack the >>>>>> "exessive" prices with the buyers all making it clear that the price is >>>>>> too high.
Unfortunately the buyers do not act with "force", so the execssive >>>>>> prices are paid.
I'll agree that capitalism does not scale well.
Yes, some countries struggle with it, however no alternative to
capitalism has ever worked. All attempts at an alternative failed after >>>>> a few years with poverty and oppression being the result.
There is no other country that has tried any other alternative system
*properly*. The so-called "Communist" countries like USSR, China, etc. >>>> were / are really just the greedy selfish fat cats at the top creaming >>>> off wealth for themselves while every else suffers - it's not actually >>>> true communism and not a lot different to the western countries either. >>>> As the saying goes: "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
Well Cuba and Iraly both tried and failed. Karl Marx believed communism
(marxism) would work and it failed.
Some countries have tried - all failed.
Cuba and "Iraly" ;-) are / were in reality the same as USSR and China -
in reality all socialst countries with a "communist" government
creaming off the wealth for themselves.
greed, but before that the leaders genuinely wanted a fairer system. That is historically correct.
As above, that happened after the corruption. The original ruling classes started out with good intentions. (not true in Russia or China of course, they
There has never been any country that was *truly* communist. None of
those countries western people use the terms for actually even
described themselves as being that. The simple fact that there is a
ruling class, government, etc. means it is not actually communism.
were never after a fair system).
I personally believe it could never work, it is based on the idea of human beings all wanting to be equal, and that is not the case - we are a greedy bunch.
Whether or not true communism would work or simply be highly chaotic is
very different question. :-)
Yes, some countries struggle with it, however no alternative to
capitalism has ever worked.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 17:51:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Communist China is one of the most capitalist countries in the world (as well as other things of course). Hence my comment, there is no workable alternative. --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Yes, some countries struggle with it, however no alternative to
capitalism has ever worked.
Communist China seems to be giving that paragon of Capitalism, the
good ole US of A, a bit of a run for its money these days.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 12:20:54 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (2,024K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,175 |
| Posted today: | 1 |