Amazon Vehicles Up to 80 Percent Off Textbooks Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Lindsey Stirling Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Totes Summer-Event-Garden Amazon Cash Back Offer power_s3 power_s3 power_s3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Shop Now STEM
Customer Discussions > Toys forum

People have forgotten that cost and value are variable - if you don't already agree with me, this post is too long so you should probably just go ahead and not read it

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 52 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 13, 2012 10:10:27 PM PST
DisplacedMic says:
I've been reading these forums for a few weeks now and it's amazing to read the posts complaining about the character of individuals charging "unreasonable prices" for toys (or any elastic good) here or anywhere else.

On Amazon, or anywhere else, nobody wants to pay more than they have to for anything. Likewise, sellers want to get as much as possible for their items. Assuming parties enter into these transactions freely, this maintains a relatively harmonious equilibrium - until stock gets low and prices (and tempers) get high.

I think we have gotten used to goods and services being consistently priced. Big chain grocery stores, manufacturers and retailers tend to "fix" the prices of most items even though their margins are constantly shifting. As a result people come to expect that X has a static cost of Y. We are all well accustomed to the fact that long-term prices tend to shift upwards and most of us have at least a peripheral grasp on concepts like inflation, but in the end we tend to think that something costs what it costs and that's that.

If the cost of rice goes up, for example, companies like Kellog might just absorb the increased cost to keep the price of their various cereals constant at the expense of profit per unit sold. This keeps consumers happier and in the long run is better for profits than constantly shifting prices on a daily basis. It also centralizes pricing and simplifies administrative burdens and therefore minimizes cost. The only time retail prices go up (or less often down) is when producer/retailer costs change for a longer period of time.

So people get used to the idea that a box of Rice Krispies costs $3 unaware and unconcerned with the fact that the profit margin for Kellog is constantly changing. So what happens is we are no longer thinking "I would rather have that box of Rice Krispies than my $3 so I will enter into the market and make this trade." Instead we think "a box of Rice Krispies is worth $3"

Put simply we have become used to being told what something is worth or more importantly, what it should be worth to us.

With the internet we have gotten back to a more traditional free market - and as a result of such a huge marketplace prices have become consistent on most goods but for a different reason: competition.

While the end result is similar, this equilibrium is more "susceptible" to being rapidly affected by changes in supply and/or demand. So at high-volume times or with hot-button items, you see highly variable prices that reflect the changing value of these items in terms of how their valued by us consumers. The thing is, we're just not used to this phenomenon any more - especially when it comes to money.

Currency is just a way of standardizing trade. On Monday you might be willing to trade a pound of flour for a pound of corn. This might change later in the week depending on your needs and that pound of corn might only be worth half a pound of flour to you. Currency just makes trade easier so that we're not paying for movie tickets with 3 chickens and 2 pounds of oats. It's no different than trade and barter on a microeconomic scale. However if we were buying a movie ticket with 3 chickens and 2 pounds of oats we would have no trouble accepting the fact that the worth of that ticket might change dramatically depending on any one of a million reasons. We need more eggs tomorrow because family is coming over. There hasn't been a good rain in a while and oats are going to start costing me more home-made scarves and I don't really want to sit down and make 30 scarves again this weekend because i'd rather go fishing. Why is this any different when we've simplified our system of trade, not to mention improved the smell of our vehicles, by using little green pieces of paper? That piece of paper is just as valuable as those 30 scarves, chickens or oats otherwise you wouldn't have traded all of them for it.

I think herein lies the source of some people's inability to understand basic economic concepts of supply and demand, opportunity cost and the very simple yet undeniable truth that if someone pays X for Y then by definition Y is worth precisely X.

As a result we see the emotional arguments when it comes to price fluctuations in the various internet markets. That's why people are quick to throw around terms like price-gouging or rip off on items they think are "over priced" when in reality the only item that is over-priced is the item that doesn't sell.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2012 10:17:33 AM PST
We would only accept three chickens for one of our movies if the chickens were alive.

Posted on Feb 14, 2012 11:29:09 AM PST
your self-congratulatory condescension aside, a "basic economic concept of supply and demand" that you seem to gloss over is called price discovery. Price discovery doesn't happen here now does it? Sellers aren't trying to find the price the market agrees to buy all it's products, they are trying to keep them hostage until someone relents and pays their outrageous price. There are many items on Amazon sold by third party sellers right now that are currently regularly available in retail stores for half the price. Again it doesn't sound like those sellers are actually trying to find equilibrium and sell their product, they're trying to hold out until that one customer comes along that didn't do their research.

Sellers are free to do whatever they want, and so are buyers, but don't try and talk people into the notion that what goes on with these sellers on Amazon is anything more than just being greedy.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2012 11:37:50 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 14, 2012 11:38:39 AM PST
Absolutely, Robert, sellers have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to make a living for themselves!

Buyers are GUARANTEED by the CONSTITUTION and the BILL OF RIGHTS to get ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they want for a price they DEMAND at a time they demand, REGARDLESS of any other variables.

Posted on Feb 14, 2012 11:56:24 AM PST
SFP, I clearly stated they could do whatever they want, but don't presume to justify what they are doing with selective explanations of "supply and demand".

And as usual you put words in my mouth by way of your CAPITAL LETTERS insinuating I have made a statement about demanding to "set my own price". I have simply shown that the argument of "supply and demand" as justification is nonsense. I know you're smarter than that ;). If sellers are trying to "make a living" by re-selling goods then I guess they'd want to actually "sell" them, not just sit on them waiting for the sucker-of-the-day, right?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2012 12:02:59 PM PST
DisplacedMic says:
Yes - you're probably right in that there is a tone of condescension in what i wrote. I apologize, but that doesn't make me wrong.

do you really not think there's "price discovery" on the internet? I disagree.
There's your price discovery.

If something is "overpriced" then nobody will buy it. if someone buys it, then it clearly wasn't overpriced.
Emotional terms like greed don't enter into it. In an enormous and constantly changing market such as the internet, this is happening continuously.

If someone buys something online that is available at half the price at a brick and mortar store why do you care? People value things differently - including their time. If something is priced over what the market will bear then no sale happens until something changes.

Regarding greed - what do you suggest - fixing prices? If I value something at $80 but a seller is forced to sell it at $60 because you think that extra $20 is just greedy, aren't you ostensibly forcing him to donate $20 towards that purchase? How is that any less greedy than a seller marking up an item above what you happen to believe is a reasonable profit?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2012 12:26:48 PM PST
you apologize for your condescending tone then pepper your your comment with it, real nice.

There's your price discovery.>

Ok, you either don't know what "price discovery" is, or are being willingfully obtuse. I'll give you a hint, it's not looking it up on Google Shopping...

To answer your question, if someone buys something online that is available at half the price at a brick and mortar store, I *don't* care. I care though, when people like you use "it's economics, stupid" as BS reasoning for that seller marking it up outrageously. If principles of economics were the sole factor to his pricing strategy he would either be lowering his price to actually sell the item at a level of profit margin that is acceptable for him. If he can not *sell* the item at an acceptable profit margin, then I guess he needs to find different products to sell. Or, maybe just leave the distribution of products to the retailers designated by the manufacturer to do it. In the "age of the internet" where one can just go to a brick and mortar store or their own website, especially for currently-produced items, there is no need for that 3rd party seller in the equation as he adds nothing to the value of the product, creates no more product, and certainly adds no more to the consumer.

As popular as it is in today's society to deny there's even such a thing as greed because everything it seems is about trying to hoard as much money as possible, there still *is* a such thing as greed. "Supply and demand" is so often used as a cover for it. I have never said anything about what a seller should mark an item to, or fixing prices for that matter. I have said though that if "supply and demand" were the motivating factor for their prices then they'd be fluctuating that price up and down as the supply and demand curve move to always have equilibrium where all of their product is sold (actually purchased) at the price the market has agreed upon based on those curves. Clearly that's not happening. They would "discover" the price (price discovery) that which all of their items move.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2012 12:31:20 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 15, 2012 8:59:45 AM PST

People that go around insisting that it is somehow sinful, morally wrong, illegal, unethical or otherwise (as you yourself have done in these threads) ARE making the insinuation that you insist, nay, DEMAND a certain item at a time and place of your choosing.

We dare say that a seller (at least one in the profession of sales) is not going to wait on the "sucker-of-the-day" as you put it, but they ARE most certainly going to want to get the best price they can for their items.

A fine example is our merchandise. There is little doubt that many of our items are priced higher than others. Does this mean our business waits for your "sucker-of-the-day"? Or does it mean we can command that price due to previous experience and knowledge of the product line, which does include supply and demand; the knowledge of how many items are available in the marketplace, how popular an item is, the price point it has sold for in the past and intangibles such as purchase price & time and effort?

It has been demonstrated time and time again that people in sales don't "conspire" or work together. Sales is COMPETITION. If you think otherwise, then you're either horribly misinformed, or just foolish. NO ONE can affect global supply on the scale you and others like you suggest. Your belief is that because one dozen people have the rare Spacely Sprocket Variation Beta that EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD has bought out the supply right from under you, backing up the Mack truck to load them all in.

Yes, you have your story how "the guy in front of me bought everything", which is amazing how much "that guy" gets around. That story, by the way, still screams of fiction, which is the nice way of putting it.

However, as we stated elsewhere, if these items are SO valuable and SO collectible and SO desirable, how come no one has ever thought that maybe the COLLECTORS have them? Because it's easier to go and place the blame on a reseller who has what you want, then to actually go and think things through. Whatever is the easy way to vent your spleen, right?

EDIT: Additionally, Robert, you love to throw around your opinion and pretend it is a fact. "there is no need for that 3rd party seller in the equation as he adds nothing to the value of the product, creates no more product, and certainly adds no more to the consumer." Taking these three statements individually, let's examine.

there is no need for that 3rd party seller in the equation as he adds nothing to the value of the product. That's your OPINION. Others may feel different. Some others may feel the third party adds time value. Don't claim to speak for every person on the planet because your opinion is no more valuable than anyone else's. You do NOT speak for every person. Your opinions are noted, but it's not a fact, despite your pretence that it is.

there is no need for that 3rd party seller in the equation as he creates no more product. There's no need for Wal-Mart, Target, Sears, Land's End, Albertson's, Kroeger, Trader Joe, and Safeway, then, either. None of those places create more product. What's your point?

there is no need for that 3rd party seller in the equation as he certainly adds no more to the consumer. You decline to specify what a seller does not add, so you left that nice and vague, which we presume is your intent. Another of Robert's opinions that he attempts to masquerade as a fact. It's not a fact. It's your OPINION. What happens if another consumer feels that there is something added? Does that shatter this alleged "fact" of yours, Robert?

This isn't just "you" as in you, Robert. It's you pluralised to include others who seemingly are so obsessed with things that you are willing to justify murder in the name of "collecting", and then go on to speak of yourself in glowing terms, how you are a loving parent, fine community leader, church deacon, and all-around great person. Just a great person who is perfectly willing to put in print in a public forum how you desire to murder people to get what you want at a time, place, and price of your choosing. Don't say, "I wasn't meaning it literally", because when it's in print, it's literal. At least until you specify, "hey, I know I said I would really love to murder someone to get my Spacely Sprocket Version Beta, but I don't want people to think that a church leader like myself, a fine citizen of the world would EVER really, truly murder someone."

Murder, libel, harassment...all is fair as long as you get your way.

Let's change tack here and say there are no resellers. Would you then go and murder Little Jimmy because he has the Spacely Sprocket you want? Would you go and say, "Little Suzie Rottencrotch is a filthy HO and her mother turns tricks when she's not drinking herself to death and watching dirty movies!" because they have something you don't have? Different concept? Not from what has been shown here.

Food for thought.

Posted on Feb 14, 2012 12:36:56 PM PST
DisplacedMic says:
Who decides what's greedy then? Where's the line? Because obviously you don't believe that profit is a bad thing, but if "too much profit" is, there's got to be a line.

Who decides what that is? You? Me? The government?

I know what price discovery is. If you feel talked down then that's your hangup. I am being no more "willfully obtuse" than you are in missing my point with the google link. Prices will fluctuate based on what buyers and sellers buy and sell and will eventually settle on a price. If some idiot is selling something for $500 that can easily be purchased elsewhere for $50 then chances are, he's not going to make a sale. At least not until something changes - supply, demand, or buyer/seller expectations.
If you think he's being greedy, keep your money, buy elsewhere or adjust your expectations.

that's all there is to it.

I said to someone else in another thread, if you can take an argument, change the variables and see that it loses strength, chances are it wasn't a very good argument to begin with.

I never said greed doesn't exist - i just don't think it's a particularly relevant element to any of these conversations. Particularly given that we are in the toys forum and when it's being employed as an appeal to emotion at the cost of logic.

Posted on Feb 14, 2012 1:24:15 PM PST
Look no one is breaking anyone's arm to pay higher prices. Personally when I REALLY want something, I don't care what it costs. If I am saved the trouble of running around town to get it, I am happy to pay more. Not everyone is on a budget and paying double is often a convenience. The only people who complain on these message boards are the one's who can't afford it. When you can't afford it then you have to do your own grunt work and get in line on first day of release and get your junk that you probably don't really need or shouldnt be buying anyway because you have higher financial priorities. All one really needs is a roof over their heads, food and good health, everything else is just icing on the cake. This country was made on Capitalism!

Posted on Feb 14, 2012 1:36:03 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 14, 2012 1:37:55 PM PST
<<This country was made on Capitalism!>>

No, this country was built on American ingenuity and hard work. Capitalism is what's tearing it down. There's a reason that there are regulations, and that's because pure capitalism, free market capitalism, doesn't work. "Pure capitalism" and "just good business" is what chained kids up in coal mines in the 30's. It's why Apple moved its manufacturing to companies like FoxCon that run modern-day sweatshops and slave labor camps building shiny iGizmos.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2012 1:38:19 PM PST
DisplacedMic says:
grow up - that's idiotic.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2012 1:55:16 PM PST
Yes, because examples of something from 70 years ago clearly is relevant in the modern day.

If pure capitalism does not work, then what does?

Shooting people who don't give what you want to you? Libelling them?

Tell us, Robert, what is your ideal USA? Where everyone gets everything they want when they want? What? Tell us here, what is the ideal RobertWorld?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2012 2:30:24 PM PST
SFP, your buddy made a comment to me that applies much better to you and your ahem... insights..

<<grow up - that's idiotic.>>

Posted on Feb 14, 2012 2:48:56 PM PST
It's idiotic to think that your example from 70 years ago is somehow relevant to today?

That good business of making margin and as much profit as you can from your sales is somehow not right?

That the suggestion of murder to get your way is right? That libel is the proper way to complain?

You somehow seem to imply you know how to make the world a better place, Robert. So let's hear it.

Posted on Feb 14, 2012 2:58:09 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 14, 2012 2:58:40 PM PST
<<It's idiotic to think that your example from 70 years ago is somehow relevant to today? >>

uhhh yes it's very relevant. You and your cronies talk about how wonderful pure capitalism is. Pure capitalism, or the unfettered strive for profit, is exactly what took advantage of childrens' human rights, and exactly why there are child labor laws now. Those laws are there because without them, "pure capitalism" does whatever it takes to make a buck. Don't like that example? Read up on FoxConn and what's happening in Apple's plants. The less you have to worry about the worker, the more profit there is. Start to get it now?

<<That good business of making margin and as much profit as you can from your sales is somehow not right?>>

Doing whatever you can as you long as "you can get away with it" as you so eloquently advocate *is*

<<That the suggestion of murder to get your way is right? That libel is the proper way to complain?>>

I'm sorry I don't know what you are even talking about with this. You want to go out and murder people, that's what you're saying?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2012 3:06:05 PM PST
No, Robert, again, kindly read the posts your friends have made where they talk about murdering people who won't give them what they want.

We are truly sorry that we cannot break it down any simpler for you. You truly don't seem to understand.

Child labour laws have nothing to do with any example given here. Do try to stay on topic, if not relevant.

The goal of making profit is not the same as "doing anything you can". Again, you speak of anyone that disagrees with you as spouting hyperbole, but then you do the same.

If you aren't able to keep up, that's ok.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2012 3:26:01 PM PST
<<No, Robert, again, kindly read the posts your friends have made where they talk about murdering people who won't give them what they want.>>

ok, I don't know what you're talking about with my "friends" talking about murder. All I know is YOU talking about murder and accusing me of it. You are ridiculous

<<Child labour laws have nothing to do with any example given here. Do try to stay on topic, if not relevant.>>

They are a clear example of what greed and capitalism will achieve when not regulated and proof positive that a civilized society can not exist prosperously with "pure capitalism". If you don't get that I don't know what to tell you.

<<The goal of making profit is not the same as "doing anything you can". Again, you speak of anyone that disagrees with you as spouting hyperbole, but then you do the same.>>

Follow close so I don't lose you... Pure, unregulated capitalism is "doing anything you can" for profit. Why settle for Americans building iPods when you can get Chinese people working at slave labor wages to do it without having to deal with environmental or safety regulations? More profit! That's good business. Get it?

<<<<We are truly sorry that we cannot break it down any simpler for you. You truly don't seem to understand.>>

I feel the same way, I do. I know you're not able to keep up, and that's ok. You just don't seem to get it. All I can say is good luck with whatever you're doing

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2012 3:30:07 PM PST
Clearly, you are either incapable or unwilling to understand the differences between good business and "anything goes". Unregulated capitalism is not what is being discussed, or even implied. We are sorry that your mind is focused on your own agenda and not what is discussed here.

Follow close, Robert, and read the posts where your friends have made topics dedicated to the murder and libel of anyone that disagrees with them.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2012 3:39:58 PM PST
<<Unregulated capitalism is not what is being discussed, or even implied.>>

Unregulated capitalism is "pure" capitalism.. You know, the thing you love to say is the justification for being greedy? I am sorry that your mind is so focused on trying to make up new outrageous accusations that you are not able to follow along.

Follow close SFP, I don't have "friends" posting on these boards and certainly am not the one making accusations of murder like you are. As disgusting as your behavior is I will just wish you well in all your endeavors because this is pointless. Enjoy your day

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2012 3:52:45 PM PST
Robert, Robert, Robert,

Do follow along. This might be difficult for you to understand. NO ONE is arguing for no rules, anything goes. YOU are the only one who seems to think that making profit means bending and breaking all rules, and the world is out to get you, and whatever other outrageous stuff you seem to post. Perhaps in your twisted mind this happens. It is understandable that your job at 7-11 for minimum wage doesn't give you the money for whatever plaything you desire, and that is a shame. However, your completely baseless accusations do absolutely nothing for anyone. You talk greed all day long, and why is that? It's wrong in the mind of Robert to profit? It must be difficult going through life on the oath of poverty you took.

We're certainly glad you realise your postings are pointless, though. We recommend taking a vow of silence to go with your vow of poverty.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2012 4:26:12 PM PST
Yeah that's right SFP, I need to follow along better. In my rush to respond to your nonsensical ravings I must have glossed right by the things that showed you might actually know what you're talking about. You just keep showing you are better at inflammatory lies and found-less allegations than any intelligent thought. You keep referring to yourself as "we" and it wonderfully conjures up images of two middle-aged sweaty cauliflowered-ear wrestling fans huddling in front of a single monitor putting on their best thinking caps to make up the most ridiculous drivel the two of you can think of.

<<However, your completely baseless accusations do absolutely nothing for anyone. >>

Yeah those stupid claims and accusations about being a murderer and advocating murder which are absolutely deplorable, the claims about entitlement and all the other stuff no one ever said.. They were stupid weren't they? Oh, those were all *your* claims though....sorry.. Why accuse me of the things you do?

Since there's just no use trying to discuss anything with you, I'll just take your advice and take my vow of silence to go with my vow of poverty. Good thing wrestling junk is so cheap these days. Enjoy

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2012 5:17:59 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 14, 2012 5:27:26 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2012 5:26:45 PM PST

This is the thread being referenced here in relation to the murders....judging by the number of 'yes' votes, many agree. Please note that the poster was expressing anger <or whatever other negative emotion> about a TOY.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2012 6:33:57 PM PST
Let's recap your baseless BS, Robert, and then we'll explore the actual truths (although not in that order)

- Pure capitalism does NOT "tear down a country", despite what Robert thinks. "American ingenuity and hard work". Great terms, Robert. It is because of that people decide to go into business for themselves. Without such, there would be no Target, no Wal-Mart, and no toy for you to play with. It also does not mean "lights-out, no rules". If we were to say Robert gives bad head, should we extrapolate that to mean every person named Robert does the same, or just every male? Robert should know, because he extrapolates and places his own personal beliefs into the discussions, even when it makes no sense to. Likewise, if one company, store, seller, "insert" CHOOSES (capitalised for a reason) not to follow any rules (and there are likely very few that do such, unless you are Robert, in which case, every company on the planet does it). It's ok, Robert took a vow of poverty.

-Holding out for the best price is not hoarding, despite Robert's opinions to the contrary. Again, despite Robert clearly speaking on behalf of the entire world, it's simply not accurate. From the big box chains on down. Now, Robert is a "special needs", and he can go to any store on earth and get that new Webber grill for one dollar, because the stores are so eager to get that grill out of the store that they will honour that one dollar price that Robert asks for. Just because it's advertised at $179.99, no store expects to get that amount for it. Go on and ask someone to sell it for a buck. It works for Robert. Again, Robert, you are seemingly quite confused. Just because there is a dollar store in your area and garage sales that will barter with you, we again throw down the gauntlet to challenge you to find a store that is willing to barter with you. It's not a "sucker-of-the-day" as you put it, Robert. That's good business. Why make a profit? Just get rid of product! That's what is true sales, right, Robert? Get it off the shelf, no matter how much you lose! That is the single most ridiculous thing from you yet, Robert. Seriously, where DO you come up with these concepts?

-Outsourcing=sweat shops. Again, Robert, where DO you come up with this? You get around like this one girl we knew in Vietnam.....ahem, it's a WWAD? What Would Apple Do? Apple or Kathie Lee has a sweatshop, so every company that outsources has little Nguyen Coy working for 2 cents a month? Utter rubbish. Again, you will likely find very few companies that ENDORSE a sweatshop, on OR off the record. Is outsourcing a cost-saving measure? Sure. If you can make the item in China cheaper, that makes sense. Of course, on Melmac, where Robert seemingly comes from, any profit is evil. How many years since that vow of poverty, Robert? We know you took a vow of poverty, since you would never want to work anywhere. If you actually were employed, you would make a salary, and that would make you as scummy as everyone you rant about, right? Rubbish.

Profit=anything goes. Again, where do you come up with this nonsense? Is this from the same books that discusses the New World Order and all those groups that are going to rule the world? The pentagrams and the Illuminati and such? Seriously, we truly want to know where these opinions of yours were formed.

This goes hand in hand with Robert's opinion that profit=greed. That's a might bit of extrapolation right there to create that line. Again, where do these opinions of yours get formed? Is this a suggestion that everyone be poor? What utter nonsense. Profit is the entire reason to work and live. You make profit, you buy your eggs and your cream. You buy your books and your telly. You buy your couch and your bed. Your thoughts get more and more ludicrous as you go along, Robert.

Then we get into the belief of Robert's that he is intimate with the supply chain of every store, big box on down to the smallest seller here. You get around, huh? Round, round, get around, Robert gets around. "built in profit" For a seller, yes. When you sell an item, hopefully somewhere in that price is a built in profit. A distributor will also build in a profit for them when they ship. It doesn't matter WHO they ship to. But, wait...according to Robert, profit is bad. Riddle me that, Batman. The stores don't get a profit from the distributor. Utter rubbish, again. No one makes a profit in the BUYING end of the chain. How do you make a profit when spending? Are you really that daft? What companies have you done purchasing for that claimed that they make profit when purchasing and it is "built in"? You make the bold claims that you know all about where vendors get their merchandise from, but yet, fail to back that up. We challenged people way back in December to explain how, EXACTLY, they know where each and every seller buys their stuff from.

We posted before that even if you buy something for a dollar, if you see it can go for $50, it's only intelligent to price it at $50. Of course, for someone like you, Robert, you would howl and scream that that person is "tearing down" this country, right?

Honestly, you must live in a cave, because you could never buy a house, hold down a job, or anything else without being the kind of scum you accuse everyone else of being.

It is understandable that you want to stir up the faeces here, because clearly, you have yet to post anything that makes any semblance of a logical or reasonable discussion.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Toys forum (350 discussions)


This discussion

Discussion in:  Toys forum
Participants:  13
Total posts:  52
Initial post:  Feb 13, 2012
Latest post:  Mar 1, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions