Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="freebfrost" data-source="post: 2423739" data-attributes="member: 3713">Then you are a sucker.&nbsp; Businesses have insurance to cover damaged goods, and that includes accidental breakage.&nbsp; That business that you just paid is going to turn around and charge the insurer for the item and get double profit...So because he's old, that means he's automatically optimizing the amount of profit he is making.&nbsp; That's a fallacious argument.My question is whether or not he actually sat down and calculated the costs of doing so versus the profit lost, or just went with his gut feeling.&nbsp; Guess which one is most likely?And what determines this possibility?&nbsp; You are saying that everyone driving a car *might* buy that car.&nbsp; I content that is not the case.What costs were raised and by how much?Online retailers have to account for mail fraud and damage in transit as well.&nbsp; Do LGS cover that?&nbsp; And just how much of a loss is caused by browsing anyways?&nbsp; How many customers does it take to lower the price of a hardback book by 25%?You are making two important assumptions here.&nbsp; First, you assume that the online retailer is actively aware and trying to get rid of the smaller businesses.&nbsp; While not impossible, this behavior is highly improbable.Second, you assume that the online retailer can drive down prices indefinitely.&nbsp; They cannot - their ultimate price is determined by the publisher.&nbsp; The publisher is not required to sell it to Amazon, for example, and can actively choose to use another method of distribution.&nbsp; And products cannot be sold for a loss.&nbsp; That is dumping and is illegal.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="freebfrost, post: 2423739, member: 3713"] Then you are a sucker. Businesses have insurance to cover damaged goods, and that includes accidental breakage. That business that you just paid is going to turn around and charge the insurer for the item and get double profit... So because he's old, that means he's automatically optimizing the amount of profit he is making. That's a fallacious argument. My question is whether or not he actually sat down and calculated the costs of doing so versus the profit lost, or just went with his gut feeling. Guess which one is most likely? And what determines this possibility? You are saying that everyone driving a car *might* buy that car. I content that is not the case. What costs were raised and by how much? Online retailers have to account for mail fraud and damage in transit as well. Do LGS cover that? And just how much of a loss is caused by browsing anyways? How many customers does it take to lower the price of a hardback book by 25%? You are making two important assumptions here. First, you assume that the online retailer is actively aware and trying to get rid of the smaller businesses. While not impossible, this behavior is highly improbable. Second, you assume that the online retailer can drive down prices indefinitely. They cannot - their ultimate price is determined by the publisher. The publisher is not required to sell it to Amazon, for example, and can actively choose to use another method of distribution. And products cannot be sold for a loss. That is dumping and is illegal. [/QUOTE]

Verification