Posted on 03/07/2016 9:01:17 AM PST by reaganaut1
“Now that we have that straight.
You do know that both Amazon and Price line lost money on EVERY transaction when they first started?”
Were they producing anything?
You do know that AZ still shows no profits.
“Did you buy their stock?”
No, I wish I had, I’d be wealthy.
“China is a wholly different animal since they don’t care if their people stave to death.”
So China isn’t creating any wealth, and Amazon’s gigantic revenue generator isn’t real wealth but a clever mirage?
You lost me.
It may be just a house of cards.
Joke all you want, it’s apparent you can’t answer the simple question of why they wouldn’t do exactly that to undercut their competition, if your thesis that they are hording all the savings for their shareholders were actually realistic.
“If the slash their price by 8% what was the point in moving offshore?”
You claimed they pocketed that 8% out of greed... if any company cut their prices by that 8% instead, they would undercut their competition and take the lion’s share of the market, increasing their profits much more than 8%.
The fact that you can’t get your head around that tells me you are economically illiterate.
It’s no different from when the liberals claim that women are paid 75% of men’s wages due to sexism. If this were true, any company could hire only women and save 25% of their labor costs. No company does that, even though it would make perfect economic sense, so that liberal argument about the wage gap is revealed to be a myth. Similarly, your argument about companies hording the savings they make on labor by moving overseas is revealed to be a myth because you can’t answer my question.
“So you admit I never said they were “worthless”.”
No, I admit you don’t seem to understand the English language, even after I have posted the dictionary definition of terms that you seem too lazy to look up yourself.
“Lol, You’re making the common mistake of many economic illiterates and confusing “value” with “wealth”, argument and definition go waaaay back “
Wrong. I posted the definition from the dictionary proving that my usage is correct and yours is incorrect. There is no grey area here, you are simply wrong.
It makes no difference that you can post a quote from a single author who agrees with you, because your opinion, or any single person’s opinion does not change the commonly accepted definition of the term.
So the this company has the capacity to supply the worlds need for this product at a 8% reduction? No, it is easier to just pocket 8% than build enough capacity to be the sole source supplier. These pinheads think in quarterly increments, not long term.
So like I said Carrier is going to reduce the price on all A/C units made in Mexico by 10%? Is Nabisco going to reduce the price of Oreo's by 10%? Are the Ford Focus cars made in Mexico going to be reduced 10%? Right.
I don't expect you to answer.....
“No, I admit you don’t seem to understand the English language, even after I have posted the dictionary definition of terms that you seem too lazy to look up yourself.”
Lol, an I admit you’re dumber than I originally assumed. Go look up “stubborn” or “obtuse”.
“Wrong. I posted the definition from the dictionary proving that my usage is correct and yours is incorrect. There is no grey area here, you are simply wrong.”
No I’m right. You’re wrong.
“It makes no difference that you can post a quote from a single author who agrees with you, because your opinion, or any single person’s opinion does not change the commonly accepted definition of the term.”
Lol, your source is the dictionary, my source is accepted economic literature.
I’m right, you’re wrong.
Hahahah
“It may be just a house of cards.”
Gotcha. You’re probably right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.