General Discussion

Snake Alchemist

(3,318 posts)

4. It's a different twist, but similar flavor. nt

Reply to rfranklin (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:17 AM

Mar 2012

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

105 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Anyone ever hear of Unilateral Pricing Policy? What a scam. [View all] Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 OP

We used to call that type thing collusion or price fixing. Atman Mar 2012 #1

Fixed is the word of the day Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #2

That's gone the way of the dodo Blue_Tires Mar 2012 #43

This isn't price fixing. djg21 Mar 2012 #56

Are you freaking serious? Atman Mar 2012 #62

It used to be called price fixing... rfranklin Mar 2012 #3

It's a different twist, but similar flavor. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #4

Price fixing out in the open for all to see. fasttense Mar 2012 #5

I'm not even sure any of those laws would apply. That's how sneaky this is. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #7

It's all in the terminology Atman Mar 2012 #11

It isn't anti-trust unless pipoman Mar 2012 #8

OK. It is still "price fixing". nt Romulox Mar 2012 #9

Depends if you are using the legal definition of the term or simply describing what pipoman Mar 2012 #16

Hmmm...."The defining characteristic of price fixing is any agreement regarding price..." Romulox Mar 2012 #17

No, it is not oldhippie Mar 2012 #44

It's collusion by default. Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #49

This is nonsense. djg21 Mar 2012 #66

An agreement? LOL. It's a wink and a nod as usual. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #67

Just wanted to say that this post displays a basic misunderstanding of retailing. Romulox Mar 2012 #54

The answer is "sometimes" djg21 Mar 2012 #68

LOL. It's a little OTT for this board, no? nt Romulox Mar 2012 #69

Unilateral pricing is not "collusion" jmowreader Mar 2012 #78

This could help smaller merchants pipoman Mar 2012 #6

LOL. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #10

why are you laughing? onenote Mar 2012 #12

There are not a significant number of "independent Television dealers" for this to help--it's an Romulox Mar 2012 #13

Only if the different manufacturers are colluding to set prices. pipoman Mar 2012 #14

Screw the consumer overall to "help" multinational behemoths like Sony and Samsung-- Romulox Mar 2012 #15

How does it help Sony or Samsung? pipoman Mar 2012 #18

They want more money for TVs. If this isn't clear, please re-read the OP. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #19

Can you point to the part of the OP that discusses wholesale pricing? onenote Mar 2012 #21

How about you quote the OP pipoman Mar 2012 #23

The collusion is between manufacturers and their retail channels. Romulox Mar 2012 #38

You are the one making unsubstantiated claims pipoman Mar 2012 #40

That person does that pretty frequently. They love to assert facts not in evidence. nt stevenleser Mar 2012 #50

It's always fun to have fans! nt Romulox Mar 2012 #71

The only "claim" I've made is that this will in no way help consumers. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #72

You've made lots of claims, many of them strawmen and none of them supported. nt stevenleser Mar 2012 #76

Steve, I hurt your feelings over a year ago. Please let your anger go! :P nt Romulox Mar 2012 #81

LOL, believe me, if people on tv who are much better at this than you cant hurt my feelings, you stevenleser Mar 2012 #90

You're on TV, you say? That's a relevant point to bring up, if this is about your ego. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #93

Two logical fallacies in one post. For anyone else, I would say thats an accomplishment. stevenleser Mar 2012 #95

That's not what "logical fallacy" means. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #96

You wanted examples of things you dont get? You just provided another one. nt stevenleser Mar 2012 #99

This is silly and childish. Goodbye, steven. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #102

P.S. to help you out, you committed the non-sequitur and ad-hominem logical fallacies. stevenleser Mar 2012 #100

Nonsense. I merely pointed out your appeal to authority. Romulox Mar 2012 #103

P.S., this is yet another example of you using logical fallacies instead of arguments. nt stevenleser Mar 2012 #91

Good thing that anyone who can read knows better.. pipoman Mar 2012 #80

Um, pipoman, I didn't delete anything. What a lazy fabrication! nt Romulox Mar 2012 #82

Who said you did? pipoman Mar 2012 #85

What a bizarre game. I'm going to pass, this turn. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #86

That person must have attended the Palin-Quayle school of critical thought. stevenleser Mar 2012 #92

Is there anything specifically posted in this thread that you can cite to back this up? Romulox Mar 2012 #94

If you read Pipoman's post #80 again, really slowly, you might get it. Then again, since its you, stevenleser Mar 2012 #98

This isn't productive. Your personal attacks are coming from a place of extreme anger. Romulox Mar 2012 #104

Doesn't the collusion have to be horizontal (i.e., among manufacturers) in order to count? MNBrewer Mar 2012 #88

Not sure who this is directed at, but in order to be *legally actionable*, it likely does. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #97

I'm sure that smaller merchants are at the forefront of the minds of execs at Samsung and Sony. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #20

The consumer electronics retailers and manufacturers are at war onenote Mar 2012 #22

Sounds like the manufacturers are doing the pushing this time and of course it falls on the Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #26

Do you think its good for consumers in the long run if independents are driven out of business? onenote Mar 2012 #29

Samsung only made 4.5 billion last quarter, but if we work together we can get that up even higher. Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #33

So what happens to independent stores doesn't interest you. onenote Mar 2012 #37

Independent stores? I remember those tkmorris Mar 2012 #45

Like newegg.com? nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #47

are you suggesting newegg.com is an indpendent retailer? onenote Mar 2012 #51

So you can't be independent if you're on the internet? You're right that this whole internet thing Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #52

The whole point of the pricing strategy is to help out local brick and mortar establishments onenote Mar 2012 #57

ROFL. You think the retailer is going to be able to keep the additional revenue? Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #58

The question is not of additional revenue, but of leveling competition between internet and B&M stevenleser Mar 2012 #60

Brick and mortar is on the decline for other reasons than price. Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #61

Thanks for confirming where you stand with respect to mom and pop business v. megachains. onenote Mar 2012 #63

Sorry that technology has made e-books more attractive. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #64

My "local bookstore" is a Barnes and Noble. Amazon is fantastic! nt Romulox Mar 2012 #73

We didn't "level competition" between the covered wagon and the steam locomotive. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #74

Who is 'we' and why are 'we' making a preindustrial age comparison to current day commercial events? stevenleser Mar 2012 #75

Luddites always demand technology be hobbled in favor of the status quo. Romulox Mar 2012 #84

What you posted makes no such argument. It's complete nonsense. nt stevenleser Mar 2012 #89

You come to these threads unable to engage with the posts. Romulox Mar 2012 #101

Big cheer leader for low, low prices pipoman Mar 2012 #31

How many US workers are working for Samsung. Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #35

Apparently quite a few.. pipoman Mar 2012 #41

I see city names and not #'s. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #46

I'm sure those numbers are available should your curiosity be sincere... LanternWaste Mar 2012 #83

Sometime read about Vlasic pickles and walmart pipoman Mar 2012 #24

ROFL. There's always the option of not signing the contract in the 1st place. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #25

WalMart is known for buying at a reasonable wholesale price pipoman Mar 2012 #27

ROFL. Given that this is a known value, maybe manufacturers shouldn't sign those contracts. Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #28

So sorry you are not getting it..others do.. pipoman Mar 2012 #30

Pinnacle only made 41 million last quarter. Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #32

It ultimately doesn't hurt the companies to offshore US jobs pipoman Mar 2012 #34

Call me when they're making below 10 million a quarter. We can start a DU fund drive. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #36

You are on the side of the 'screw US workers brigade'..got it pipoman Mar 2012 #42

I keep waiting for Vlasic to open their own franchised stores. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #48

It is indeed the whackjob KamaAina Mar 2012 #55

This message was self-deleted by its author seaglass Mar 2012 #39

People can also do without. Zalatix Mar 2012 #53

This has been going on in multiple industries for a long time. Pandora Jewlery is a good example stevenleser Mar 2012 #59

Sounds Like a Case That Came Up During the Bork Hearings On the Road Mar 2012 #65

Headline today was that Sharp is in serious trouble. Flat tv sales = cutthroat. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #70

This has been around for years for all kinds of products. Sen. Walter Sobchak Mar 2012 #77

There is a work-around Mopar151 Mar 2012 #79

How is that a free market for a retailer? originalpckelly Mar 2012 #87

Didn't expect this to turn into such a hot topic! Romulox Mar 2012 #105