UK's Greatest Enemy of Recovery - The Private Sector,Banks and Profit Driven Greed
stateofgameplay
Posts: 3,578 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Well, I thought I should start and more accurately described thread for balance.
0
stateofgameplay
Posts: 3,578
Comments
You need to charge at least what it costs, then you add on what you deserve (profit). The problems usually occur when people feel they deserve more than they actually do.
There are some real crooks who feel they deserve all the money they can pry from people and then some... pyramid schemes, scams, cons such as price fixing and similar collusion, businesses dressed up as charities etc.
Although, without greed we would not be suffering the consequences of over consumption.
Unfortunately the business making the profit being taxed proved to be a bubble.
If only the economic genius running the UK had worked out that possibility.
How much do I deserve?
If I think I deserve too much, then people don't buy it. If I have a great product, does that mean I deserve more and can charge more for it?
If you were charging so much that it becomes a problem for your customers to pay for no other reason than to make more money for yourself or that your profit margin was ridiculously high, that would be greedy.
Utility companies and bus companies are particularly guilty of both.
Thread: Epic Fail
If I charge so much that it becomes a problem for my customers, I lose my customers. Either they make do without my product or go to a "less greedy" competitor.
Though I agree that with the sectors you mention, the free market model is not working.
Check out the other thread titled UK's Greatest Enemy Of Recovery
What about gas companies? Or petrol companies? Or banks? Or supermarkets?
Do people just say to themselves, no they are charging too much so I'm not buying it? Or do these companies sometimes get involved in hiking the price up for what they sell and as long as they remain competitive (either by putting the price up or down) with others offering the same service they can get away with it?
Personally, I think when companies are set up initially they are aiming to offer the best service for the best price, however, they may get complacent when they realise people will buy the stuff anyway and just hike it up while offering nothing better or extra for the rise in price. This works for so long, then people catch on and the prices have to come down again, either that or they have to offer a service or product for the extra charges.
This happeneed with the bank charges. They have been significantly reduced because people 'caught on' to what the banks were doing. Now I get calls offering me to upgrade my bank account to include 'gadget insurance' and the like, which is offering me a service for the extra money they wish to have. Greed drove them to take those charges, well greed and the ability to see it through.
It happens in Tesco, a special offer will be in place - then it will be returned to normal, then it is hiked up. People stop buying it and the cycle continues. I buy Kinder eggs for the kids sometimes as a treat on a Friday - they started off at 38p, then they hiked up to 60p and I stopped buying them - that's a micro example of course but it's one that I know of off-hand.
Monopolies/cartels bad. Though I don't think supermarkets fall under this.
If a company charges too much, a competitor comes along, charges less for an equivalent product and takes their business.
It's not about people 'catching on', it's more reacting to what the competitors do.
So if they charge too much, you don't get ripped off, and if they charge a price you're happy with, you pay it. What's the problem?
Yes I have seen that but the OP gives no reasons for a particularly weak riposte.
They are getting there, slowly. Toy shops, football merchandise, event ticketing are other areas which are becoming more and more corrupt with price fixing and the like going on.
It doesn't always work like that though, what about loyalty or convenience? Ignorance or just not knowing may mean you fall prey to paying the higher prices - that's greed of those asking higher prices. Sometimes it does mean that the business goes under but then maybe that's the price they pay for being greedy? What happens to those who suffered at the hands of such greed? They were ripped off and there's precious little can be done about it.
It could also be seen as a whole industry pushing and pushing until people say enough is enough - how long does it go on before that comes to the surface though?
They are being greedy, assuming that people will not notice these increases in prices - many won't and will pay anyway. It's like those people who get taken in by expensive loans with APR's at something like 400% - if they are ripped off by choosing to take them up on their offer or not doesn't change the greed of the person or company trying it on, does it?
This is a purely subjective opinion - and it usually depends on the level at what the person expressing the opinion.
You could argue I do not need to own a house, or a car - so I have those because I 'deserve' them.
Do I deserve a Blu-Ray Player or a DVD Player or a VHS Recoder.
Do I deserve a TV even!
For the vast majority of so called rich people they actually earned that money - through building something from scratch. They may have had some 'help' - Sir Richard Branson had help in the early days when he had problems, but he still started Virgin Group from one small store. Alan Sugar also started small - selling aerials from the back of a van - Bill Gates started small and Microsoft started in a motel in New Mexico.
Many people are rich because they took a risk - do they deserve more, because of that - if not, how much risk is too much. So the person who takes a risk putting an engine in a cart and creating the automobile - that was a risk. Or the person who created a box which showed moving pictures - and as for expecting people to go into a dark room and watch them projected on a white wall - the person who did that took a crazy risk.
If you remove any element of reward then you remove any incentive to take a risk - but this is at the very basis of how our society has improved.
IBM's founder once said that there was only a need for 8 computers in the entire world - yet the average smart phone has far more computing power than those back then.
The telephone was consider useless because by the time you had transcribed what was said, then it was written down, then read at the other end. Someone took a risk and now we have telephones in our pockets because people just did away with the transcribing process and picked it up!
Equality of opportunity is what one needs to strive for not equality of outcomes - which it seems most socialist societies seem to have gone for. The trouble with most socialist societies is that there is always one group of people who will dominate and control - this elite will then pull as much power and wealth to themselves - as it was put in Orwell's Animal Farm 'All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others'.
In any group there is always this dominant group which controls proceedings - lets call them politicians. You could argue that everyone has a chance and they stand to be chosen by their peers - lets call these elections. However this does not work, because as well as those who will pull power to themselves - there are also those who will not make the effort, who will expect society as a whole to do it for them.
So equality of outcome does not work - you have to look to equality of opportunity - and there will be the have nots and the haves, because it is in the very nature of people.
The best way of equalising opportunity is education. At least then those who choose not to risk, not to make an effort do so from a point of knowledge.
There will still be those content with what they have, which is why one needs a benefit system which at least means they can live.
No idea on toy shops (won't have to worry about them for a few years yet
Loyalty to companies/suppliers is bad. I believe that is one of Martin Lewis's mottos.
Edit:
"Loyalty doesn't pay
Loyalty is for losers, and doesn't pay. The normal rules don't apply here, stick with the same people longer and you'll get less."
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/family/Teenagers-cash-class
If people don't notice a massive hike in prices, I can only presume they aren't too affect by them. I recently walked out empty-handed because a newsagent charged what I thought was too much for a can of coke, it wouldn't have broken the bank, but it was more than I felt it was worth, and the prices do matter to me.
The expensive loans business is presumably meeting a consumer need - banks won't lend them cash at a reasonable rate as they're deemed too high risk, so other suppliers jump in, and take the risk on those with low-credit. They stick a high interest rate on to cover the risk they take.
Not to say there shouldn't be adequate legislation, but I have no problem with people offering services as long as fees etc are clearly spelled out in advance.
Which bit, any chance of making your generalisation ever-so-slightly less sweeping?
and he got what he deserves at the end of the movie:D:D:D