Capital Gains Tax should be raised to 90% (collection, sell, company)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, again you are highly misinformed, which is fine. It has everything to do with revenue. If the costs for production, or overhead costs are known, then total revenue needs to be targeted higher than that price to offer consistent profit.
That is why companies have price managers to calculate total shipping and labor costs, and determining a price above that number, and using the hypothetical profit total to plan for future investments. If companies operated like you imagined, and let the market decide how much they made each year, their could be no guarantee for consistent salaries, no future planning, and changing abilities to pay off previous production costs. They would go out of business in fact. Instead, by the late 19th century, they decided marketing and cooperation with other market producers will help guarantee consistent profits. If a product is not selling well, or bellow expectations, they are more likely to pull them off the shelves than give a clearance sale to get rid of all of them at a massive loss.
Again there is a reason economics and business are taught separately.
Have you ever worked in the business world? You still can’t grasp the basic meaning of revenue. You don’t seem to get that one could make higher $ profits from lower revenue streams, which is fine. We can’t all have basic business common sense.
Again, pricing is not simply based on shipping and labor costs. Also, shipping costs are not rolled into an individual product price. Shipping and fuel surcharges are calculated as a percentage for an entire invoice of multiple product #’s/types (hundreds of product #’s with varying labor costs could be on an invoice).
These product/pricing managers are not drilling down to individual part numbers and calculating the labor cost + individual shipping/fuel cost and coming up with pricing that way. They are using complex sales/pricing models to evaluate pricing structures based on supply/demand while considering cost:labor ratios and other things. They will take a loss on products to attract customers (loss leaders) or run speculative high pricing to test new markets. They may take price losses for other reasons - e.g. to put a customer on multi year upgrade contract or in anticipatation of profit coming from future product servicing if they have exclusivity.. You really seem to have zero clue on how pricing decisions are made.
And managers are coming up with different price sheets based on how the product goes to market. Do you think your hypothetical small shop auto mechanic is paying the same price for his part # as the buying manager at Wal-Mart, or the parts manager of XYZ auto supply, or the buyers at General Motors auto plants? The part labor costs/shipping would be similar for all these sales channels, so why is pricing vastly different? I will say it again: Because pricing is based on supply/demand.
Also, product managers and consumers are not always trying to achieve the “lowest sale price” (you have repeatedly referred to this as the goal). Individuals make cost-benefit decisions based on their personal goals/preferences, which may not align with your singular Epicurean goal of “personal happiness.” Do a little more reading on contemporary economic rational choice theory since you like to throw out economist theories.
BTW, there are plenty of companies that destroy their stock rather than sell at a steep discount... Have you ever seen a Chanel purse on a discount rack? You seem to be operating from the Walmart shopper perspective. Consumers will pay $6000+ for a small leather purse that has little utility - why is that? Do you think $5000 of labor went into that purse making? I will pay a local farmer $300/lb for Morel mushrooms. Why is that? Is that pricing really based on labor and shipping costs or is maybe something else at work here? Hint: Low Supply & High Demand. Morel mushrooms are scarce and new Chanel purses are only sold at their limited # of boutiques.
Thankfully, your Marxian labor theory of value ideals on pricing strategy and your Epicurean social philosophies have failed to take hold as they are undesirable to the masses...
Have you ever worked in the business world? You still can’t grasp the basic meaning of revenue. You don’t seem to get that one could make higher $ profits from lower revenue streams, which is fine. We can’t all have basic business common sense.
Again, pricing is not simply based on shipping and labor costs. Also, shipping costs are not rolled into an individual product price. Shipping and fuel surcharges are calculated as a percentage for an entire invoice of multiple product #’s/types (hundreds of product #’s with varying labor costs could be on an invoice).
These product/pricing managers are not drilling down to individual part numbers and calculating the labor cost + individual shipping/fuel cost and coming up with pricing that way. They are using complex sales/pricing models to evaluate pricing structures based on supply/demand while considering cost:labor ratios and other things. They will take a loss on products to attract customers (loss leaders) or run speculative high pricing to test new markets. They may take price losses for other reasons - e.g. to put a customer on multi year upgrade contract or in anticipatation of profit coming from future product servicing if they have exclusivity.. You really seem to have zero clue in how pricing decisions are made.
And managers are coming up with different price sheets based on how the product goes to market. Do you think your hypothetical small shop auto mechanic is paying the same price for his part # as the buying manager at Wal-Mart, or the parts manager of XYZ auto supply, or the buyers at General Motors auto plants? The part labor costs/shipping would be similar for all these sales channels, so why is pricing vastly different? I will say it again: Because pricing is based on supply/demand.
Also, product managers and consumers are not always trying to achieve the “lowest sale price” (you have repeatedly referred to this as the goal). Individuals make cost-benefit decisions based on their personal goals/preferences, which may not align with your singular Epicurean goal of “personal happiness.” Do a little more reading on contemporary economic rational choice theory since you like to throw out economist theories.
BTW, there are plenty of companies that destroy their stock rather than sell at a steep discount... Have you ever seen a Chanel purse on a discount rack? You seem to be operating from the Walmart shopper perspective. Consumers will pay $6000+ for a small leather purse that has little utility - why is that? Do you think $5000 of labor went into that purse making? I will pay a local farmer $300/lb for Morel mushrooms. Why is that? Is that pricing really based on labor and shipping costs or is maybe something else at work here? Hint: Low Supply & High Demand. Morel mushrooms are scarce and new Chanel purses are only sold at their limited # of boutiques.
Thankfully, your Marxian labor theory of value ideals on pricing strategy and your Epicurean social philosophies have failed to take hold as they are undesirable to the masses...
Of course business produces more inventory of what sells well, like Apple does with IPhones. But it is a mistake to believe pricing fluctuates by demand. So items are priced at a loss to attract costumers, but that is a marketing tactic, with little to do with overall inventory.
Moreso they need a general profit margin to guarantee their future plans which is why the products they sell cost is related more to how much it costs to make and market it rather than supply/demand. If anything if a product is not selling, it will be pulled off the shelves, and furthermore price fluctuation can't exist between different products of the same value as to not attract more costumers to the cheaper version of a popular product.
No, but you like lying so saying that is a nice way for you to get by. Read my post.
edit: If you tried to think, you could understand what I am saying. Labor vs. capital, read about it, or keep lying for all I care.
Actually, perhaps you don't want to understand, because you delusions about business will come crumbling down. There is a reason economist don't run successful business, they just lecture others about how (they think) it works.
If the laborers control the capital, the produce, market, and sell based off of their own needs as they determine the overhead costs, and how much pricing should be assigned to certain goods. That is changing now because farms have become industrialized with agricultural products being sold in mass on the market, but that was how it traditional worked.
LOL!! The highlighted above is nothing more than gibberish. It makes NO sense at all. It is functionally equivalent to you simply stringing together random words.
Your edit doesn't clarify anything. This is Winterfall Shuffle on top of Winterfall Shuffle. Let's call it Winterfall Shuffle^2.
I did, I quite literally did, what do you not understand by this:
"edit: If you tried to think, you could understand what I am saying. Labor vs. capital, read about it, or keep lying for all I care.
Actually, perhaps you don't want to understand, because you delusions about business will come crumbling down. There is a reason economist don't run successful business, they just lecture others about how (they think) it works.
If the laborers control the capital, the produce, market, and sell based off of their own needs as they determine the overhead costs, and how much pricing should be assigned to certain goods. That is changing now because farms have become industrialized with agricultural products being sold in mass on the market, but that was how it traditional worked."
Also, did you watch the video I posted for you? If not here it is again :
Of course business produces more inventory of what sells well, like Apple does with IPhones. But it is a mistake to believe pricing fluctuates by demand. So items are priced at a loss to attract costumers, but that is a marketing tactic, with little to do with overall inventory.
Moreso they need a general profit margin to guarantee their future plans which is why the products they sell cost is related more to how much it costs to make and market it rather than supply/demand. If anything if a product is not selling, it will be pulled off the shelves, and furthermore price fluctuation can't exist between different products of the same value as to not attract more costumers to the cheaper version of a popular product.
LOL!! The highlighted above is nothing more than gibberish. It makes NO sense at all. It is functionally equivalent to you simply stringing together random words.
If labor controls how the product of their labor is marketed, sold, and how that labor is invested, the dynamics will change for profit to benefit the laborer by how much they are willing to produce and how much overhead costs they need to cover.
edit: Wait, if you mean overhead costs are not considered in pricing, then that is delusional. There is a reason companies need to reach profit goals to pay off production costs and plan for future investments.
edit2: It would be terrifying to see an ideological economist like yourself run a major production business.
edit3: Though this is not surprising coming from the person who though birds flying defies the laws of gravity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.