Electrical Manufacturers To Penalise Online Retailers

Freddie59

Sky News reported last week that Sony, along with two other as of now unnamed electrical giants, are planning to charge online retailers a higher wholesale price than high street shops in order to force the online price up to that of the shops.

Isn't that akin to charging Supermarkets more so that they would have to charge the same as Corner Shops? Surely this has to be anti-competitive and the EU must forbid it?:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Cabaal

Sounds very dodgy to me, properly against some EU law
I'd say the only reason why Sky reported this is because their generally anti-EU
and like to scare people about things as its gets them ratings

JohnC.

Cabaal wrote:

Sounds very dodgy to me, properly against some EU law
I'd say the only reason why Sky reported this is because their generally anti-EU
and like to scare people about things as its gets them ratings

How on earth is this in any way anti EU? Surely it would be more pro EU if the EU are to stop companies ripping people off in that manner?

MorningStar

To be honest there is a clear business sense to this and it is not just strictly a rip off. Basically the bricks and mortar shops get a discount due to floor display and/or space within the store. AS the on-line stores don't have floor space they aren't offered the discount. There is an element of protection of old allies but they are also under threat from the stores themselves threatening not to stock the items if they are sold at discounts to on-line stores.

It is a little more complex than a simple attempt to get people to pay more. It is more a leveling of advantages.

Cabaal

but their not sold at discount on-line, the items are sold to on-line retailers the same as bricks and morter shops, its just on-line shops have less overheads so they don't add as big a markup so the product is cheaper.

Freddie59

MorningStar wrote:

To be honest there is a clear business sense to this and it is not just strictly a rip off. Basically the bricks and mortar shops get a discount due to floor display and/or space within the store. AS the on-line stores don't have floor space they aren't offered the discount. There is an element of protection of old allies but they are also under threat from the stores themselves threatening not to stock the items if they are sold at discounts to on-line stores.

It is a little more complex than a simple attempt to get people to pay more. It is more a leveling of advantages.

It isn't very complex at all. I wanted to buy a Fuji 128 Mb xd Card (for a digital camera) and it retails locally at €30 (even in Argos and they're usually very cheap). I log onto www.7dayshop.com and get the exact same card for stg£8 (€12 approx). So there's a 150% mark-up in the High Street shop (and that's not even factoring into account that they would get a trade price on that).

I have no problem with anyone having to cover their expenses. Say the Internet price was €12 and the High Street shop was €15 - €20. I would buy in the shop. But this is extortion. Can you only imagine how much we're being ripped off by on the dearer items?:mad: :mad:

masterK

The main reason behind Sony's preference for high street retailers is the visibility they provide for their goods. It's a form of publicity in that the goods are visible to the passer by, something which does not happen with online stores.

Guy:Incognito

Freddie59 wrote:

It isn't very complex at all. I wanted to buy a Fuji 128 Mb xd Card (for a digital camera) and it retails locally at €30 (even in Argos and they're usually very cheap). I log onto www.7dayshop.com and get the exact same card for stg£8 (€12 approx). So there's a 150% mark-up in the High Street shop (and that's not even factoring into account that they would get a trade price on that).

I have no problem with anyone having to cover their expenses. Say the Internet price was €12 and the High Street shop was €15 - €20. I would buy in the shop. But this is extortion. Can you only imagine how much we're being ripped off by on the dearer items?:mad: :mad:

It doesnt work that way. The small accessories are marked up to the hilt because thats where the money is made. It's like way a printer is €60-€70 but the cartridges for it are €50-€60. They make their money on accessories.

MorningStar

Cabaal wrote:

but their not sold at discount on-line, the items are sold to on-line retailers the same as bricks and morter shops, its just on-line shops have less overheads so they don't add as big a markup so the product is cheaper.

Discounts are given to the on-line stores due to some of their purcashing methods. Simplist form is bulk discount more complex is the fact that some online stores keep very low stock quantities.
The point is they aren't going to charge the online stores more just they will not be able to get the same discount normal stores can. On-line retailers can actually have a higher profit margin and sell cheaper than some store depending on the product.

Freddie59 wrote:

It isn't very complex at all etc...

Your arguement is not great basically all you said was I got it cheaper online:rolleyes:
It doesn't explain or counter what I have siad about invoicing and discounts. On-line stores don't deal with shop lifters on small expensive items which can cause items to be more expensive. If every 7th fash drive was stolen from your store you have to add the cost in for example. What you think are expenses can sometimes be more due to the nature of the item.
Lots of unknown expenses are there.

Freddie59

masterK wrote:

The main reason behind Sony's preference for high street retailers is the visibility they provide for their goods. It's a form of publicity in that the goods are visible to the passer by, something which does not happen with online stores.

Sony have been trading on a name for years. Went into a Sony Centre recently and, for some reason, a Philips 42" Plasma was on display next to a similar Sony. The difference was staggering. The Philips picture quality was excellent, and as for the Sony............well let's just say it didn't cut it. The Philips was €600 cheaper.:rolleyes:

Amazing too that Sony are currently embroiled in a row over their Rootkit CD
(http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights.html) which is an attempt to stop copying on PCs. Yet they actively sell CD-writers for HiFis and burners for home PCs.:eek: :eek: :rolleyes:

I'm sure you'll understand why I don't have much sympathy for Sony (and I have bought a huge amount of Sony Kit down the years). The defence of the High Street (where we have been ripped off for years) doesn't cut it with me. I sincerely hope if the manufacturers try to pull this stroke that the the EU will find it illegal. Actually penalising someone for selling a product cheaper? And someone actually trying to justify it?:eek: :rolleyes: The only problem now (and it can't be stopped) is that consumers, with the advent of the Internet, have discovered that - yes, I have a choice, I can exercise it, and I can save huge amounts on my purchase.

I cannot agree with MorningStar, who is quite obviously involved in the retail trade.:eek: We are entering a whole new era in every facet of life. You either move with it or get left behind.;)

Freddie59

Stekelly wrote:

It doesnt work that way. The small accessories are marked up to the hilt because thats where the money is made. It's like way a printer is €60-€70 but the cartridges for it are €50-€60. They make their money on accessories.

I only quoted that because it was a recent purchase. For bigger purchases it's worse. Two years ago a friend of mine bought a Fuji s5000 Camera from Hong Kong online. It was €750 in Ireland, but, even after paying VAT and Duty, he had it delivered for €465. It also came with a 256 Mb card (which was an extra €170 at the time which would have brought the Irish price to €920).

I rest my case.:)

By the way - I'm not anti-High Street. Argos had a specials day recently where the Digital cameras had 20% off (and coincidentally this brought the price to the exact same as www.pixmania.com, which indicates that online retailers have another 20% discount, or to put it another way, the High Street shops charge 20% more than the online retailers). I bought two cameras in Argos.:p

Slutmonkey57b

Arguing about why the high street has higher base costs than the online retailers is pointless. The issue is not

Why are high street shops more expensive?

it is

Why should we be prevented from buying things cheaper?

If you think about it,

Why can't we buy direct from the manufacturer at close to wholesale?

There's thinking for you.

Freddie59

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Arguing about why the high street has higher base costs than the online retailers is pointless. The issue is not

Why are high street shops more expensive?

it is

Why should we be prevented from buying things cheaper?

If you think about it,

Why can't we buy direct from the manufacturer at close to wholesale?

There's thinking for you.

Now THAT'S called getting to the point!;)

Guy:Incognito

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Why can't we buy direct from the manufacturer at close to wholesale?

There's thinking for you.

If the manufacturer wanted the hassle of running shops they would, but obviously they don't so they sell to others and slet them sell their stuff for them.

MorningStar

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Why should we be prevented from buying things cheaper?

.

The point is the manufactures get an extra value for supplying the regular shops therfore why would you prevent them from discounting to the people that give this benifit to them?
The story is very slanted the on-line retailsers aren't being charged more they aren't able to get discounts the traditional stores can.
The manufactures are protecting stores and the stores are pushing the manufactueres goods.

Freddie59

MorningStar wrote:

The point is the manufactures get an extra value for supplying the regular shops therfore why would you prevent them from discounting to the people that give this benifit to them?
The story is very slanted the on-line retailsers aren't being charged more they aren't able to get discounts the traditional stores can.
The manufactures are protecting stores and the stores are pushing the manufactueres goods.

Understandably. But does that mean they have the right to restrict consumer's right to choose?

MorningStar

Freddie59 wrote:

Understandably. But does that mean they have the right to restrict consumer's right to choose?

They aren't restricting anybody just not choosing to deal with business that don't help them but mostly they simply don't allow them certain invoice discounts. This is nothing new at all supermarkets have been doing it for years and a lot more aggressively.

Freddie59

MorningStar wrote:

They aren't restricting anybody just not choosing to deal with business that don't help them but mostly they simply don't allow them certain invoice discounts. This is nothing new at all supermarkets have been doing it for years and a lot more aggressively.

They have indeed. Don't some people call that type of behaviour a cartel?

MorningStar

Freddie59 wrote:

They have indeed. Don't some people call that type of behaviour a cartel?

You simply don't know what you are talking about . I don't mean to be rude but you have stated a few things on this thread that just show your lack of knowledge and understanding. Look up cartel and then you will know that this is not a cartel. It may be protectionary. There is no mention of price fixing it is supply based on benift to the supplier and increased sales. If they don't do it the cities and towns will eventually become empty, there is more to life than cheap goods.

Freddie59

MorningStar wrote:

You simply don't know what you are talking about . I don't mean to be rude but you have stated a few things on this thread that just show your lack of knowledge and understanding. Look up cartel and then you will know that this is not a cartel. It may be protectionary. There is no mention of price fixing it is supply based on benift to the supplier and increased sales. If they don't do it the cities and towns will eventually become empty, there is more to life than cheap goods.

Look - I don't like getting personal, but I'll make an exception in your case. Someone doesn't know what they're talkiing about alright and it's you.

1. The basis of free enterprise is just that - free without restrictions. That's what breeds entrepenuers.

2. Cartel/protectionary? What difference does it make? It's still some large groups operating a protectionist system while at the same time trying to subvert those who try to offer a product cheaper - by the way that is called a free market.

3. Do you agree that charging one client more than another (deliberately) in order to in effect fix the price of a product across the board is anti-competitive?

4. Are you saying that in order to keep prices artificially high the long-suffering consumer must again bear the burden while a small amount of High Street retailers benefit? Can you explain exactly to me how that benefits society (or cities and towns as you call them)?

You're very obviously involved in the retail trade and I can genuinely see where you're coming from. But I also have rights - and the right to choose is one of them. Do not come on this forum and proceed to pontificate, while at the same time levelling personal insults, on the basis that it is 'good for society'.

Get with the programme Morning Star.;)

MorningStar

Freddie59 wrote:

Look - I don't like getting personal, but I'll make an exception in your case. Someone doesn't know what they're talkiing about alright and it's you.

Freddie59 wrote:

1. The basis of free enterprise is just that - free without restrictions. That's what breeds entrepenuers.

We don't live in that ideal world we live in the EU and every where else is also not a free trade if you think we have restriction free trading on this planet

Freddie59 wrote:

2. Cartel/protectionary? What difference does it make? It's still some large groups operating a protectionist system while at the same time trying to subvert those who try to offer a product cheaper - by the way that is called a free market.

Go find out the difference as you really have no idea. The objective is very differnet as is the method. It is not a cartel and not really protectionary more like paying for a service. It is also not illegal

Freddie59 wrote:

3. Do you agree that charging one client more than another (deliberately) in order to in effect fix the price of a product across the board is anti-competitive?

It happens everywhere for many things. You just don't know about it. I support it becasue it is done for business reasons and actually increases choice. The idea is not to fix the price that is where you keep getting it wrong. Repeatedly saying it doesn't make it true just you wrong repeatedly

Freddie59 wrote:

4. Are you saying that in order to keep prices artificially high the long-suffering consumer must again bear the burden while a small amount of High Street retailers benefit? Can you explain exactly to me how that benefits society (or cities and towns as you call them)?

They aren't keeping prices artificially high and again you saying that doesn't make it so. The only people who won't benifit are the on-line stores. THe high-street stores make sless profit than the on-line stores. If there is no commerece in a town or city it will simply die. When carbon tax comes in you will see that on-line stores won't be competative.

Freddie59 wrote:

You're very obviously involved in the retail trade and I can genuinely see where you're coming from. But I also have rights - and the right to choose is one of them. Do not come on this forum and proceed to pontificate, while at the same time levelling personal insults, on the basis that it is 'good for society'.

Get with the programme Morning Star.;)

I work for the retail trade providing them services both on-line and traditional stores. I know the way profit is made and how buyers work and how deals are stuck. Cheap goods do not mean you benifit in the long run it is a methd used to drive competitors out of the market most times. When there are no CD stores, bakeries, butchers, book shops etc.. you will see what real lack of choice is. I did not insult you I said you didn't know what you are talking about. What you replied with indicates this more as does the fact you don't know what a cartel is. You have a lack of knowledge on this subject you which you are basing your views on. You can keep your views about it all but it doesn't make you right just baddly informed and as you are making no attempt to look into the facts you will just keep thinking it. Fine if you want to go on like this.
If you want to say I am wrong fine prove it.

Freddie59

MorningStar wrote:

Freddie59 wrote:

Look - I don't like getting personal, but I'll make an exception in your case. Someone doesn't know what they're talkiing about alright and it's you.

We don't live in that ideal world we live in the EU and every where else is also not a free trade if you think we have restriction free trading on this planet

Go find out the difference as you really have no idea. The objective is very differnet as is the method. It is not a cartel and not really protectionary more like paying for a service. It is also not illegal

It happens everywhere for many things. You just don't know about it. I support it becasue it is done for business reasons and actually increases choice. The idea is not to fix the price that is where you keep getting it wrong. Repeatedly saying it doesn't make it true just you wrong repeatedly

They aren't keeping prices artificially high and again you saying that doesn't make it so. The only people who won't benifit are the on-line stores. THe high-street stores make sless profit than the on-line stores. If there is no commerece in a town or city it will simply die. When carbon tax comes in you will see that on-line stores won't be competative.


I work for the retail trade providing them services both on-line and traditional stores. I know the way profit is made and how buyers work and how deals are stuck. Cheap goods do not mean you benifit in the long run it is a methd used to drive competitors out of the market most times. When there are no CD stores, bakeries, butchers, book shops etc.. you will see what real lack of choice is. I did not insult you I said you didn't know what you are talking about. What you replied with indicates this more as does the fact you don't know what a cartel is. You have a lack of knowledge on this subject you which you are basing your views on. You can keep your views about it all but it doesn't make you right just baddly informed and as you are making no attempt to look into the facts you will just keep thinking it. Fine if you want to go on like this.

If you want to say I am wrong fine prove it.

Look - you can dress this up any way you want. The original post in this thread merely mentioned that it is not right to penalise a group of retailers for selling cheaper than others. That is still my core argument.

What you are proposing is that prices are kept artificially high in order to keep the status quo. That, in my book, is wrong. We in this country are being ripped off from the time we wake up until we go asleep.

This happens across the entire retail spectrum. You seem to be fixated on the definition of a cartel. Here is one of many web definitions of a cartel:

"Monopolistic associations operating within a single country or across national boundaries. A cartel consists of a number of firms in the same industry which agree among themselves upon the manner in which business will be conducted. Such an agreement may include pricing, production, sale, and the division of markets. Patents may also be shared but denied to non-members."

Doesn't that have a familiar ring to it........:eek:

THERE IS NO ONE SINGLE DEFINITION! And I'm confused?? Get a grip my friend. You are also entitled to your opinions - but if you, and others like you, seek to perpetuate the overcharging of consumers, when cheaper, legal alternate prices for the same products exist then I, and others like me, will continue to highlight it when we can.

Have you no comprehension of the points being made, or are you that blinkered? People want products as cheap as possible. There are companies providing this service legally. If you are the 'I Want It Now' type, and are prepared to pay above the odds then good luck to you. However, please refrain from speaking down your nose at people who are prepared to wait (if needs be) to achieve a bargain.

Freedom of choice cannot, and will not, be stifled - regardless of how much the counter-argument is hyped up.;)

MorningStar

Freddie59 wrote:

Look - you can dress this up any way you want. The original post in this thread merely mentioned that it is not right to penalise a group of retailers for selling cheaper than others. That is still my core argument.

The point is that is not true! It is an interiptation put upon the facts.

THere is no cartel or evidence of such. You somehow believe they all got together and there is no proof only speculation on the fact that some of the big boys have done this. Only one has and the others said they will consider it. That is not a cartel as only one company has done it!!!! There is speculation that the others might follow it. THat is not opinoin that is fact. They will all do it if there is businbess sense to it.

Choice is not restricted. Nothing you have claimed is actual fact only speculation on what might happen after one report on Skynews. There is lack of simply buiness knowledge in the argument. THis is not opinion but ignorance of facts and ingnorance of the entire market. You can keep the opinion but it lacks credibility and can't be claimed to be a informed view.

Freddie59

MorningStar wrote:

The point is that is not true! It is an interiptation put upon the facts.

THere is no cartel or evidence of such. You somehow believe they all got together and there is no proof only speculation on the fact that some of the big boys have done this. Only one has and the others said they will consider it. That is not a cartel as only one company has done it!!!! There is speculation that the others might follow it. THat is not opinoin that is fact. They will all do it if there is businbess sense to it.

Choice is not restricted. Nothing you have claimed is actual fact only speculation on what might happen after one report on Skynews. There is lack of simply buiness knowledge in the argument. THis is not opinion but ignorance of facts and ingnorance of the entire market. You can keep the opinion but it lacks credibility and can't be claimed to be a informed view.

Morning Star - you cannot change the momentum of the Internet. It is here to stay. It has been proved, over and over again, that Irish consumers are among the most ripped-off in Europe (case in point the recent RTE programme about price fixing among car dealers). You are looking at it through rose-tinted glasses. I appreciate that it is your livelihood (thus your stretching of a very thin point) but I, as a consumer, see it from the other side of the fence.

As I've already said it is both immoral and, in my opinion, illegal to discriminate against one retailer as opposed to another (and by default the consumer). You have already admitted on your previously reply that I am unaware of how 'deals are struck'? Could you possibly elaborate on that and what exactly you mean?

You also mention that quote 'the idea is not to fix the price -- that is where you are getting it wrong' unquote. Well can you explain what charging the online retailers a higher price so that they have to charge the exact same as the online stores actually is. I might not have much business knowledge, but I would hazard a guess that many people would agree that that is not right.:rolleyes:

Back to you, my retail friend....;)

MorningStar

Freddie59 wrote:

Morning Star - you cannot change the momentum of the Internet. It is here to stay. It has been proved, over and over again, that Irish consumers are among the most ripped-off in Europe (case in point the recent RTE programme about price fixing among car dealers). You are looking at it through rose-tinted glasses. I appreciate that it is your livelihood (thus your stretching of a very thin point) but I, as a consumer, see it from the other side of the fence.

As I've already said it is both immoral and, in my opinion, illegal to discriminate against one retailer as opposed to another (and by default the consumer). You have already admitted on your previously reply that I am unaware of how 'deals are struck'? Could you possibly elaborate on that and what exactly you mean?

You also mention that quote 'the idea is not to fix the price -- that is where you are getting it wrong' unquote. Well can you explain what charging the online retailers a higher price so that they have to charge the exact same as the online stores actually is. I might not have much business knowledge, but I would hazard a guess that many people would agree that that is not right.:rolleyes:

Back to you, my retail friend....;)

You really are not paying attention to what I am saying. First off retail as such is not my livelyhood. I work for a company that provides a service to retailers/wholesaler. THis mean I have a very good knowledge of the retail industry and know how buyers work. What are you basing your "knowledge" of retail practices on?
Rip off Ireland does not exist to the extent people believe. Eddie Hobbes show has ben proven to be not factual on many details and extremely misleading with actual facts. Car dealers are certainly not international companies and this is not isolated to ireland so there is no point bring rip off Ireland at any point
I will keep this really simply so pay attention. THEY ARE NOT CHARGING ON-LINE RETAILERS MORE. THere are discounts they can't avil of because they are unable to provide the benifit to the producers. SO what you beleive is happening is simply not true it was an intreptation of the facts and making up the story of what is happeing. Only one supplier has done it and otheres said they might also do it.
You may get on your moral high horse but once you do that the protection of traditional stores that have existed for up to 100 years deserve to be kept. It isn't discrimination as on-line retial stores can't give a service to the supplier that the trad stores can.
How a buyer gets a deal is pretty simple. The large the quantity you vow to buy means you get a discount. If the supplier has an over supply they drop the price also. Very simple to understand. Now Tesco do things like say to the supplier if we put your product at the end of the isle in the buckets we will sell more so they say to the supplier we will charge you x for placing your product in the bucket. THe supplier agrees, the supplier also has things like retros where the supply say 1000 goods and say if you sell 500 you pay x per item and return the remainder. If the sell 600 they pay x-y per item, the more they sell the bigger y gets.
On-line stores got to the situation where by they don't have their own retail warehouse either and acted more like an agent taking commision with the supplier actually shipping the items. This annoyed retails so the threatened not to buy from certain suppliers so that practice stopped.
So in conclusion the intial belief that suppliers are charging more to on-line stores IS NOT TRUE as the invoice price is the same to both stores. Ultimately it won't matter as other large competing suppliers of maybe less known brands will probably offer better discounts to the on-line stores as they will see a business advantage. Why you would believe the media hype so whole heartely without retail knowledge is really bewildering. Do not confuse reasonable business practices with a plot to rip off one country by an internatioal business cartel of companies that are at each other throat normally. It really is a streach of the little known facts

Freddie59

Firstly, I looked for the link regarding the report. It was on BBC, not Sky and Sony have since firmly denied the claims in the report. But is seems to have opened a can of worms for other companies in the UK. Here is the link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4438298.stm

MorningStar wrote:

Rip off Ireland does not exist to the extent people believe.

I don't think I need reply to that one.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

MorningStar wrote:

Car dealers are certainly not international companies and this is not isolated to ireland so there is no point bring rip off Ireland at any point

I merely presented that programme as an example of how a certain section of consumers (car buyers - the majority of the population) are being exploited by some unscrupulous people.

MorningStar wrote:

I will keep this really simply so pay attention. THEY ARE NOT CHARGING ON-LINE RETAILERS MORE.

So we can take your word for that - 100%:eek:

MorningStar wrote:

You may get on your moral high horse but once you do that the protection of traditional stores that have existed for up to 100 years deserve to be kept. It isn't discrimination as on-line retial stores can't give a service to the supplier that the trad stores can.

I am quite entitled to get on the aforementioned horse. The 'protection' of stores (at the expense of me and others like me - I don't think so - they should be able to stand or fall on their performance). Don't the EU frown upon protectionism?

MorningStar wrote:

How a buyer gets a deal is pretty simple. The large the quantity you vow to buy means you get a discount. On-line stores got to the situation where by they don't have their own retail warehouse either and acted more like an agent taking commision with the supplier actually shipping the items. This annoyed retails so the threatened not to buy from certain suppliers so that practice stopped.

Yes - bulk buying is not a concept that is very hard to understand. This thread is discussing something very different.

MorningStar wrote:

So in conclusion the intial belief that suppliers are charging more to on-line stores IS NOT TRUE as the invoice price is the same to both stores. Ultimately it won't matter as other large competing suppliers of maybe less known brands will probably offer better discounts to the on-line stores as they will see a business advantage. Why you would believe the media hype so whole heartely without retail knowledge is really bewildering. Do not confuse reasonable business practices with a plot to rip off one country by an internatioal business cartel of companies that are at each other throat normally. It really is a streach of the little known facts

What do you class as reasonable business practice:

a) The freedom for consumers to choose

or

b) The manufacturers choosing for the consumer?

Over to you.;)

MorningStar

Freddie59 wrote:

Firstly, I looked for the link regarding the report. It was on BBC, not Sky and Sony have since firmly denied the claims in the report. But is seems to have opened a can of worms for other companies in the UK. Here is the link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4438298.stm

Nothing proved just an alligation. A vague claim by people who don't like discounts given to other retailers

Freddie59 wrote:

I don't think I need reply to that one.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Well seeing as you believe any old report about a possible price control by a business I would well believe that you take the Rip Off Ireland tripe and love it. I see the margins on retail goods accross Europe and there is minimal difference other than tax and some traditional things. Beer is cheaper in the off licences now than 10 years ago or even 5. Furniture is cheaper too.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Freddie59 wrote:

I merely presented that programme as an example of how a certain section of consumers (car buyers - the majority of the population) are being exploited by some unscrupulous people.

Focus on the argument instead of taking something else and assuming the same happens everywhere and to every consumer

Freddie59 wrote:

So we can take your word for that - 100%:eek:

Well let see you have no proof other than an accusation and in actual fact it is only the news repoort of an accusation.

Freddie59 wrote:

I am quite entitled to get on the aforementioned horse. The 'protection' of stores (at the expense of me and others like me - I don't think so - they should be able to stand or fall on their performance). Don't the EU frown upon protectionism?

The EU is protectionism what do you think quotas are about? Certain things are vital to a stable society if there were no shops in towns the towns die. The towns and cities are more important than getting

Freddie59

MorningStar wrote:

Nothing proved just an alligation. A vague claim by people who don't like discounts given to other retailers



Well seeing as you believe any old report about a possible price control by a business I would well believe that you take the Rip Off Ireland tripe and love it. I see the margins on retail goods accross Europe and there is minimal difference other than tax and some traditional things. Beer is cheaper in the off licences now than 10 years ago or even 5. Furniture is cheaper too.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:




Focus on the argument instead of taking something else and assuming the same happens everywhere and to every consumer



Well let see you have no proof other than an accusation and in actual fact it is only the news repoort of an accusation.




The EU is protectionism what do you think quotas are about? Certain things are vital to a stable society if there were no shops in towns the towns die. The towns and cities are more important than getting

Well, this report is from September 1st 2004. Have a read of it Morning Star. I suppose I, and every other like-minded person in Ireland like me, is in denial. We really are not getting ripped off................at all. You are of course, right........I apologise.......!

Case closed: http://www.valueireland.com/media/irish_mirror.htm

I don't think i need add any more, Morning Star. You're right and everyone else is, very obviously wrong.(:eek: ) Doesn't that list make some very, very interesting reading.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

MorningStar

Freddie59 wrote:

Well, this report is from September 1st 2004. Have a read of it Morning Star. I suppose I, and every other like-minded person in Ireland like me, is in denial. We really are not getting ripped off................at all. You are of course, right........I apologise.......!

Case closed: http://www.valueireland.com/media/irish_mirror.htm

I don't think i need add any more, Morning Star. You're right and everyone else is, very obviously wrong.(:eek: ) Doesn't that list make some very, very interesting reading.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

So you can't prove your point on topic you want to call the whole thing a Rip Off in Ireland?
To clarify that is the Mirror you are quoting which is known to feed popular opinion not investigative journalism. No mention of higher wages and tax so it is not balance. It is also on a website which is actively complaining about value in ireland. Talk of car insurance with out mention of the percentages of accidents on the road and claims payouts is just bias plain and simple. to give you an example " VAT has risen by eight per cent " when did VAT go up? Do you now pay 29% or did you used to get taxed 13% on goods?. Not saying there aren't rip offs just that it is not everything and peolpe have the choice not buy things based on cost of belief. Are you going to stop buying somewhere becasue you don't like their business practices? It is an overblown topic. Comparing america to irish prices is ridiculiouslook at their minmum wage , tax, insurance and economies of scale etc... You want to live in a country where people need to work 3 jobs to survive go live there but don't expect a cheap camcorder here.
I leave that aside as it is off topic. On topic there is no story or evidence other than on-line retailers giving out becasue they can't get discounts becasue they are based on services they can't provide. Sour grapes.

I still don't see how you choice is changed as a result of a speculative problem. You still get to choose.

Freddie59

MorningStar wrote:

It is an overblown topic.

Of course it is. You're dead right. Rip-off Ireland does not exist.:eek:

MorningStar wrote:

Sour grapes.

Yes. We shouldn't be complaining at all. Just hand over the dosh and don't volunteer any opinions or complain.:rolleyes:

frameless59

MorningStar wrote:

So you can't prove your point on topic you want to call the whole thing a Rip Off in Ireland?
To clarify that is the Mirror you are quoting which is known to feed popular opinion not investigative journalism. No mention of higher wages and tax so it is not balance. It is also on a website which is actively complaining about value in ireland. Talk of car insurance with out mention of the percentages of accidents on the road and claims payouts is just bias plain and simple. to give you an example " VAT has risen by eight per cent " when did VAT go up? Do you now pay 29% or did you used to get taxed 13% on goods?. Not saying there aren't rip offs just that it is not everything and peolpe have the choice not buy things based on cost of belief. Are you going to stop buying somewhere becasue you don't like their business practices? It is an overblown topic. Comparing america to irish prices is ridiculiouslook at their minmum wage , tax, insurance and economies of scale etc... You want to live in a country where people need to work 3 jobs to survive go live there but don't expect a cheap camcorder here.
I leave that aside as it is off topic. On topic there is no story or evidence other than on-line retailers giving out becasue they can't get discounts becasue they are based on services they can't provide. Sour grapes.

I still don't see how you choice is changed as a result of a speculative problem. You still get to choose.

All slagging aside I think we'll just have to agree to differ or this could go on forever:o . You don't agree with me - I don't agree with you. Fair enough. But I'll still keep hunting for the bargains;) .

A belated Happy New Year to you and yours. Have a good one.:D