Authored by: xteeth on Sunday, March 07 2010 @ 07:54 AM GMT+5

Do you suppose there is any tie in between the gimmicks that business uses these days to attempt to fool consumers into thinking that they are getting some deal and the collapse of business due to the gimmicks that bankers used to attempt to fool regulators into thinking that they are getting some sort of deal? Everyone has noticed that gasoline is sold for something and ninety-nine cents to make you think it is less that whatever the next larger amount. Sales aren't sales - if you wanted to save money you would put it in the bank not buy something. I once bought a box of floppy disks for $19 with a $19 rebate. How about buying cars costing tens of thousands with no interest? How about instant rebates? Why not charge what the thing is worth for a change?

What happened to making a product, adding a mark up for profit and selling it for an amount that would allow you to continue in business? I got an airline ticket to Washington D.C. round trip for $115. You and I both know that that isn't enough to pay for the gas. Loss leaders, "Come On Down," snake oil, bait and switch, these are what you are taught as an MBA. Nothing about honest dealing, truth in advertising, value for money spent. Throw it away when you are done because then you will have to buy more. I used to think that the American way of engineering a car was to go to the junk yard and see what was left and thin and lighten that part up for the next year's model.

If you believe that gimmicks ever did anything for business that lasted past the next bottom line assessment, you are part of what is resulting in the end of the real American exceptionalism. The biggest gimmick of all is the US tax code. Every rate set has hundreds of pages of exceptions to allow business to skate on their responsibility to pay for the advantages provided by our government for doing business here. Instead, they spend more on lawyers attempting to skirt laws and lobby for special exemptions. How many exemptions do you get? Half of the Fortune 500 corporations pay no taxes at all - and that is just the ones still having their headquarters in the USA.

The continual search for someone who doesn't have representation to get them special exemption results in the poor and disadvantaged paying more and more beyond their fair share. Who is going to make up the money lost on your day of no sales tax? Do you think there is someone else upon whom you can unload your taxes?

---
"Some people cause happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go." Oscar Wilde

Authored by: vtstream on Sunday, March 07 2010 @ 09:27 AM GMT+5

I agree that "gimmicks" are not the best way to cut prices but I think that it is possible to steer consumption in certain directions using things like gimmicks to effect prices.

Take food for instance. The federal government subsidizes large scale food production, say corn, so that large corporate food producers can offer food at prices that make it impossible for small producers not receiving the subsidies to survive. The federal subsidies steer consumers to purchase the artificially low priced foods and put the small producer out of business. It's an effective tool that creates a virtual monopoly on food production. This is obviously a benefit to the corporate owners because it lines their pockets, and a benefit to the consumer because it creates lower prices. But the benefits are an illusion because the money to pay the subsidies has to come from somewhere...taxes. So either way the consumer winds up paying.

Those who are opposed to things like sales taxes should also be opposed to subsidies that create unfair competition within some business sectors like agriculture and oil.

I'm not opposed to our government using taxes and subsidies to steer consumer habits providing the direction is one that benefits everyone. Too often the beneficiary is a small select group of owners who have the power to influence legislators with their money.

We are beginning to see some "gimmicks" in the form of tax rebates that may move our economy in the right direction. Federal and state subsidies directed toward purchase and installation of solar technology is one "gimmick" that seems well placed. Now if I can just figure out all the paper work involved I just might be able to take advantage of these.

Authored by: xteeth on Sunday, March 07 2010 @ 04:50 PM GMT+5

Perhaps you have also seen "Food Incorporated." I disagree about the "right direction" stuff. Historically, that is how the federal government has attempted to steer the economy through tax rebates, cuts, complicated formulas etc. but I think it has shown itself to be a mistake. Corporations now arrange these "directions" to their own benefit. The reason that they tempt legislators is that they apparently cost nothing as it is just tax money that you don't receive not a new tax that is raised - anathema in New Hampshire at least. I see this as just fancy footwork, smoke and mirrors. Corporate lawyers are way better than the rest of us at fitting these distortions into the way the government raises the money it needs.

Now it seems that there is no way to reverse any of these "steerings." Everyone knows that the agricultural subsidies, for instance, go to huge multinational corporations and in fact kill the small farmer but it isn't possible to budge even one of them. They were intended to save the small farmer but he just didn't have the organisation or money or expertise that corporate lawyers use. Off we go into ethanol production where it takes more than a gallon of diesel fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol. How good does that sound as a "greed source?"

---
"Some people cause happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go." Oscar Wilde

Authored by: vtstream on Sunday, March 07 2010 @ 07:00 PM GMT+5