A Bitter Harvest by Fremdfirma

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

But as we see, counterfeits are often inferior: the Rolex that doesn't tell time, the luggage handle that pulls off, the golf club that only drives half as far, the drug with no active ingredients. I can't think of any story I've read where the counterfeit was just as good, or better. Perhaps Fletch will come by and educate us both on how to shop for value by buying counterfeits.

As to rich people providing the where-with-all for companies to provide brand-name goods cheaply to poor people - I haven't heard of that happening either. That's why India got into the business of making unlicensed AZT, DDI and other anti-HIV drugs for example. (Not counterfeits - not disguised to pass for 'the real thing'. But not cheap brand-name products provided by legitimate companies either.)

If Fletch has a significant example of that happening in the real world it'd be nice if he shared it. But I don't think he can find a real example of the hypothetical possibility.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 6:03 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Actually, Rue - I can indeed throw you one example of that, at least here in the US.

Breakfast cereal.

Many, if not most of the lookalike knockoffs in cheap packaging, that cost a bit less than the name brand stuff, are made by the same manufacturers as the name brand stuff they're imitating.

Haven't really seen it anywhere else, but that example did kinda stand out to me.

I eat the cheap stuff myself, why pay so much more for a brand name and a pretty box ?

But yeah there's at least ONE example, tho I doubt the practice is commonplace.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Actually, Rue - I can indeed throw you one example of that, at least here in the US.

Breakfast cereal.

Many, if not most of the lookalike knockoffs in cheap packaging, that cost a bit less than the name brand stuff, are made by the same manufacturers as the name brand stuff they're imitating.

Haven't really seen it anywhere else, but that example did kinda stand out to me.

I eat the cheap stuff myself, why pay so much more for a brand name and a pretty box ?

But yeah there's at least ONE example, tho I doubt the practice is commonplace.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

Actually it's almost all foods. "Store brands" are often made on the same lines as major brands. Some Sears Kenmore appliances are actually made by Wirlpool. Etc.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:06 PM

SOUPCATCHER

This is going off on a slight tangent (surprise surprise

).

When I first started seeing advertisements for Gardasil I remember thinking, "Wow, the pharmaceuticals don't miss a trick." It shouldn't have surprised me, given all the examples of pharmaceutical companies creating pills and then manufacturing syndromes for those pills, that once another group had worked so hard to identify a problem that big pharma would rush to fill it.

The abstinence only crowd deserves the credit for hyping the market niche that the manufacturers of Gardasil exploited. Let me be absolutely clear, I am not blaming the abstinence only crowd for the problems associated with Gardasil. But, without their hyping of HPV as a leading cause of cervical cancer, I doubt that big pharma would've invested money in products like Gardasil.

Why was the abstinence only crowd hyping HPV as such a threat? Because it was the one virus that condoms might not deal with effectively (although that issue still seems murky). It allowed them to attack condom usage and rationalize not including education about condoms in sex education curriculum. The argument went something along the lines of, "Condoms aren't safe because they don't protect against HPV. HPV will KILL YOU. If you have sex, even if you have protected sex, you will get HPV. Don't have sex."

Well, it sure didn't take long for someone at the big pharamaceuticals to see the opportunity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:31 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

What I found about "store brands" is that they often do not meet the same specs as the "brand name" products. Some of the peas are big and woody. Or the flakes have too much sugar or not enough raisins. What happens is the "brand names" sell off-spec products to a different label so their name doesn't become associated with poor quality.

What I find interesting is situations where the consumer can't judge product quality too well, like motherboards. Some of the major PC assemblers (who shall remain nameless since I don't want to get sued) just grab all kinds of junk from the warehouse and stuff it on a board. Not even the same chipset from one board to another.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But as we see, counterfeits are often inferior: the Rolex that doesn't tell time, the luggage handle that pulls off, the golf club that only drives half as far, the drug with no active ingredients. I can't think of any story I've read where the counterfeit was just as good, or better. Perhaps Fletch will come by and educate us both on how to shop for value by buying counterfeits.

As to rich people providing the where-with-all for companies to provide brand-name goods cheaply to poor people - I haven't heard of that happening either. That's why India got into the business of making unlicensed AZT, DDI and other anti-HIV drugs for example. (Not counterfeits - not disguised to pass for 'the real thing'. But not cheap brand-name products provided by legitimate companies either.)

If Fletch has a significant example of that happening in the real world it'd be nice if he shared it. But I don't think he can find a real example of the hypothetical possibility.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

First up and getting back to sneakers for a moment, do you folks really think firms like Adidas actually own factories in Asia that makes the things? No they don't they subcontract, just the same as Sears, Walmart and many other brands. Often the same manufacturer makes for all these brands. Which is why I will say it again, at point of manufacture they are all cheap sneakers.

The mistake you make and keep making is that you REALLY believe that a $125 pair of sneakers is intrinsically worth $125 -- that is that a worker in China took raw materials and added $120 worth of value to it. Well he didn't he took materials and made something worth $20, which will be around the price the subcontractor sells it to Adidas.

So understand this. The worker has made $20 sneakers with an Adidas label on them. Next day on the same machine with the same materials he will make similar shoes with someone elses label on them. He will be paid the same amount, be as diligent in making them and who knows may even buy a pair. So you know something? All he's actually been deprived of is paying Adidas a $100 premium on it's brand name.

And this segways into the question you asked about the pill. I didn't want to get into it when talking about sneakers because it adds a complication to the old 19th century models of production and value that we had established as a baseline. In the case of sneakers it's so stupid as to be painfull, in the case of drugs maybe it's not so much.

If you go back to Adam Smith's manufactury and look at Marx's derivation of that the theory goes that the industrial worker in turning raw material into finished goods creates wealth by adding value to the finished product. When we talk about basic goods and commodities that is still generally true but these days there is a wrinkle.

Back to sneakers.

Mr Woo runs a company that makes sneakers. To keep his factory running all year he makes snakers for lots of different companies. All these products are very similar because he can't make anything that he doesnt have the machinery to make. In effect he takes $5 of raw materials and makes $20 sneakers, some of which have brand X that sell for $30 and some brand Y that sell for $130. At their core though they are the same sneaker. So why does brand Y sell for more than brand X? In part it's because brand Y's industrial design may be better, ie the sneakers they designed look cooler however in part it is because brand Y spends a fortune on advertising to convince the consumer that brand Y is worth $100 more.

Now when you look at the sneakers who added the most value to them. You and I would say the guy in China that made them because if he didn't there would be no sneakers. However he took $5 of raw material and added $15 of value to it, the same $15 being added to both brand X and brand Y. The difference in value between X and Y actually came about once it left his hands, that value was added by the folks that designed the sneakers and marketed them. The ones that persuaded you to spend that $100 extra.

Yes it's stupid which is why I really didnt want to go there. This is an illistration of the IP economy, the idea that you dont need to make something to make money at it, you just need to control what gets made and what you sell it for.

So getting back to your pills. The actual content of the pill (ie the chemicals that make it up) account for lets say 20c, the reason the pill costs $20? The cost of R&D, clinical trials, testing, regulation, marketing, sales and distribution + profit. Is it too much? In a lot of cases yes because the basic research for some pills is paid for by universities and governments. However generic drug makers (like the folks in India) can only make these things once all of that work was done. Ie, copying a finished product where all the R&D, testing and approval has already been paid for is cheaper than paying for all that.

Since we want someone to do R&D, testing, and approval before we use that stuff (and we want someone with deep pockets to sue if it goes wrong.) We are stuck with it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What I found about "store brands" is that they often do not meet the same specs as the "brand name" products. Some of the peas are big and woody. Or the flakes have too much sugar or not enough raisins. What happens is the "brand names" sell off-spec products to a different label so their name doesn't become associated with poor quality.

What I find interesting is situations where the consumer can't judge product quality too well, like motherboards. Some of the major PC assemblers (who shall remain nameless since I don't want to get sued) just grab all kinds of junk from the warehouse and stuff it on a board. Not even the same chipset from one board to another.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Except........

A surprising amount of equipment is made by the same manufacturer.

Some Nikon cameras are made by Cosina.

Most European cell phones are made by two companies in Indochina.

One of the cheap Taiwanese DVD manufacturers that you see in Walmart (dont recall which off hand) makes DVD players for Sony.

The list goes on and on.

The Apple Iphone is made in China from around $250 in parts, the extra $350 you are paying for is Apple's design, software and marketing talent. Now did a worker in China take $250 in parts and add $350 of value? Was that the designers that dreamt up the thing from essentially standard components? Was it teh guys that took standard parts and made it Gee Whiz by writing great looking software? Or was it the guys paid to make sure something with the word Iphone in it was in every news website for the last 6 months?

You decide.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 8:08 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"at point of manufacture they are all cheap sneakers"
Have you ever worked for a manufacturing company ? On the line there are all sorts of specifics to each particular run for each particular client. It may be made in the same place - but it's not made the same way with the same materials to the same specs.

"you REALLY believe that a $125 pair of sneakers is intrinsically worth $125"
Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe the sneakers are worth exactly what was put into them. If $5 worth of materials and labor (and materials are just labor off-site, so it devolves to just labor) went into making the sneakers, they are worth $5.

And since the rest of your post reiterates the same thing over and over (as Dulcinea you keep singing "it's all the same, it's all the same") which I know from experience NOT to be true, I hope you can skip over that argument and go on to something more meaningful.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 8:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"at point of manufacture they are all cheap sneakers"
Have you ever worked for a manufacturing company ? On the line there are all sorts of specifics to each particular run for each particular client. It may be made in the same place - but it's not made the same way with the same materials to the same specs.

They are still shoes and they are made by the same people at the same place at around the same cost.

So why would you pay them much more to make one pair over another? And yes I've worked in manufacturing and I am well aware that there will be differences in processes and materials otherwise they would be making the same product. However it's not $100 worth of difference, in fact in the numbers we are talking about it's miniscule.

But you know that. You do the same with every argument you know you can't win, you bog it down in nit picking. Address the facts for once.

If I run the Woo Fat trainer company and I pay someone $5 to make trainers that I sell to Adidas for $20. The most value he's added is $15. That determines the maximum amount I can pay him, not what someone is willing to pay for that product half a world away.

Discuss.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 8:46 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"They are still shoes and they are made by the same people at the same place at around the same cost."

Not true. To be boringly specific: let's say you have a line that attaches soles to uppers. It doesn't matter what the soles, threads, glue and uppers are. So you could have a multi-layered composite sole or a cheap thin rubber one, multi-component catalyzed glue or standard shoe glue, cheap nylon thread or PEEK thread, canvas uppers or leather. You could have tight specs and rigid QC, or loose specs and less QC. You could have fresh lasts or old ones. A tight timetable or a less tight time-table. And so on.

When a sub bids on a job it has to be able to meet the specs of that particular job.

Just b/c two things are made in the same place doesn't mean they're the same value - or even close.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:47 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, that went way past my knowledge of the subject really quick.... imma have to bow out due to lack of understanding of the subject at this point.

One parting comment, in regards to (don't laugh) pants...

I'm hard on pants, we're talkin grevious knee-destroying horrors here, and can (and have) rapidly destroy even army BDU fatigue pants in short order... ergo a pair that can survive more than two weeks has a "value" to me far out of proportion to the price, obviously.

So far I've only found ONE manufacturer who's product stands up, and although they're a name brand - no knockoff has come even close, so while fairly priced, I think I paid like $24 USD for a pair, they're "worth" far more, because I don't wreck em in under a month, in fact haven't wrecked any of em in over five months.

And yet, the cheap knockoff shoes I bought almost two years ago outlasted easily the name brand jobbies, so it's my opinion that you never DO know, there's no way TO know, a products quality until you put it in use, whether it be a name brand or not.

Caveat Emptor indeed, I guess.

Oh, and at the risk of being a bit of a shill, the pants in question are Dickies #86283 Ultimate Work Pants, I swear the damn things are nigh-indestructible - normally I wouldn't name names, but quality of that level deserves respect.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 10:29 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey Frem

Well, word of mouth advertising is beyond any price - Dickies #86283 Ultimate Work Pants - is now noted in my book.

Sometimes the oddest things have the greatest value, depending on your particular need for them. I always buy 3/4 sleeve over-sized all-cotton shirts to wear over my regular clothes. They keep the sun off when I go outside and they're handy as lab coats at work.

Notinfashionisall

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 2:40 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I get to see products compounded and packaged by commercial "packagers". Sometimes they're making L'Oreal and sometimes they're making CVS. But it's as Rue says: They have to meet the specs of THAT product. That's one of the reasons why counterfeits often don't work as well: no specs, no QA.

Dickies work pants. Also noted! Speaking of sneakers: if you know of any extra-wide sneakers besides New Balance that last for a long time let me know.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 2:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"They are still shoes and they are made by the same people at the same place at around the same cost."

Not true. To be boringly specific: let's say you have a line that attaches soles to uppers. It doesn't matter what the soles, threads, glue and uppers are. So you could have a multi-layered composite sole or a cheap thin rubber one, multi-component catalyzed glue or standard shoe glue, cheap nylon thread or PEEK thread, canvas uppers or leather. You could have tight specs and rigid QC, or loose specs and less QC. You could have fresh lasts or old ones. A tight timetable or a less tight time-table. And so on.

When a sub bids on a job it has to be able to meet the specs of that particular job.

Just b/c two things are made in the same place doesn't mean they're the same value - or even close.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Means nothing. I have had expensive shoes I've had to return because the sole was unevenly attached and after a days wear made a ridge that hurt my feet. I have had cheap shoes that have lasted years until the sole wore through.

How much QC do you really think is done for something with a production price of $5? Enough to add $100 of value? And you are still dodging the point so I will make it again. Is it the worker in the Asian sweat shop that take makes the shoe that adds the $130 value to them or is it the designers/marketeers and others that take something that costs them $20 to produce and persuades you to pay $130 for it?

When I buy shoes I look at the way they are made not the label on them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 2:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
How much QC do you really think is done for something with a production price of $5? Enough to add $100 of value? And you are still dodging the point so I will make it again. Is it the worker in the Asian sweat shop that take makes the shoe that adds the $130 value to them or is it the designers/marketeers and others that take something that costs them $20 to produce and persuades you to pay $130 for it?

Fletch2, I know you're not talking to me but you have failed to take into account Rue's answer to your question: what is a $5 sneaker "worth"? Her answer was: $5. You keep referring to that added $100 "value" but Rue's answer I think would be that added "value" doesn't exist. So to keep asking about that added value is to ask about something that Rue doesn't recognize. The problem is that there are several theories of "value". You both are using the same word to mean different things:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_value_(economics)

Quote:
Intrinsic theories, as the name implies, hold that the price of goods and services is not a function of subjective judgements. An example is the labor theory of value which says that prices in a market economy are a function of how much labor was put into the production of a product.

Subjective theories hold that for an object to have economic value (a price), the object must be useful in satisfying human wants and it must be in limited supply. This is the foundation of the marginalist theory of value, of neoclassical economics. The marginal utility theory is not a normative theory of value, but simply an explanation of why things are priced as they are in a market economy.

I suspect that you follow one of the subjective theories of value. In your approach, increasing the subjective "demand" for a product through marketing increases the "value" of a product because it increases the price. Rue seems to hold to some form of "intrinsic" value theory.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 5:10 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Yes, I do. Something Fletch failed to read.

So I hope that once he realizes his mistake we can have a more focused discussion.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'd like to bring up one more definitional problem: people are using the concepts of counterfeit products and off-brand products interchangeably. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

Off-brand products are bona-fide products traceable to a licensed, legal if lesser-known company. COUNTERFEIT products, by seeking to exploit another company's name-brand illegally are by definition illegal. And because they have are illegal, the manufacturing/ compounding is often clandestine, and much effort if made to destroy traceability to the manufacturer and supplier. Fake lot numbers and fake manufacturing locations are used, and the supplies are often transferred through many companies to confuse their origin. It took forensic accounting to track the source of anti-freeze-containing glycerol (which BTW happened to be China).

So while it's reasonbale to say that off-brands can be as good as or better than name-brands, it's foolhardy to say that counterfeits are "as good".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:25 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

This is my understanding:

No-name labels from brand-name companies generally are of slightly lesser quality (failed QC). It's their way of getting $$$ from product they don't want to be associated with.

Store-brand products are made by brand-name companies to store-brand specification, so whatever quality the store brand specifies is what you get.

Off-brands are genuine product from, as you pointed out, lesser known companies. (I would guess it includes the unlicensed AIDS medications India was producing and selling to African countries.)

And counterfeits are the real bogus deal.

Did I miss anything ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch2, I know you're not talking to me but you have failed to take into account Rue's answer to your question: what is a $5 sneaker "worth"? Her answer was: $5. You keep referring to that added $100 "value" but Rue's answer I think would be that added "value" doesn't exist. So to keep asking about that added value is to ask about something that Rue doesn't recognize.

I'll tell you why.

We got into this situation because *I* said something that is intrinsically true, you can't pay someone more to make something than the value of their labour. Well, you could but you would go out of business really quickly.

The example I gave was that you couldn't hire lawyers at $200/hr to flip burgers because you wouldn't be able to sell the resulting burgers at $20 apiece. We then got into the whole argument about people being unable to buy what they produce (remember your bogus bowling ball argument.) Truth is that people that build Mercedes can aford to buy them, people that build Fords can as well. Not from one weeks pay but they are generally not out of reach. Realising she was loosing the argument again Rue brings up $130 Adidas trainers and the $5 a worker gets paid to make them. At last she has a situation where the cost of an item is so overwhelmingly more than the cost of production it MUST support her "luxury car workers drive economy cars, economy car workers ride bikes" analogy.

THAT was why we moved to questions of value because in this case there is no connection between the value of the labour that is done ($5) and the final cost of the item ($130.) Since the worker is paid in proportion to the value of his labour and not the sale price of the item they could in that case NEVER be paid enough to buy their own product.

Now Rue seems to think this is unfair. I pointed out that there are lots of brands of sneakers out there where the $5 value added by teh worker does not translate to $130 of final price. IE free from artificial marketing the worker makes enough to purchase the product of his labour.

Quote:

The problem is that there are several theories of "value". You both are using the same word to mean different things:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_value_(economics)

Quote:
Intrinsic theories, as the name implies, hold that the price of goods and services is not a function of subjective judgements. An example is the labor theory of value which says that prices in a market economy are a function of how much labor was put into the production of a product.

Subjective theories hold that for an object to have economic value (a price), the object must be useful in satisfying human wants and it must be in limited supply. This is the foundation of the marginalist theory of value, of neoclassical economics. The marginal utility theory is not a normative theory of value, but simply an explanation of why things are priced as they are in a market economy.
I suspect that you follow one of the subjective theories of value. In your approach, increasing the subjective "demand" for a product through marketing increases the "value" of a product because it increases the price. Rue seems to hold to some form of "intrinsic" value theory.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

No, I actually favor the intrinsic value model. The problem is that Rue choses whichever pleases her at the time. If we stick with intrinsic then my initial point is valid, the worker gets paid an amount that can't exceed the intrinsic value he adds to the product. Ie if the Asian kid adds $15 to the value of a sneaker then that's the most he could ever be paid to make it and the final cost of making the product ie it's intrinsic cost, is all it's really worth. The problem with that is it means guys that make BMW's can afford BMWs, guys that make Fords can afford Fords. You dont see full bicycle racks at Ford factories, Rues argument is bogus.

So with the sneaker argument she looks at wages which are governed by intrinsic value, then compares them to cost of item that is based on subjective value.

I'm glad she finally agrees that at point of production these are all cheap trainers. Only taken her 2 weeks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I thought this was interesting....

If you find a store brand / off brand you like look for the manufacturer's name on the packaging. Store brands do not always use the same manufacturer in all areas and are also known to change manufacturers without warning consumers. For example, I LOVED the Winn Dixie store brand diapers. Then one day I noticed there was a change in the look and reliability of the diaper. I looked at an old box I had from the diapers I had purchased before I was storing items in my closet with and discovered the manufacturer was different. When they were being made by "Tyco" they were great and very near replicas of Huggies brand. Now that the manufacturer was changed in my area - I no longer liked them. I started looking at manufacturer named from then on. I discovered Tyco is also the maker of the Sam's Wholesale "Smiles" and other off brand/store brand diapers. I also discovered that diapers in one state by a store brand may be different than what is sold in another even though they have the same store brand name on them. I no longer think the stores brand name on the package is the important thing, now I am look at the fine print on the packaging to see who is making the diaper before I bite on the bargain pricehttp://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:2Y6n6zdG_2sJ: www.minti.com/parenting-advice/6594/Check-those-Manufacturer-Names-on-
Store-Brands-before-you-purchase-diapers/+%22store+brand%22+%22off+brand%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us

But basically, yes- counterfeits are the real bogus deal.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 7:42 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Fletch aka Asswipe

You're pissing me off. I specifically said they are NOT all cheap trainers. I made a very tedious, specific and lengthy argument as why the fucking not. This is the third time you've lied about my arguments. So

to any more communication with you, asshole.

Rue:
(conclusion after long argument) Just b/c two things are made in the same place doesn't mean they're the same value - or even close.
Fletch:
I'm glad she finally agrees that at point of production these are all cheap trainers. Only taken her 2 weeks.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 1:40 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
posted by Sigmanunki-

EDIT: I did reply to this, but have decided to edit it out. I did this because why my gov is more (or less) effective is exactly not the point and is exactly not what is being discussed. My gov has absolutely NOTHING to do with how effective your gov is. So, I deleted it because I have no inclination to get into the inevitable pissing contest about who's country is better. You had me for a little bit, though. Nice try, almost worked.

it wasnt necessarily my intention to get into a 'pissing contest' with you.. but you pretty much implied that America is less democratic then your home country. i asked why? its a fair question

Quote:
Complaining does exactly /nothing/. Since all "you" (seem to) do is complain, people will stop listening b/c that's all "you" do.

alright, well you dont know how active(or in-active) i am personally, so youre making an unfair assumption. personally i feel i do my share. besides.. how should i voice my discontent? i am fully aware of the saying 'actions speak louder then words'.. but action doesnt negate the 'words' in this instance, since politics is centered around debate. is that not part of the process, in order to persuade opinion?

Quote:
All complaining will do is back people against the wall and turn them off. They'll just dig in and not be willing to see another side b/c they've become very defensive. That's human nature. A great example of this is the "debate" in your country. Just look how polarized the entire thing is and how it resembles a screaming match with no-one actually listening *far* more than people actually debating.

ok.. but do you pretend that your country is any different? where are you from, the UK? considering your former PM was Blair, a Bush kiss ass, and now have Brown, an even worse Bush sympathizer.. i dont see where you get off telling us that our debate is fractured. remind me whats happening with the EU implementation? apparently yours isnt very effective either, unless you believe the British citizens want big brother socialism(in which case of course your getting what you want)

Quote:
In other words, you don't get a free pass to bitch about everything because you took a /small/ amount of time, one evening, every FOUR YEARS to vote. You actually got to do something. Sure, you /can/ /just/ bitch, but it is exactly meaningless if you don't get off your ass from time to time to actually make your voice heard. After all, how are your representatives going to know what you want if you don't tell them? A silent voice is a voice of approval to a politician.

im not sure why youre giving me this lecture.. i agree with you, change requires more then voiced discontent. maybe we should have clarified from the beginning that i didnt mean 'bitching' as in, sitting on my ass and running my mouth. i was more or less referring to my right as a citizen to dissent

Quote:
I contact my representative regarding several different things that are near and dear to me. How about you?

as do i.. i contact my congressman quite frequently. im also very envolved in promoting Ron Pauls candidacy, through groups like meetup.org and others. so im not just flapping my gums over here

Quote:
Also, you /are/ supporting this stuff. You are after all paying taxes, right? If not I'd really recommend that you start as I hear that they IRS isn't terribly pleasant.

if youve read through the Ron Paul thread, we may be on the verge of fixing our tax code, and returning to sound constitution money and fewer taxes. i do pay taxes.. but only because they are taken directly from my paycheck. i assume you pay taxes too dont you? socialism doesnt pay for itself

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 8:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch aka Asswipe

You're pissing me off. I specifically said they are NOT all cheap trainers. I made a very tedious, specific and lengthy argument as why the fucking not. This is the third time you've lied about my arguments. So to any more communication with you, asshole.

Rue:
(conclusion after long argument) Just b/c two things are made in the same place doesn't mean they're the same value - or even close.
Fletch:
I'm glad she finally agrees that at point of production these are all cheap trainers. Only taken her 2 weeks.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Sig: Fletch2, I know you're not talking to me but you have failed to take into account Rue's answer to your question: what is a $5 sneaker "worth"? Her answer was: $5. You keep referring to that added $100 "value" but Rue's answer I think would be that added "value" doesn't exist. So to keep asking about that added value is to ask about something that Rue doesn't recognize.

If you notice it was him I was answering. Since you two tag team in here I'd assumed you'd confered on strategy. SigNY, your pal, your chum has assigned the opinion to you that you accept that a $5 sneaker is worth $5. If you still don't then please ream his ass out for misrepresenting your opinion.... dont take it personally he does that a lot.

Nevermind.....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 1:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No Fletch2, we do not confer on strategy. Where it seems we tag-team, it's where we agree. Where we don't, we don't. Simple as that. ETA: MY guess is that Rue would say there is a material difference between the $5 trainer which is sold for $100, and the $1 trainer which is sold for $20.

But we still haven't resolved what "value" is. At times, you seem to be saying that it is the same as the price of an item, and at other times you seem to be saying that it is determined by the costs of the item. I suppose that you are trying to say that the "floor" or lowest value possible is fixed by the costs associated with production, but that the value can rise to any level above that depending on what the market will bear?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:31 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Fletch

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 8:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch

Rue, you missed the question mark and the end and the answer is no, thankyou I'm happily married

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 8:35 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Fletch

Fletch:
"Since you two tag team in here I'd assumed you'd confered on strategy. SigNY, your pal, your chum has assigned the opinion to you that you accept that a $5 sneaker is worth $5. If you still don't then please ream his ass out for misrepresenting your opinion.... dont take it personally he does that a lot.

Nevermind....."

Fletch:
"Rue, you missed the question mark"

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And speaking of "Counterfeits: The Real Bogus Deal"

Quote:
British authorities issued an alert on Thursday after a batch of contaminated counterfeit versions of GlaxoSmithKline Plc's Sensodyne toothpaste was found. The discovery follows a series of similar fake toothpaste scares around the world. As in previous cases, the British discovery involved toxic levels of the chemical diethylene glycol, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency said.

www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/12/britain.toothpaste.reut/index.html

BTW- I'm ready to discuss the concept of "value" whenever you are. Seeing as there are about six competing theories it should be an interesting discussion. We might even come up with something unique.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

But we still haven't resolved what "value" is. At times, you seem to be saying that it is the same as the price of an item, and at other times you seem to be saying that it is determined by the costs of the item. I suppose that you are trying to say that the "floor" or lowest value possible is fixed by the costs associated with production, but that the value can rise to any level above that depending on what the market will bear?

.

Actually I'm looking at it the opposite way. A free market should establish the value of goods. Once that is established it sets the upper limit on what you can pay someone to make it.

Unfortunately both companies and workers have fixed costs bellow which they cannot operate, this is the cost base for the community in which they are based. A company in a low cost base country competing with a company in a high cost base country has a comparative advantage since they can afford to sell at far lower prices than the high costbase producer.

So, in the absence of tariffs or other market distortions the low cost base economy will always win out in any market where they directly compete. This is and will remain a problem for the US economy. Now the solutions proposed to address this are 1) innovate your way out (ie create markets in which you have no competitors and so effectively set the market rate) or 2) own the idea (use patents and IP to prevent low costbase producers from competing.)

1) doesn't seem to be happening and 2) only works if you can export the US idea of IP elsewhere since most places view patents in a different way to the US.

But to answer the question directly. Old fashioned economics is based on intrinsic value. When discussing the concept of a worker taking raw materials and creating wealth it is the intrinsic value of his product you are talking about. I favour this view of value since it's tangable and measurable.

However, the market is based on subjective value, which is why sneakers that cost $5 to make can sell at $130. Probably $100 of that value does not come from materials used or cost of production but instead from the subjective value added by the notion of a "brand." Companies spend millions promoting their brands through advertising and sponsorship. In doing so they distort the market in their favour (hey they call this activity "marketing" so it's not like they are hiding anything.)

In the old economic models the largest proportion of the "value" added to manufactured goods came from its production. Therefore wealth was created by the industrial worker when the product was made. However in the case of Rue's sneaker it could be argued that most of the "value" of the $130 sneaker is added by the advertising agency, designers and image consultants. It is they that persuade the market that the product is worth $100 more than a comparative competing product.

Rue's argument is that there is a "trickle down" effect in industrial production where by the maker of a premium car can only afford an economy car, the economy car worker a bike etc. In truth when you look at it BMW workers drive BMW's... and Fords, and Ford workers drive Fords... and bicycle makers drive Fords etc..

Her killa argument is that the kid in an asian sweatshop making $130 sneakers cant buy them, but as we've seen he actually adds perhaps $15 to the value of the item and he can afford to buy $15 sneakers. The Madison Avenue guy that takes $20 sneakers and makes the market want to pay $130 for them can afford $130 sneakers. So both can buy products for around the value that they add to it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:23 PM