That would very much depend on how and where the particular bowls are made. I could certainly see some bowls justifying a price at that level, especially if the quality means they’ll last a lot longer than cheap plastic alternatives. I certainly don’t think it’s fair to jump to uninformed conclusion about a particular businesses costs, expenses and profits. I’m not convinced there are many fields where that actually happens though. It’s not as if there isn’t plenty of competition and alternative sources for dog bowls so nobody is going to survive very long pushing their prices above the cost and quality of their product. You generally need some kind of monopoly or captive market to make exploitative pricing work and those are relatively limited, especially in a world of extensive regulation of such things.
First, I want to thank you for your calm, level-headed speech. It is a far cry above the incendiary rhetoric of some. I do, however, think that the "cheap plastic alternatives" should last the lifetime of the dog (typically, about 15 years). This seems reasonable. Perhaps the place in question will be forced to lower its prices, in order to compete effectively with Walmart, Target, and other low-priced alternatives. I really do not know.
Have you considered a garage sale, tag sale, escrow sale, flea market, yard sale? The prices will be lower and no tax
Have you looked further afield for the same bowls, or perhaps another that is identical in purpose? There is no "economics of artistic taste". In fact, there is no treatment in economics of the question of individual taste since the "science" (if one can call it a science) does not treat the subject at all. GDP is aggregate in nature ...
OK do you invest in mutual funds that make sure you don't make too much money, get to much return on that investment, they only invest in companies that don't make too much profit? You don't consume stocks you own stocks which give you a certainly percentage ownership of the company. You are an owner not a consumer. What on earth are you talking about? "material items", you mean company material assets such has machines and vehicles and computers and buildings? What is the best way to ensure there are no "unconsciously high" price? Capitalism. But then lower prices on "material items" can mean higher profits for the company purchasing and owning them and you seem to object to that.
That would be a good response--if we had been looking for dog bowls. In fact, however, I just noticed them, in passing, as we were purchasing something else there.
The mutual funds in which I invest pay exactly the same amount every month--to the penny. Technically, you are correct here. But just what is your point? The owner of stocks is tantamount to the consumer of goods, in that he (or she) is on the other end of the transaction, from the seller. I assume that you are referring to post #17 in this thread. If so, the context should clearly indicate that I am talking about material items for sale by the company in question. And I am a thoroughgoing capitalist. So what, exactly, is the point of debate here?
And you make sure they don't pay you too much correct? What is the most you will allow yourself to make, what profit? The owner is the owner NOT the consumer, I am amazed you are confused on that point. When I but the product the company makes I am a consumer, when I own stock in the company I am an owner. I assume that you are referring to post #17 in this thread. Well that's not stock in the company, that is not ownership in the company. Not if you believe profits should be limited and you should only be able to earn so much as decided by the government.
The point is that Politics IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE ECONOMY AND THE STOCK-MARKET. It is moreso about the Well-being of Those Who Share in the Economy, I suggest. My point: *You are caring about your own little self, typical of Americans. When they should be concerned about what is happening generally. *And, they are getting a first-hand coverage of that on the Nightly News. So, in fear, they stay home most nights watching safely the Hollywood-produced violence on the BoobTube. Cannot you see what is happening to the Social Fabric of America? Methinks not ... !
I seriously doubt that I am making any "profit." In retirement, there should be two very different types of income: pools of money and streams of money. A pool of money (the singular is really fine) is a savings account; something that one can access immediately, for an emergency--or even just for a sudden desire. A stream of money, on the other hand, is a never-ending supply of money; annuities are a good example. And one can never outlive a stream of money. So I have invested much of my money in annuities--so that I may never outlive them. Whatever. I really do not care to debate such a very minor (and inconsequential) point. Who ever said that I believe that "government" should get involved here??? I emphatically do not believe that! And I would certainly appreciate it if you would not place words in my mouth.
I really don't need you to waste time explaining investing and retirement, especially if you put your money in an annuity and yes you can outlive an annuity. I asked you what return on your money is TOO MUCH, long before you bought your annuity, if that is what you are dancing around saying instead of just coming out with, you had to accumulated the capital to invest into it. So what was the maximum profits you limited companies in which you invested? It is not a minor point, obviously you don't understand the difference with is key here. Well which is it you believe profits should be limited or not and is if so who is going to limit them other than government through regulation?
If you do not quote the entry to which you are responding, then that person will not read your remarks because they wont know you addressed them. Participants are not necessarily reading every post in each forum in which they participate! And so the debate fizzles ...
If it's stainless steel and large, or if it is ant-proof, the price could possibly be justified if you really stretch it. Nobody holds a gun to their head and makes them put it in their shopping cart. If the expensive dog bowl in question is just another common container, any smart person knows they can get one for fifty cents, or less, at Goodwill or the Salvation Army, or get a smaller Sterlite container for a couple bucks at Walmart. If it holds water or holds dog food it will do. If it's scratched or faded the dog don't give a damn, so long as it can eat. It doesn't have to say dog on it or be in the pet section. I know a guy who simply threw dry food on a concrete slab under his pole barn and the dogs were happy with that, and with getting their water out of the livestock pond. They got wolf in their blood, they just want to eat. Laissez-faire, plus, the dumb consumer stands little chance in life, and especially if they don't read carefully what they sign with their written name. I know a lady who spends $800 a month on two dogs. The UPS truck is at her house five days a week. She's a rich lawyer and she doesn't even think or worry about it, easy money, easy come, easy go. She once got a $3400 operation on a 16-year-old dog. The vet loves her. Anything catches her eye, she buys it. It's a free country. How does a po' boy like me know somebody so rich? I was her landscaper for 14 years. And I am grateful for every penny she paid me, hope she has millions in the bank, and she paid well.
Why would there be such a thing as "too much" here? Your question is nothing more than a rhetorical flourish. I favor the person on the receiving end of any transaction, whether he (or she) might be a consumer or an investor. An ethical merchant should limit them. (Perhaps you read only the OP, and did not notice post #3 in this thread.)
You were the one complaining about companies making too much, how much is too much? What do you mean "ethcial merchant"? What profit level is "ethical" and do you refuse to invest in companies that make too much? At what return on your money do say that is too much and sell? First how do you know the total cost, development, building the factory to produce them, acquiring the raw materials, buying the machines to make them, hiring the people to work in the factory, the marketing cost, the advertising cost, the transportation cost, and on and on and on are no more than three or four dollars? Why don't you start making them any only charging $10 then and put them out of business. What profit level is too high?
Obviously, there is no hard-and-fast number for this. I would just imagine that, oh, say, 1,000 percent above the probable wholesale cost is a bit much... Please re-read post #42 in this thread--and specifically, the third paragraph of the first answer--for an answer to this. Well, partly because I am retired--and happily so--so I have no desire to suddenly come out of retirement (after more than 14 years), and go into the dog-bowl business.
I am certainly sorry if I offended you. That was never my intent. Perhaps you have a better grasp of this than I do. I really do not know. I just know that many people are afraid of "outliving" their retirement savings. But I am not. My annuities will pay me for the rest of my life, irrespective of how long I live. (No doubt, they are based upon actuarial tables; I just hope to outlive the averages.) Note: One thing that I overlooked, when getting these annuities: I really should have had them indexed to inflation--even if that meant accepting a little less at the beginning. Nonetheless, I feel secure: I have my Social Security check direct-deposited into savings each month--I really do not need it for living expenses--and I generally take another $500 to $1,000 from checking, and put it into savings, in addition. Again, however: It was not my intention to offend you.
You are a VERY LUCKY PERSON! Not all people living in the US can do that. For instance, the 14% of Americans living below the Poverty Threshold. They are close 45 million American men, women and children who cannot! (That's a population larger than the states of California and Maryland combined!) And why not? They aren't lazy. For the most part, however, none of them ever got beyond high-school. Life just whacked them. And so, they deserve to end their days in the misery of impoverishment? Methinks not. And certainly not in one of the richest but most unfair countries on earth ... !
