Or even take grocery chains - one day a buyer comes and buys the same products with a 1.5-2 times markup, and the next day, he or another suddenly sees the price 1.5-2 times lower.
Some kind of unfair lottery that allows retailers to maintain a certain "average price". But how does a person feel who bought products yesterday that were 1.5-2 times more expensive and seeing the same thing tomorrow is just as cheaper, but when he no longer needs them and he simply didn't get to the day (or "discount" hours).
This is an extremely common practice in fact and it is also pure price fraud. But already from the retail side.
Why this is 100% scam - a simple example. The buyer takes sausages as an example. At a price of approximately $15 per package of a certain weight. He sees that the price of these sausages is higher than the price of sausages of other varieties and manufacturers, for example, 1.5 times. If this is a random buyer and/or he is not aware of the vile scheme with temporary "discounts" in retail chains, he has the right to decide that these sausages are clearly of higher quality in composition than other varieties and other manufacturers with the same weight (they are now practically deceiving with labels everything and besides, rarely does anyone read the full composition in small print). What will be the shock of this buyer if the next day he discovers that their price has dropped by 2 times and has become cheaper than other sausages? And then on the third day (relatively speaking) the price increased again to the previous level at which he bought? Does he have the right to decide that the retail chain is engaged in outright price fraud by not allowing him to choose a quality product on an arbitrary day of purchase, based on a fair proportional difference in price in relation to the quality of the product? Obviously this is so from the point of view of rational and common sense thinking and simply basic business decency and requires the intervention of consumer supervisory authorities.
I'm just trying to explain that the expected improvements in the characteristics and quality of the product at an increased price visible to the buyer at the moment may turn out to be a pure bluff. And if in a laptop, for example, this does not have a significant impact on health, then in the case of products these are clearly criminal schemes.
And all this was written to try to explain that the wild differences in retail prices for the same laptop model more than cover the addition of a gddr6x or hbm3 controller directly into the SoC and the desoldering of fast 4GB (at least) memory for the igpu. And about the same with other technologies. For example, AMD or Intel include TB4/USB40 controllers, HDMI2.1 (FRL6) ports, RJ45 2.5Gbps+ port, etc. in the SoC, but the laptop manufacturer does not display them on the case. Despite the fact that the difference in retail prices between different stores completely covers the costs in the cost price.
What am I getting at? It is necessary to legally require the publication of the cost of production of all goods and punish for fraud (audit of the declared cost is a separate interesting topic). Then the consumer himself will assess how adequate the speculative component is in retail or when setting the starting price for a product by the manufacturer.
This is the second way to limit speculative markups - through clear knowledge by the buyer what the real cost of the product is. Then there is no need to limit the speculative markup by law according to a certain formula - buyers will quickly understand where the product clearly has an unfair price.
We are trying to find a way out of the impasse of current "capitalism" and make goods of better quality, more technologically advanced and cheaper, right? Competition with the rise of huge multinational corporations and oligopolistic conspiracies (which have been proven in court many times, but with no real fair punishment and in time for buyers - but it took years) simply does not work.
This means we need a different pricing model through regulation of this by society in relation to business. And this is precisely what will allow us to instantly remove from the market companies that use fraudulent methods to inflate prices, in defiance of decent producers, and then, having made money on poorly versed buyers, begin to engage in corruption of legislators, etc. in a vicious circle, increasing the gap from decent manufacturers and ultimately leading them to bankruptcy, despite a high-quality product and a reasonable markup. Or you have to act like everyone else. But this is a bad, degrading trend from the point of view of society. Well, for example, now they write about something similar with American medicine in general and the medical staff. This is a greedy, immoral business, not an attempt to cure as many people as possible as quickly, efficiently and cost-effectively as possible. And the fact that the majority of doctors in the United States have left private practice is also indicative of the latest statistics - it is easier to work for insurance conglomerates, but not for the patient.
Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
Magyar