PatsFanInMaine

http://www.theindychannel.com/automo...21/detail.html

Fined for not charging enough? Hmmm.....

dryheat44

I actually like the law. In most fair trade programs there is a price floor to keep smaller companies in business. Of course, I wish the floor was much lower these days.

__________________
When it's third and 10, you can have the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time. -- R.I.P. Max McGee

sdaniels7114

As long as they were warned a couple of times, I'm ok with it. I'd guess that in the case of the 140k fine the station probably told the state to stick it a couple of times. The state has a legitimate interest in maintaining healthy competition.

BlueTalon

I think the state would have a healthy interest in building more refineries and in drilling for oil in places where we know it to be, also.

I know as a gas-buying consumer, it would certainly be in my interest.

Pujo

I think the state should have the biggest interest in moving us away from oil (and not with that ethanol junk-science crap).

Chevy

I personally think that law goes against the tenets of a free market. If I, as a business owner, wish to live above my shop and work longer hours so that I can cut 3 or 4 percent off my markup, then that is my business.

BTW - this was brought up here in Louisana, but was shot down quickly.

If anything, the government needs to crack down on unofficial price gouging more than worrying about someone not charging enough.

PatsWickedPissah

I have not researched ethanol in detail personally but I fear that it may be 'junk science' in that there seem to be legit concerns that the energy consumed in creating ethanol (farming, tractors, harvesting, processing) exceeds that saved in adding it to gasoline and consuming it in autos. I hope that skepticism is unwarranted.

sdaniels7114

[QUOTE=Chevy]I personally think that law goes against the tenets of a free market. If I, as a business owner, wish to live above my shop and work longer hours so that I can cut 3 or 4 percent off my markup, then that is my business.

QUOTE]


Yeah but then I, as a billionaire who can afford to loose money for years, drive you out by cutting 50 or 60 percent off your best possible price and gobble up all the stations and then charge whatever I want. Soon thereafter I stop being a billionaire and become a trillionaire.

Look at M$, if there really was a viable alternative to Windows, do you think computer manu's would be paying them the same amount they pay now? Its not like M$ has much unit cost per license. They don't even have to include a disk now, just a crappy manual.

Chevy

[QUOTE=sdaniels7114]Actually, showing a loss for three years out of five dissolves the corporation. No company sells at a loss. Even the "Free after rebate" deal is a money maker, since stats show less than 30% actually send in for the rebate, and less than 10% of them meet the requirements (time, receipts, cutout from the box, etc.).

Dell/Compaq/Toshiba/etc probably pay about $20 per license for XP Home, maybe $25 for Pro. Independant builders like myself are lucky to get XP Home OEM for $85, and Pro generally runs about $130 OEM.

But, that's neither here nor there. Any corp that has enough resources to try a move like you described is already immensely successful - it wouldn't make fiscal sense on the off-chance that it would work.

dryheat44

[QUOTE=Chevy]Bull. That's the Walmart strategy in action. Operate at a loss at a store for X amount of years until the competition packs it in. Then raise prices to the level you want once you establish the monopoly. If Walmart, Inc takes in 20 million a week from its empire, do you think they mind one particular store losing money for 5 years?

This is an instance of halting the free market for the better long-term health.

__________________
When it's third and 10, you can have the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time. -- R.I.P. Max McGee