241–250 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
About 20 years ago it was well-known that the cheap Cisco stuff on eBay was authentic in that there were say, two shifts worth of running the production line for Cisco and a partial shift for unofficial production sold outside of Cisco authorized channels and with no profit going to Cisco.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's mostly wrong. Luxury goods like Nike's, iPhones, et.al. are priced to maximize revenue. If those started growing on trees for free it wouldn't appreciably change the price. They'd just bank the extra as profit.
The truly luxury Nikes, the ones that cost way more than $100 - $150 are not priced to maximize revenue, however. The evidence is their pricing on secondary markets, which often price them at multiples of the retail price.
Plus, higher secondary market prices drive demand for the less desirable shoes as everyone can't afford to spend a week's wages on a pair of shoes but can stretch their budget for the still-kind-of-cool models. I'd go so far as to say the secondary market prices drive more demand for the lesser models as the cool kids want to be seen wearing what the rich cool kids are wearing.
I'm sure they spend a lot of time discussing what price they can charge without people openly revolting against their 'predatory pricing' strategies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author’s point is that the lower cost of goods coming from Asia results in increased demand, which then generates more jobs in the post-manufacturing part of the chain.
I see your point. I suppose a counterpoint is now shoes won't be so disposable and professions for cobblers and the like will be in higher demand.
Americans need to get over their view of “Asia” as being about making shoes. When I was working in engineering in the early aughts, we mocked the Chinese as being able only to copy American technology. Today, China is competitive with or ahead of America in key technology areas, including nuclear power, AI, EVs, and batteries. We need to anticipate a future where China is equal to America on a per capita basis, but f…
It remains to be seen how different 2010's China—with 90% of the population being under 60—is from 2050's China—with only 69% of the population being under 60.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> US will find itself in the same position the UK is in now The thing is .. there's a point here, but it's not at all tied in with physical products. People are obsessed with one side of the ledger while refusing to see the other. Most of the stuff the UK is struggling with (transport, healthcare, energy) are "state capacity" issues. Things where the state is unavoidably involved and having better, more decisive lead…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine if China decided to invade Taiwan like they've been threatening to do for a while. They would instantly cut off all exports to the US, because that's the smart thing to do. They would probably blockade Japan and other countries as well to keep them from exporting to the US, because that's the smart thing to do. Now since our supply chains were greatly disrupted (remember COVID?) we can only go to war with the…
> Imagine if China decided to invade Taiwan like they've been threatening to do for a while. They would instantly cut off all exports to the US, because that's the smart thing to do. I think what you're getting at is that China would have more leverage over the US if they attacked (attempted to invade) Taiwan, which they could use to make it more difficult for the US to protect Taiwan. In that case they could do thin…
You think they would supply their enemy? Biden said he would protect Taiwan pretty emphatically. I assume Trump would be advised of the same.
> But if we bump the cost of freight, insurance, and customs from $5 to, say, $28, then they wholesale the shoes to Footlocker for about $75. And if Footlocker purchases Nike shoes for $75, then they retail them for $150. Everyone needs to fixed percentages to avoid losses. I don't understand this paragraph. If Footlocker was okay with $50 profit/shoe, why do they need to claim $75 profit/shoe in their costs per shoe…
But the cost of buying and holding inventory goes up. If a store has 10k shoes in inventory @ $50/each, they are carrying $500,000 in inventory. If the shoes now cost $75, they need $250k more for inventory. Capital for inventory isn't free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Fishing is less profitable for the whole UK than Warhammer. This sounded completely insane to me. I tried to look up numbers and found that Games Workshop brings in > 0.5 billion in revenue (!!), compared to all of UKs fisheries at 1 billion-ish (profit margins are, as you'd expect, pretty favorable for the plastic figurines that they don' even paint for you). Thanks for this interesting fact.
There's a problem with just directly comparing them - because JKR probably brings in more revenue to the UK than fishing, with Potter copyrights. But most of that revenue goes to JKR, whereas most of the fishing revenue may end up in "working class" people's pockets.
The Harry Potter World theme park in London has over two million visitors annually. That tourism must be more economically significant than fishing for cod.
Are comfortable and repairable shoes possible and sensible from an economic point of view? Any recommendations?
I mean if you pay $300 and up for a pair of shoes, it could make sense. If you pay $100 for a pair, you might as well just purchase a new pair. In my case I re-sole the shoes because my shoes fit me well, and they're more on the high-end and thus I've paid a bit for them at the time of purchase. Makes sense for me to re-sole a pair of $1k shoes, rather than purchase a new pair.
To get the prices down, you'd need a lot more cobblers though. And there just aren't many going to trade school for that. It is very much a "artisanal" craft today, akin to tailoring.