Simviation Forums

Personally, this kind of ticks me off.  I understand wanting to reward customer loyalty, but this seems like fraud.  On the other hand, it IS nice to know some companies value repeat business...

Shoppers Naive About Online Prices

Personally, I didn't even know they did this.  ::)

Kevin

I think that in the spirit of capitalism, it's essential that we let companies establish their own practices.  The moment we interfere, we open the door to socialism.

If a practice is anything but profitable for a company, any reasonably brained man is going to stop doing it.  

And for anyone who thinks this is new, you should know that the airline industry has been doing this forever.  I can buy a ticket on the same aircraft as you, to the same place, on the same day.  I can sit right next to you and pay substantially less (or substantially more) than you.

The moment we interfere, we open the door to socialism.

Uuuuh..yeah...Socialism...ooooh....I'm soooooo afraid!!  ::)

Uuuuh..yeah...Socialism...ooooh....I'm soooooo afraid!!  ::)

*Offers councelling and comfort to Bj

[quote]*Offers councelling and comfort to Bj

All right you Godless commies.

*Chases Ben away; hammer and sickle in hand*

*runs*

But back to topic.

That really is quite bad. My understanding is that it is illegal in Britain. A quick look up and I found it is illegal under EU law in Article 81 and 82 of EC treaty II.

Uuuuh..yeah...Socialism...ooooh....I'm soooooo afraid!!

I would be.  I don't want anyone having anything to do with my money other than me.  I want to spend where I want to spend, save what I want to save, and give away what I choose to give away.  The second someone (let alone a governmental body) gets involved, the whole process gets screwed up.

WTF? Socialism doesn't mean that you don't have your own money. It simply means that you can't be tricked anymore by those fat,living,greedy monebags on top of the companys.

It simply means that you can't be tricked anymore by those fat,living,greedy monebags on top of the companys.

Umm not really. Corruption abounds far more in socialist running methods and is so inefficient that everyone looses out by living in a bad economy in the long run.

Socialism by definition is the government mandating who has what.  It's reducing everyone to the same fiscal level.

I'm much happier being allowed to control my own wealth.  Rich or poor, there's no one to blame/credit other than myself.

As for the fat, living, greedy moneybags on top of the corporations, they've worked their tail off to get there.  They deserve it.  What is the motivation for anyone to work hard if there's no compensation in the end?

...and is so inefficient that everyone looses out by living in a bad economy in the long run.

Socialism may be economically ineffective, but at least it keeps all of the country's citizens employed. And I'd rather have a safe job than caring about the success of my country's econmical system.

Socialism may be economically ineffective, but at least it keeps all of the country's citizens employed. And I'd rather have a safe job than caring about the success of my country's econmical system.

I am studying economics, so I know that isn't true. It does not keep all the people employed, there is always unemployment. Now I know Germany is going through high unemployment at the moment, but this isn't the usual. It isn't about the sucess at all of the economy as such, recessions and booms happen, it is its effects of a socialist policy in the long term. It doesn't work and everything suffers. INfrastructure and investment in technology. Bad inefficiency and a lower GDP output. IMports become expensive and within a decade the country starts to decline. After 20 years it is turning into a poor country with poor people.

The unemployment rate in the United States is currently 5.2% (April 2005).   This is the lowest April rating since 2000.

In order for an economy to survive, there needs to be a small amount of unemployment.  (Ideally it's in the area of 3-5%.)  It fosters growth.  A company has no one to hire if no one is looking for a job.

The economy of the US is not the unstable mess that many would like you to believe.

The unemployment rate in the United States is currently 5.2% (April 2005).   This is the lowest April rating since 2000.

In order for an economy to survive, there needs to be a small amount of unemployment.  (Ideally it's in the area of 3-5%.)  It fosters growth.  A company has no one to hire if no one is looking for a job.

The economy of the US is not the unstable mess that many would like you to believe.

I never thought the US economy was rubbish.

Well actually few economists take that view Scott for two reasons.
One it is considered such a waste of resources and that it isn't just a potential loss but also a direct loss as money has to be paid to the unemployed.
Two, technically there is no such thing as NO unemployment at all. Full employment is the correct term which has an enemployment rate of about 1.5%.  That is the best an economy will acheive and all economies strive to get to it. I don't think it has been acheieved yet.

3-5% is NOT ideal.