Thoughts on 'quality' merchandise...

[Brad Johnson]

Might want to be careful about how much that old furnace is "saving" you in repairs.  I put in a new HVAC system a couple of years ago.  The utility savings alone will offset the cost of the unit in under 6 years.

Brad

[HankB]

Interestingly enough... the code that prohibits stepping past the FBI warning or other "mandatory" sectors of a given DVD is actually initiated by the particular player you have.

Some of the really cheap $20 APEX DVD players will skip right past that stuff, while the nicer JVC/Sony/etc players enforce the mandatory read.  Also, the open-source DVD packages for playing a DVD on a PC allow you to skip mandatory content while the PowerDVD and other retail player software enforce the mandatory rule.

Guess what - this cr@p just bit Obama!

It turns out the 25-DVD set of classic American movies that His High and Mightiness gave to the British Prime Minister - something he was roundly criticized in the British press for - is UNPLAYABLE on British DVD players!!

It turns out that DVDs have "Region Codes" and the ones Obama gave the Brit leader don't work in European players!!   

Wait - just wait - for Obama to send a US-market DVD player . . . which probably won't work well with British 50 Hz power and the PAL (or is it SECAM?) system used over there. 

[wmenorr67]

Might want to be careful about how much that old furnace is "saving" you in repairs.  I put in a new HVAC system a couple of years ago.  The utility savings alone will offset the cost of the unit in under 6 years.

Brad

Not if you have to replace it in 4 or 5.

[Brad Johnson]

Expected life on decent HVAC equipment is 20-25 years if it's properly maintained.

Brad

[Firethorn]

Wait - just wait - for Obama to send a US-market DVD player . . . which probably won't work well with British 50 Hz power and the PAL (or is it SECAM?) system used over there. 

Some countries over in Europe ruled DVD region coding illegal, thus region-free players are readily available in the European market.  So it'd be better to buy one from one of those countries.  Obama should have technically inclined people available to get a player that would work.

It's big, ugly, has no internal turntable, delivers only 1000w of power, and looks very dated in the general scheme of things.

However, it's built like the proverbial brick outhouse, and has outlasted several other retail microwaves.

Personally, I want something in the middle - I'm willing to pay more, but it's like those resolable shoes for $200, vs the chinese $20 ones.  I'd have to go through 10 sets of the cheap ones before it'd even start to make sense, and with the cost of capital, any repairs, etc I'd have to seriously question whether I'd ever save money with the expensive ones.

As for cheapness and lack of quality, well, I've seen 'expensive' stuff that turns out to have cheap innards - the price point was to fool you into thinking it was well built, but only the shell actually was.
For durable goods, how do you tell the difference between an appliance that's likely to last a decade of heavy use, and one that will fail within a year with only moderate use?  Price can't be the sole indicator, and it's difficult to tell between brands/product lines.

Many appliances are required to put energy star ratings on their stuff.  How about MTBF rate as well?

Expected life on decent HVAC equipment is 20-25 years, if it's properly maintained.

Some of the stuff Dad was encountering was that name brand systems were going bad after far less than that, primarily due to cheapness to make a bigger profit and difficulties getting them into the higher efficiency categories. 

The extra cost for the higher efficiency would also require them to operate for 20-25 years in order to break even.

I'm not saying that higher efficiency isn't good, but that there's more factors involved, and many of them are hidden, often more or less deliberately.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Japan keeps American cars out of their market by doing detailed "inspections" of each vehicle that comes in.

When they tried this with, IIRC, French exports, the French decided that every VCR that Japan exported to France needed to be individually inspected . . . and they assigned one inspector.

Unless a politician is making a point or currying favor with unions (for example, the steel workers) we don't do things like that, even when someone else does it to us. 

Let Japan and France impose their tarrifs, we're smarter than that.  Tarriffs do your economy more harm than good in the long run.  If other nations want to hamstring their economies, why should we follow suit?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

As for quality of goods, people buy what they want to buy.  Producers respond by producing what people want to buy.

Right now, people want cheap Chinese stuff, even if it is lower quality and sometimes defective.  It's a good thing that they can get what they want.

The problems crop up when the things you want to buy aren't the same things that everyone else wants to buy.  You'll probably still be able to get what you want, it'll just end up costing you more because the stuff you want doesn't have the economies of scale.

[Gewehr98]

Are we actually smarter than that?

I remember a certain tariff imposed on Japanese motorcycles around 1984 when H-D made a big squawk about their loss of market share. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'm sure there are lots of companies that would jump at the chance to have their foreign competition removed from the marketplace.  We usually don't give in and actually do it.  Sometimes we do.

[De Selby]

One important thing to remember about all this government regulation is that the most influential sector in setting the Government's policies is the corporate/financial sector.

That's because, obviously, the interests of private business don't always align with the interests of private consumers. 

It's important to not have people monkeying with the free markets for their own advantages.

[Hawkmoon]

Japan keeps American cars out of their market by doing detailed "inspections" of each vehicle that comes in.

When they tried this with, IIRC, French exports, the French decided that every VCR that Japan exported to France needed to be individually inspected . . . and they assigned one inspector.

I love it.

I'll be happy to apply for the position of inspector of all Airbus passenger aircraft being purchased by U.S. airlines.

There's a lot of wiring in one of those. Every wire has to be inspected to ensure that it's not being abraded somewhere. Don't worry, I'll do a thorough inspection.

[Firethorn]

There's a lot of wiring in one of those. Every wire has to be inspected to ensure that it's not being abraded somewhere. Don't worry, I'll do a thorough inspection.

I should note that I'm not proposing using inspections as a trade barrier.  I'm proposing them as a true safety measure - there have been too many cases of contaminated, dangerous goods coming in from China.

Still, some notes:
1.  We get a LOT of goods from china that are just fine; percentage wise, is there really an issue?  Do we get just as many incidents of contamination from, say, France, on a percentage basis?  News programs won't tell me this.
2.  Incidents do occur in the USA as well; just look at the peanut incident.
3.  Inspections on a statistical basis should be sufficient.
4.  Any inspections done should be done on a basis that the inspections should make economic/safety sense - by catching problems at the border or earlier, more expenses will be avoided.

[makattak]

One important thing to remember about all this government regulation is that the most influential sector in setting the Government's policies is the corporate/financial sector.

That's because, obviously, the interests of private business don't always align with the interests of private consumers. 

It's important to not have people monkeying with the free markets for their own advantages.

That's almost correct. Let me fix it for you:

"It's important to not have people monkeying with the free markets."

PERIOD. I don't care why they're doing it: for their own advantage, to help "the poor", or to make things for "fair".

When you screw with the free market EVERYTHING gets screwed, not the the "small" area you thought you were "improving".

Is it because I trust the market or corporations? Of course not.

The reason is when they screw up, I stop dealing with them. When the government screws up... oh, yeah, I get to pay for it.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

One important thing to remember about all this government regulation is that the most influential sector in setting the Government's policies is the corporate/financial sector.

If that were true we wouldn't have some of the highest corporate taxes in the developed world, nor would we have a new 90% income tax bracket just for corporate/financial workers.

[MicroBalrog]

If that were true we wouldn't have some of the highest corporate taxes in the developed world, nor would we have a new 90% income tax bracket just for corporate/financial workers.

Never hear of regulatory capture, I take it.

Sure, corporations don't always get their way, but large corporations are very often extremely influential. Observe the giant bailouts, regulations favoring certain sectors of the economy, etc. etc.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Think in the macro sense, not the micro.  Think in long time scales.

The simple fact is that government is becoming increasingly hostile towards business, and has been for virtually all of the last century.  If business was the dominant force in politics, this would not and could not be possible. 

There have been times when the interests of business have aligned with certain politicians and government officials.  When that happens business gets its way (rather, the politician gets his way and business goes along for the ride).  Regulatory capture is one example of this, the bailouts are another.  But observe that whenever business interests run counter to the political forces, business always loses.

Business is not the dominant political force SS claims it is.

[MicroBalrog]

“Business” is not a dominant political force in and of itself, because there's not really such a thing as a unified “business”. There are, however, many businesses who are involved in politics.

I believe – as you surely do, too – that in the long term, businessmen would benefit more if we lived in a free-market society. However, in the short term, many wealthy and powerful men often believe that they can gain profits by lobbying for some measure or another that benefits their company or their industry directly. It is a known fact that many people who are wealthy also maintain political connections and powers, are capable of puling favors etc.

A businessman is not automatically a friend of the free market.

However, in the long-term, indeed, all of this favor-pulling, lobbying, and subsidy-pimping is destructive as it hacks away at the branch on which we all sit.

[De Selby]

If that were true we wouldn't have some of the highest corporate taxes in the developed world, nor would we have a new 90% income tax bracket just for corporate/financial workers.

It's not logical to conclude that because one tax measure is higher in America than some other developed countries, the idea that Corporations are some of the most influential players in the political game has been debunked.

Any explanation of American trade policy that denies the influence of large corporations will find accounting for the facts to be an impossible task.

[Ryan in Maine]

Anyone have a master list of quality merchandise? 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It's not logical to conclude that because one tax measure is higher in America than some other developed countries, the idea that Corporations are some of the most influential players in the political game has been debunked.

Any explanation of American trade policy that denies the influence of large corporations will find accounting for the facts to be an impossible task.

Are you serious? 

It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that because government policy is increasingly hostile towards business, business must therefore not have a dominant influence over government policy.  Do you somehow believe that business and financial interests would wield their powerful influence in ways they know to be harmful to themselves?  Of course not! 

Business interests don't push policies that harm business.  Those policies are the result of other political forces that are stronger than business.

Onerous taxation on business and even more onerous taxes on businessmen are simply two obvious examples out of many that show the foolishness of your proposition.  The current fiscal and economic mess is yet another obvious example.

I'm not denying that business has some influence over government.  I'm just amazed that anyone who has two eyes can look around and conclude that business is the strongest political force in setting government policies.

[MicroBalrog]

I'm just amazed that anyone who has two eyes can look around and conclude that business is the strongest political force in setting government policies.

I don't think that's what SStudent said.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I don't think that's what SStudent said.

No?

One important thing to remember about all this government regulation is that the most influential sector in setting the Government's policies is the corporate/financial sector.

Perhaps we should let him clarify just exactly how this statement doesn't mean that the most influential sector in setting government policies is the corporate/financial sector.  He might welcome the chance to backpedal a bit on this one.

[MicroBalrog]

Bizarre. I must have misunderstood something. It's undeniable that Big Business is a powerful force. The most powerful force? Far less sensible.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It's undeniable that Big Business is a powerful force. The most powerful force? Far less sensible.

My thoughts exactly.

Having polluted this thread enough already, perhaps we'd best let this one drop.

[De Selby]

Bizarre. I must have misunderstood something. It's undeniable that Big Business is a powerful force. The most powerful force? Far less sensible.

It is entirely sensible when it is considered in the context of trade policies.   The problem with the headless analysis is that it does not consider the reality that "hostile" policies towards one business result in advantages to others for whom negotiating those policies is more feasible.

Hostility to small business with employment law is a perfect example-it is far easier to manage these rules with a large hr unit than with a mom and pop store.

Edit:  an afterthought-I do not mean to say that big business never loses-occasionally it does.  It is still the single largest player in trade policy, however.   Its defeats are the result of transitory coalitions that are issue, rather than entity or party, specific.

Disadvantages to competitors-one of the basic motivations for corporate monies in lobbying.

Influence corresponds directly to financial power in the us-that's why finance got a trillion in welfare and independent mini marts get peanuts in comparison.