On Dec 26, 8:58*am, Larry wrote:
Wayne.B wrote :

On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 02:33:39 +0000, Larry wrote:

Something is being manipulated by the usual suspects.

Not really. * As long as demand holds up, prices will not drop. * If
people stop buying prices will fall. *It's the law of supply and
demand coupled with the desire of business to maximize profits.
Also, there is old inventory purchased at higher prices waiting to be
sold in some cases.

Er, ah, Wayne? *Does your news reader work? *People have ALREADY stopped
buying, which is what got us into this mess in the consumption-driven
economy.

That's what's queer. *Consumption is way down but prices haven't dropped!

nope and prices wont for a little while. right now they are holding
prices up for the holidays and winter. captive audiance dontchak now.
i would wait for spring if i was to bet on this and watch the prices
start to drop. mid summer and shops are going to be sweating it trying
to get stock out the door.

bad part is with this no wharehousing idea the slow down hits a much
larger pool than it should.

"Two meter troll" wrote in message
...


nope and prices wont for a little while. right now they are holding
prices up for the holidays and winter. captive audiance dontchak now.
i would wait for spring if i was to bet on this and watch the prices
start to drop. mid summer and shops are going to be sweating it trying
to get stock out the door.

bad part is with this no wharehousing idea the slow down hits a much
larger pool than it should.

=====

they just announced some numbers tonight.

27 percent hardest hit, electronics.

shoes and women's clothes almost as hard hit

mk5000


"Troubling, stumbling, fumbling for the words to say that I'm leaving you
Leaving you
Troubling, stumbling, fumbling for the words to say that I'm leaving you
(You always said that we'd make it through) "--Solange Knowles

On Dec 26, 10:03*am, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:31:20 -0800 (PST), Two meter troll
said:

bad part is with this no wharehousing idea the slow down hits a much
larger pool than it should.

Not following you here. With just in time systems, when the stock on the
shelves is sold the retailer has to crank up his suppliers faster because
there's nothing in the warehouse to sell off first.

the factories dont have any storage so the line works only when there
is a demand. no demand, no work, no mony for goods, factory closes
down, no jobs, no money for goods, no demand.

On Dec 26, 12:51*pm, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 10:53:17 -0800 (PST), Two meter troll
said:

bad part is with this no wharehousing idea the slow down hits a much
larger pool than it should.

Not following you here. With just in time systems, when the stock on the
shelves is sold the retailer has to crank up his suppliers faster because
there's nothing in the warehouse to sell off first.

the factories dont have any storage so the line works only when there
is a demand. no demand, no work, no mony for goods, factory closes
down, no jobs, no money for goods, no demand.

So you're looking at the finished goods inventory, not raw material, *and
you're *thinking that it would be better to build up excess finished goods
inventories that would have to be sold down before additional production
starts, and to pay the additional capital costs of carrying those
inventories over the long term?

we dont even have raw materials in storage. most buisness have
reworked in the last twenty years to near on demand. this means there
is no real backup. if the thread makers are waiting for the weavers to
order thread and the weavers are waiting for an order of calico and no
order comes in the weavers dont work, the thread makers dont work, the
spinners dont work and the cotton farmer is stuck with barn full of
stuff he cant sell.
it all just goes systemic. warehousing provided a backup to an extent
and allowed for the trade in goods that could be bought short in one
place a sold long in another.

the current model allows flexability to hit fads and trends quickly
but it was never ment to handle scarcity and recession.
if the weavers produce no cloth then the seamstresses dont work. with
no one working no one can make money and it just gets worse.

On Dec 28, 2:37*pm, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:19:56 -0800 (PST), Two meter troll
said:

the current model allows flexability to hit fads and trends quickly
but it was never ment to handle scarcity and recession.
if the weavers produce no cloth then the seamstresses dont work. with
no one working no one can make money and it just gets worse.

Perhaps you should become a consultant to the domestic weavers g. I
wouldn't hire you, but they say there's a sucker born..

each to his own.
i hear yall bitching and i am not. one of us must be right.