- Messages
- 868
- Location
- Rainham, Kent
It's not really subsidising though, you are just being ripped off more than people in India if you choose to buy that product. Gillette is a business not a charity, and they set their prices in order to maximise the return for their shareholders. They are not setting the prices because they like people in India more than British people, it's because they make more profit at lower prices in India because their sales numbers are more price sensitive that in the UK.It's easy to make this all more complex than it actually is.
If the same product is available in 10 countries, and 8 of the countries sell it for £10 and the other 2 sell for £2.50 it matters not whether the lower price is in profit or not, the 8 are subsidising the 2.
I had to buy a fusion in Spain and it cost me the same price in Spar as it would have in a UK Tescos, I might start importing Fusions, from India and retire in a year or 2.......
The problem with both our arguments is we have no figures to back us, if I could prove there was zero profit margin after manufacturing, advertising, and distribution + taxes then my subsidy theory would be correct, but on the other hand if there was any profit at all, then you're argument would work.It's not really subsidising though, you are just being ripped off more than people in India if you choose to buy that product. Gillette is a business not a charity, and they set their prices in order to maximise the return for their shareholders. They are not setting the prices because they like people in India more than British people, it's because they make more profit at lower prices in India because their sales numbers are more price sensitive that in the UK.
This is why the reduction in trade barriers and import duties is good for consumers as it makes it difficult for companies to do this sort of thing as people would be able to just import from the cheaper countries.
No. A subsidy is where the government steps in and pays a company an amount to offset a lack of profitability.The problem with both our arguments is we have no figures to back us, if I could prove there was zero profit margin after manufacturing, advertising, and distribution + taxes then my subsidy theory would be correct, but on the other hand if there was any profit at all, then you're argument would work.
No. A subsidy is where the government steps in and pays a company an amount to offset a lack of profitability.
It is not a subsidy where a company has varying levels of profitability across different geographical markets.
"Winner"?!We have a winner. With that, let's consider the subsidy matter settled.
We have not proven the existence of any profit, please read posts before replying with predetermined assumptions.No. A subsidy is where the government steps in and pays a company an amount to offset a lack of profitability.
It is not a subsidy where a company has varying levels of profitability across different geographical markets.
I don't care as such, as its something I have no influence over, I just find it an interesting discussion.Deep down, do any of us really care that much?
Saturday morning now, just took the oldest lad for a swim, the misses is in a good mood, and I have baked some bread that would save the world if given the chance. That's more important.
I thought this was common knowledge :We have not proven the existence of any profit, please read posts before replying with predetermined assumptions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?