|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Member |
Is if fair? So are you also suggesting that hungry homeless kids should just die from starvation on the streets? Consumers to the wine.com case is just collateral damage. They are akin to the wheat grower who is hurt by the theiving kids cause it puts the bakery out of business. If the law enforcers did their job this wouldn't be an issue. True in the bakery case. True in the wine.com case. ____________________ An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools. - Hemingway |
|||
|
|
Member |
NOW you're talking!!  |
|||
|
|
Member |
Another analogy, as if we need one.
Imagine if gasoline were regulated in the way that wine is, leaving the particulars up to the states and local jurisdictions. Some states would allow gas stations to buy only from distributors based within the state, even if the distibutor in the next state over had lower prices. Some states could mandate that all gas sold within the state be refined within the state. Others could set up a three tier system in which the oil companies had to sell to distributors, who then would sell to individual stations. States that imposed inefficient restrictions would do so under the argument that gasoline is dangerous and potentially harmful. You could be assessed a tax at the border when driving into any state, based on the amount of gas in your tank. Some counties might ban it altogether. Clearly, such a situation should not exist due to constitutional bans on restricting interstate commerce, but let's say that the powerful coalition of horse and buggy manufacturers, fundamentalist zealots, and well meaning health care professionals had once succeeded in passing a constitutional amendment prohibiting the use of gasoline. Current laws looked permissive by comparison. If you lived in a small town in a high cost state that imposed the high cost system in disregard for the constitutionality of the setup, you would be mighty pissed if one of the "big guys" spied and ratted on a local station that was buying from across the state border and selling gas for less. You anger would increase, not diminish, if the "big guy" claimed that they thought the regulations were wrong, but they wanted a level playing field, yet you knew full well that they were doing nothing to change the system. Tightening up the comparison to the wine.com situation, you would know that transport of small lots of gas was common. You would know that the "big guy" had done so themselves until the state regulators cracked down. You would know that the "big guy" had declined to join a trade organization fighting for decrease in restrictions. Neither the legality of their actions or their need to protect their market advantage would assuage many of those stuck paying the higher prices. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Your analogy does nothing for me. I see the relevance and resemblance, but I don't see the point. Would I be pissed if the big guys' actions resulted in my diminished welfare? Sure. But is it the big guys' actions that is the underlying problem? Or is it the existing laws? What if you lived in a small town in a high cost state that imposed the high cost system in the setup of your scenario, and there are two local gas stations; One does things leagally by buying from the high priced local distributor and the other does things illegally importing from out-of-state low priced distributor? Would you be pissed if the legally operated gas station spied and ratted on the other? That's ludicrous! So essentially, your argument boils down to the fact that you're pissed cause he's a "big guy" and in a dominant position in the market to be able to utilitize his market power to advance himself from his opponent by doing things leagally? But isn't the concept of fair competition the founding principle of capitalism? The issue is not who ratted who out but the ridiculous laws governing the whole system that exists. As I've mentioned before, in the absence of these laws, this is a non-issue. To state things clearly, you are not really pissed at wine.com for spying and ratting out the illegal operations of its competitors. You are pissed because wine.com is in a position to do so. You cannot blame wine.com for having profit maximizing motives. Lastly, do you dare to "claim" that you believe no child, in say some obscure country x, should have to starve to death? If so, have you contributed to rectify that very problem in country x? Beliefs and actions (or lack thereof) need not always be compatible. There are always benefits and costs associated with them. ____________________ An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools. - Hemingway |
|||
|
|
Member |
The existing laws.
I'm not blaming them, but if I lived in a town with many stations (or the State of Washington, which has many "stations") and one of the bigger stations caused a lot of the stations with low prices to disappear, I'd be much more inclined to buy from any other station than from the rat. Keep in mind that this is regarding a set up that I believe is an unconstitutional restraint of trade that gouges consumers and enriches unneeded middlemen. Be mindful as well that wine.com was doing the same thing as those they ratted on until they themselves were caught. That leaves me with little sympathy for their position. I don't know how the starving child got into this, so I have no claim in that regard. |
|||
|
|
Member |
This thread is the gift that keeps on giving.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
I can't believe this thread is still so active, what is there really left to say on topic. I read the original post here and on the other board, made my own opinions and moved on. Apparently there are some very strong feelings on the subject or it's devolved into personal attacks.
MIZ...ZOU |
|||
|
|
Member |
Snipes,
I think this is a healthy discussion which may have incited some members to take personal snipes against each other earlier but it seems like an interesting topic. BTW, you know you are contributing to it, right?  *********************** "I have drunk not to the clouding of my reason, but just so much that I can still surely distinguish the syllables with my tongue." Athenaeus |
|||
|
|
Member |
I have the best analogy of all!!! You’re an online wine retailer (let’s call you wine.net
) and you would love to have a giant central distribution center that you would be able to store and ship all your wine from (like Amazon and others do). This would save you tons of money and allow you to have a better selection, better prices and better all around service for the consumer. But the laws unfortunately don’t let you do that. So you play by the rules and spend a bunch of money to open a store and gain nexus in a state so you can legally ship within that state. Then you find out that Joe’s Wine Shop from the next state over is shipping illegally into your state. So you go tell the authority’s your story and they tell you that they have many more important things to do than worry about some silly wine shipments (which shows the law is BS if they don’t want to take the time to enforce it, but that is a separate issue). So instead of rolling over and letting people break laws you just spent money trying comply with, wine.net takes action against their competition. Now I agree the laws need to be changed, and I even feel for the consumer who now has less access to wine, but how could anyone fault wine.com for trying to protect them from illegal competition??? I think the energy would be better spent trying to change the shipping laws than bashing wine.com for acting within their rights as a business. “What is the soup du jour?"...It’s the soup of the day..."Mmmm, that sounds good, I’ll have that” - Lloyd Christmas |
|||
|
|
Member |
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Did wine.com have a good reputation before this? And it seems that most people enraged by their actions were not their customers anyway (they were the ones getting the illegal shipments remember  ). You could very well be right that the negative press could set them back, but on the flip side a lot more people know who wine.com is now. No such thing as bad press? “What is the soup du jour?"...It’s the soup of the day..."Mmmm, that sounds good, I’ll have that” - Lloyd Christmas |
|||
|
|
Member |
Not yet legal or not yet ruled unconstitutional? I think most of these laws are clearly unconstitutional, as they are discriminatory, favoring in-state businesses. That violates the Commerce Clause. States having the right to regulate alcohol doesn't give them the right to unevenly regulate. $50M buys a lot of obfuscation. Time is money... But most of these laws won't hold up. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Oh, I'm just farking around. However, in business, there sure is such a thing as bad press. Depends on the circumstances. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I've lost all interest in this thread now that VT2IT and I have found common ground. The apocolypse is upon us.
Would this be a good time to mention that I've been to wine.com's website maybe three times. Each time I said to myself, "Self, this is a slick website, but their prices suck." I never even tried to order from them. Who knew that the reasons their prices suck is because of government regulation? I, for one, don't think it is fair to compare wine.com's prices to another retailers prices who is ignoring the law. How is that any different than buying black market products? "Dude. Why in God's name would you ever pay $2,000 for a HDTV flat screen? I just bought one from this dude off the back of his truck for $200!" I think it is kinda funny that the people who bitch and moan about wine.com's actions here are the same crowd that refuses to buy apparel made in 3rd-world sweat shops. Ain't it the same thing? ----------------------- Le vin français est inférieur Du vin français est surestimé Le vin français suce |
|||
|
|
Member |
Whoa!! Maybe in principle but no comparison, hombre. Huge difference between exploiting a wine merchant and exploiting 9 years olds in sweat shops... *********************** "I have drunk not to the clouding of my reason, but just so much that I can still surely distinguish the syllables with my tongue." Athenaeus |
|||
|
|
Member |
One of their problems is that their added expenses due to doing business in restrictive States is that they pass those costs on to ALL their customers. They clearly aren't competitive on price here in California, either. They began as eVineyard, based in Portland, Oregon. Back then, they were a particularly good source for obscure Oregon wines. I recall free shipping (and no sales tax). They burned through a lot of cash establishing market share. Later, with an infusion of new investment, they moved to Napa, bought the wine.com name from the original bankrupt wine.com, and bought the e-tailer whose business model gave them a physical presence in some restrictive States. People have claimed on some of these threads that they have never turned a profit. That's not hard to believe - they have a conflicted, dysfunctional business model. I'm sure a good audit would point to their real problems. I think this "outrage" is an act of desperation, and a distraction. Maybe this is a scapegoat to take the investors' eyes off the execs who aren't able to solve this mess? |
|||
|
|
Member |
Is this thread still going?
Checked! |
|||
|
|
Member |
Yes, we are now weeping over children with cleft palates who are forced to work in "sob!" sweatshops for 13...no, make that 25 hours a day!!! I'm buying from Wine.com to show my support!! That and I am going to have a large pizza with Sally Struthers later in the week. Maybe Tom Cruise can get involved!!! Only he could help! |
|||
|
|
Member |
Don't be silly now!  ____________________ An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools. - Hemingway |
|||
|
|
Member |
Damn. I'm fresh out of popcorn. I will go pop another bag.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
For the record:
was in response to this:
I do not have affiliations with any such groups. Probably the only thing I did last year was buy one of those (RED) T-shirts from the GAP cause it was on sale.  Now pass me the popcorn... ____________________ An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools. - Hemingway |
|||
|