I hope this letter finds you in good health. Since I've seen that you are offering AMD 3900X at a discount, I'd like to inform you that I am not like those pleebs and would therefore like you to pay in full MSRP. Please let me know where I can send the goats.
Funny enough, I had two buyers saying pretty much this. "I'll pay 49" on a £35 item. Why? Because apparently that's "what it's worth". I appreciate the thought, but it just looks insanely suspicious...
Amazon and Flipkart used its business power in India to buy up thousands of products in bulk, sell them to vendors on their platforms, and then allow those vendors to offer the same products to customers. They also used to offer to cover vendor losses for discounts on its site using their dollar might at a loss to themselves. It was a huge incentive for heavily cost-conscious Indian consumers as an incentive to move from offline marketplace to online marketplace. This was very important in a pre-dominantly cash oriented conservative Indian market where consumers were reluctant to purchase things online due to fear of fraud. In addition to this, they started offering 0% cost financing for 6 months to purchase the products at installments without any interest rate with or without credit cards. However, what it is doing is driving offline markets out of the business as they cannot match the discounts offered by these companies. This is the reason trade association complained to the government and government decided to take this action.
For example, a smartphone that sells at $400 at offline stores would be available for $350 on Amazon/Flipkart. The cost price of device would be $350 for offline stores. You can also use No Cost financing to purchase the product for monthly payment of $58.33 for 6 months (Totaling $350). Amazon/Flipkart would absorb the interest cost. The losses are obvious as neither Amazon India Inc. (opened 2013) nor Flipkart (opened 2007 and the biggest Indian marketplace bought by Walmart in 2018 for $16 Billion) have made a cent of profit in India. Both Flipkart and Amazon had losses around $500 million for FY17-18, a number expected to go up post Walmart's purchase of Flipkart. Also, Amazon Prime is India is available for $15 a year and includes Amazon Prime Video, Amazon Prime Music and 1 Day Free Standard Shipping with no minimum order. In a country where data is basically free (30GB 4G Data with unlimited calls/messages per month for $2), this also adds to pushing people towards Amazon.
On a seperate note, a similar thing is taking place in Indian food delivery market where food delivery companies like Zomato, Swiggy or Ubereats are offering steep continuous discounts of 40-60% forcing delivery restaurants to jump into their ecosystem. The Restaurant association has also approached government with their complaints.
For Example, a Sub that sells for $4 would be delivered for $2 including delivery cost. The delivery companies absorbing rest of the costs.
The All India Online Vendors Association (AIOVA), which represents more than 3,500 online sellers did file a complaint against Flipkart/Amazon with Competition Commission of India (CCI) however, CCI did not find any violation of existing laws in Amazon or Flipkarts trade practices. IANAL but India does have Anti-Dumping and Pro-Competition laws but probably they are not updated for e-commerce. Amazon and Flipkart are able to find loop holes in it to continue their practices. Which is why Govt. imposed the marketplace cannot sell the products laws.
To prove that he lied on the application form, they would have to legally prove him as a terrorist. The legal process of proving someone is a terrorist would be same. So isn't it pointless?
To prove that they lied on the form, wouldn't they have to legally prove that he is a terrorist and go through the same legal process which you said will be avoided?
I believe it is 1) different venue for trial (administrative vs a criminal case) and possibly 2) different standard of proof, especially for non permanent residents.
(Not a lawyer nor an immigration expert on US law, though.)
If all the hotel, taxi, etc. owners group up to create a cartel to keep the status quo and not to disrupt the market, then that is also not exactly good.
The choice of a community does not necessarily mean that it is the right choice.
I'm not convinced the people with resources to make $20m in hotel revenues from 18 shell corporations are the little guy being stamped on and the neighbours being buzzed by people wanting hotel service are the Big Bad Corporation here...
I am not saying that they should go on breaking the laws. The laws are clear. But at certain times, the laws have been deliberately lobbied to create a hindrance for any new players in the market. Like in this case, applying for a permit to rent out apartments should have been much easier than the current cumbersome process is.
Like NY Taxi Medallions. Before Uber, Lyft or other ride-sharing apps, there was only 13,587 yellow cabs in the city of 8.5 million people. Currently, there are an estimated 100,000 cabs in the city which resulted in a drop of medallion prices from $1.4 million in 2014 to just $140,000 now. It was an artificial bubble created by the taxi drivers community (and government) to keep the medallion price inflated. It is easy to see why they were against ride-sharing apps.
Or California housing zones. We all know that California has a housing crisis and one of the potential solution is to have multi-story buildings. For that, we need easy rezoning of residential zones to allow multi-story building redevelopment. However, most of the community members refuse to allow for that since it would bring down the rent and property prices. So the community is not interested in allowing easy development of multi-story buildings.
> Like NY Taxi Medallions. Before Uber, Lyft or other ride-sharing apps, there was only 13,587 yellow cabs in the city of 8.5 million people.
Before Uber, yellow medallion cabs were certainly not the only taxis available in NYC - they're just the only ones that can be legally hailed from the street. There have always been lots of car service companies in NYC that you can call to request a taxi. Some of these even offer online booking.
You have to look at the overall benefit, not just the benefit of the local community. I gave certain examples why the community choice might be due to their own selfish reasons in the reply to comment above yours.
I mean declaring a property to be short term rentable is much harder than it ought to be. This is what the hotel association NYC has spent years lobbying for. So something new like AirBnB cannot harm their market.
AirBnb definitely solves a problem and generally at a much cheaper price. We need to update our laws to let it do that in a sustainable manner.
I mean declaring a property to be rentable is much harder than it ought to be. This is what the hotel association NYC has spent years lobbying for. So something new like AirBnB cannot harm their market.
Simply false. These are the steps involved in "declaring" your property to be rentable:
Step 1a: If you rent your place, ask your landlord for permission.
Step 1b: If you live in a condo building, ask your condo association for permission.
Step 1c: If you own your own house, ask your spouse for permission.
Step 2: Put an ad on Craigslist advertising your rental.
Step 3: There is no step 3.
Declaring a property to be rentable is literally a trivial exercise unless you're going for short-term (aka "transient" or "hotel") rentals.
Totally my bad. I used the wrong word rentable, whereas I meant to write short-term rentals.
For example, if I own a single-family home, my ability to rent it out is restricted by zoning rules. I would have to look up the Certificate of Occupancy and potentially make changes if I intended to rent my place out. It could even mean involving an architect because the building would have to meet the structural requirements for a rooming house. There are lots of redtapes.
Well renting, and a hotel type "renting" are way way different.
I'm not really sure there is a "problem" here. It's the locals who get to decide if their laws need updating or not. I'm willing to be a ton of Airbnb guests is not what the locals want.
I’m sure they care more than that. Global opinion matters, especially if it can influence policy makers, particularly citizens in the western developed countries.
That's only partially true, in a world so communicated a lot of people are going to contact their friends living in Saudi Arabia and tell them what they think about the film, a lot will see this news on reddit or elsewhere and realize its being censored.
