No. As your own citation explains, a "loss leader" means something different. A loss leader is an item priced low to draw customers to your business, so that you can sell them additional or alternative products.
Look again. This is what my citation explains:
One use of a loss leader is to draw customers into a store where they are likely to buy other goods.
"ONE use of a loss leader is..."
That means there are others. Again, the difference is entirely in perspective. You're cutting prices in order to cause market disruption. Whether it's to take customers away from others, to draw new customers or to hurt the competition. Maybe we need to talk about what "competition" means in business.
Whether you use the term "dumping" or "loss leader" to describe what is basically the same exact thing depends entirely on your perspective. We were told that "global markets" were the solution to all our problems. Now that those same markets come back to bite us in the ass, there is a scramble to change the frame.
Fracking and alternative extraction technologies took the price of oil low enough that Saudi Arabia responded by dumping, to drive the new competitors out of the market.
That's the free market for you. Or don't you believe that a supplier has the right to sell their product at whatever price they wish, even if it is just to drive a competitor out of business? Business is business, right?
"Dumping" is just another way to say, "cut prices".
Or maybe you believe there should be laws regulating the price at which commodities can be sold?
The DEA can go fuck themselves, as far as I'm concerned. Since their inception, they've been some of the worst abusers of the US population to date. They're huge proponents of such treats as early dawn no-knock raids, parallel construction (institutionalized perjury), the use of Stingray type devices, and the list goes on.
You can add property seizures without due process to the list, too.
But an eloquent speaker who so far hasn't actually shown any concrete plans on how he plans to guide america.
In what universe is Donald Trump considered an "eloquent speaker"? Please provide some evidence, in the form of transcript or links to video, that shows Donald Trump speaking eloquently.
FDR, Winston Churchill, even Malcolm X were eloquent speakers. Donald Trump is about as eloquent as an Andrew Dice Clay comedy bit.
Are we really supposed to believe that negative campaign ads are ok because they're being carried out by someone's poor defenseless billionaire mother?
Look who all of a sudden hates the First Amendment.
Franklin was severely shocked, while electrocuting a turkey
OMG! What a brave, brave man he must have been. That turkey must certainly have been threatening his safety and liberty.
The Founding Fathers were mainly wine snobs who didn't want to pay their taxes. If you think Ben Franklin's safety and liberty were threatened, you may be mistaking the plot-line of Assassin's Creed Rogue for real life.
One would think that his involvement with the US Declaration of Independence, the revolution, etc., would certainly be evidence that he felt his safety and liberty were threatened.
He just didn't want to pay his taxes. Don't forget the he spent a significant portion of the period in France, partying with the elite.
A free-thinking libertarian once gave me a great acid test for weather or not laws should exist: Would the existence of such a law have helped the colonies overthrow King George III or would such a law have helped King George III keep hold of the colonies?
God, "free-thinking libertarians" are even more banal than I thought.
For most of recorded history, gold has made a terrific currency
For most recorded history, people crapped in holes out in the back yard.
So what's your point? For most recorded history, if you wanted to move to a different town, you had to carry all your gold with you in a big sack because there were no banks. For most recorded history, most people didn't have any gold, and thus, didn't have any wealth.
Slashdot Mirror
Look again. This is what my citation explains:
"ONE use of a loss leader is..."
That means there are others. Again, the difference is entirely in perspective. You're cutting prices in order to cause market disruption. Whether it's to take customers away from others, to draw new customers or to hurt the competition. Maybe we need to talk about what "competition" means in business.
There is another term for that: "loss leaders".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Whether you use the term "dumping" or "loss leader" to describe what is basically the same exact thing depends entirely on your perspective. We were told that "global markets" were the solution to all our problems. Now that those same markets come back to bite us in the ass, there is a scramble to change the frame.
You've gotta admit, people who will blame absolutely anything and everything wrong in their lives on Obama and the SJWs are nothing if not consistent.
"I have to vote for the fascist flim-flam man, because Obama and the SJWs have just pushed me too far"
There must be some small part of you that feels ashamed.
That's the free market for you. Or don't you believe that a supplier has the right to sell their product at whatever price they wish, even if it is just to drive a competitor out of business? Business is business, right?
"Dumping" is just another way to say, "cut prices".
Or maybe you believe there should be laws regulating the price at which commodities can be sold?
Asset forfeiture is very federal.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/i...
You can add property seizures without due process to the list, too.
Yeah, radioactive river water is all fun and games until something like this crawls out of the slime:
http://inthesetimes.com/images...
Effectively, libel doesn't exist in the US, especially for anyone in the public sphere.
And this is a good thing, because how else would we have learned that Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer?
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/n...
In what universe is Donald Trump considered an "eloquent speaker"? Please provide some evidence, in the form of transcript or links to video, that shows Donald Trump speaking eloquently.
FDR, Winston Churchill, even Malcolm X were eloquent speakers. Donald Trump is about as eloquent as an Andrew Dice Clay comedy bit.
Look who all of a sudden hates the First Amendment.
That's the attitude I have about my wife and kids.
And in the meantime, we have a candidate for president that is actually the Zodiac Killer.
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/n...
And the Slashdot editors want to act like this isn't really happening.
We don't have to imagine. We've already seen the first human-rodent hybrid:
http://inthesetimes.com/images...
You what?
Are they standard fibers or BOFA?
Google is lighting up dark fiber all over the country, and I'm lighting up blunts all over the country.
Win-win.
They were wine snobs who didn't feel like paying taxes.
And yet he traveled freely through Europe, partying at Versailles and making a spectacle of himself. And making spectacles.
OMG! What a brave, brave man he must have been. That turkey must certainly have been threatening his safety and liberty.
The Founding Fathers were mainly wine snobs who didn't want to pay their taxes. If you think Ben Franklin's safety and liberty were threatened, you may be mistaking the plot-line of Assassin's Creed Rogue for real life.
He just didn't want to pay his taxes. Don't forget the he spent a significant portion of the period in France, partying with the elite.
Don't forget though, Ben Franklin is someone who never had his liberty or his safety threatened. It's an easy platitude when you've got both.
God, "free-thinking libertarians" are even more banal than I thought.
Access to the money you have hidden in your sock drawer could potentially save lives too. So give it up right now.
And the Dublin Convention was the one where they agreed not to crown a fooking coont with an empty bottle of bitter after a Greystones United game.
Good, now use that fast radio burst to help me find my keys and we'll drive out of here.
For most recorded history, people crapped in holes out in the back yard.
So what's your point? For most recorded history, if you wanted to move to a different town, you had to carry all your gold with you in a big sack because there were no banks. For most recorded history, most people didn't have any gold, and thus, didn't have any wealth.