Full context restored for unanswered questions.
SS > I cobbed a bunch of lindstrom cutters and pliers
SS > from a place I worked at years ago. They were
SS > going belly up and tossed out boxes of the things.
SS > I'm still using the few that I haven't given away
SS > or broken. As long as you don't use them to cut
SS > steal (hence the broken cutters) they are
SS > awesome. I wish I would have grabbed more.
G > Were they going belly up because of
G > buying only the finest, or despite of that?
G >
G > At the liquidation sales for some bankrupt
G > companies, sometimes I have seen hard,
G > tangeable evidence of WHY they went broke.
lifeimitateslife wrote:
lil > I think you assign "hard and tangible" to
lil > others when it can be assigned to you.
lil > Hard and tangible evidence that your
lil > statistical analysis prowess ain't that great.
lil >
lil > If the difference between buying $600
lil > worth of cheap shit tools or $5000
lil > worth of long lasting, high quality tools
lil > is a figure that you think could break
lil > just about any company, < snip>
G > Are you saying that the outfit that
G > Sansui Samurai described as having
G > gone belly up did the right thing by
G > buying $5000 worth of Rolls Royce
G > hand tools rather than the Xcelite
G > ones which would have cost $600?
lil > No. I am saying that your claim that it is any indication of a
lil > causation for having gone bankrupt, is a fallacy, and it is.
G > That you disagree does not make something a logical fallacy.
G > Wasteful overspending and overcommitment
G > in purchasing are common contributors to
G > business failure. The number one cause of
G > failure for small business is undercapitalization
G > or excessive cost of money. ie Cost controls.
G > The stuff that "belly up" companies throw away
G > or liquidate MAY VERY WELL reveal important
G > symptoms of problems that destroyed them.
G > Like most people here I enjoy and appreciate
G > truly good quality tools, FOR ME.
G > As others have mentioned, theftability, loss
G > and abuse CAN MEAN that the Xcelite tools
G > provide a better Return On Investment.
G > The nature of the work, the security of
G > individuals toolboxes, the number of people
G > who might potentially forget to return a
G > tool are all variables that could decide
G > whether the ROLLS ROYCE quality of
G > nippers are a good or bad idea.
G > Fluorescent light bulbs at $ 4 a shot are
G > great if your mortgage is totally paid off.
G > If you're selling your home next week
G > or if you're a landlord the ROI's not there.
G > Businesses OWNING their own facilities
G > sometimes find that they are better off to
G > sell their own building and rent it back
G > because they can't charge off any building
G > cost if they OWN the building.
G > I neither condone this nor like it, I just report it.
G > I LOVE well machined high quality tools
G > and craftsmanship, but it doesn't always
G > show up on the P&L sheet. I wish it did.
G > You seem to be applying personal taste
G > to profitability rationalizations.
G > That's partly why "bean counters" are
G > so widely disliked, isn't it?
G > My background is in small businesses
G > where you wear many hats and can't
G > blame "that other guy".
G > Were they going belly up because of
G > buying only the finest, or despite of that?
G >
G > Didn't I convey two alternatives there?
G >
G > That the outfit failed:
G > A. BECAUSE they buy "only the finest" or
G > B. DESPITE buying "only the finest"?
G >
G > It's like option A set you off so much that
G > you overlooked option B.
G > Did you miss option B, lil ?
G > Judging from the way you took it very
G > personally, I'm guessing that you worked
G > somewhere where you groused about
G > the shit Xcelite nippers all day long....
G > How is that different from the
G > MacIntosh kooks?
G > I wrote this BEFORE I read your posted
G > story about exploding at a new guy for
G > using your tools. Did somebody at the
G > company give him permission to do so?
G > Telling the new guy to use your toolbox
G > would seem to be fairly typical hazing or
G > office politics considering your reaction.
-------------------------------------
G > That you disagree does not make something a logical fallacy.
AL > No, but the remark was incorrect because there
AL > are plenty of examples of companies that have
AL > no problem stocking or using expensive items
AL > along with their other assets.
Those would fall under option B that I suggested from the beginning.
AL > Your remark had/has absolutely no basis in fact.
Please diagram your logic.