DIY breaking the law

My mash tun?

Well I can't say I didn't see this coming. This thread has descended into complete anarchy.

But im in such a holy place..

underground and under the influence

Why are you all feeding the troll?

Because I gotta!!

discnjh said:

EDIT: one point of clarity about my original comment.. I wasn't trying to imply that an owner shouldn't do anything, just that if the financial impact is negligible, then throwing someone through a wall is overkill. now, back to my original post.

You have no in any way explained why its flawed logic. If there are 168 things that are more important that loss in regards to cost, then there are 168 things that are more important to loss in regards to profit margin, since profit margin is a direct, 1:1 function of costs. If is insubstantial from a cost perspectve, then it is insubstantial from a profit perspective.

Click to expand...

While your math is correct, the direction isn't. We weren't talking about overall profitability; we were talking about price changes. Your assertion that theft as a cost has a direct relation to profit is correct. However that number really is small.

However, I was responding to multiple posters whose contention is that theft is a reason for price increases. Theft or damaged product doesn't really play a role at all I'm that equation. It's a convenient scapegoat, but it's just not a big factor (at least in the vast majority of businesses - I'm sure there is an exception or two).

In most every good-based business, there is an expectation of a certain amount of loss. Typically, that estimate is established at the beginning of a fiscal cycle and written off. The account is tabbed to ensure it stays within guidelines.

Since most estimates are well within reality, there is no "reaction" in terms of pricing. As this loss is already anticipated, there is nothing to react to.

And while my position and reasoning is sound, my position on catching somebody red-handed doesn't contradict any of the above and is one based on principle. First, successful theft can encourage more theft. An abnormal and sudden increase in theft can in some cases noticeably affect profitability. Second, Even things that have little negative effect on business are stupid to let slide as an owner. Lastly, the larger issue is you are showing me no respect by taking what is mine without paying. In those cases, I will gladly return the favor. Perhaps my hyperbole was a bit extreme, but the spirit remains in tact.

d!ck move? yeah
funny? yeah

I'd be laughing my ass off and sending to other people though if he took it a step further: Upon finishing and understanding he couldn't purchase, go grab some sharpies and a placard, and make a description and sale sign for it. Also grabbing an appropriate level price tag off something else to stick on it.

How much you wanna bet that it would either sit there until inventory day, or actually get sold?

in all honesty, if it were my store, i'd still have some words for him, but like another poster, just chuckle and shake my head after. Or hey, maybe I'd force him to work off his debt by building more and selling them on craigslist...

cimirie said:

In most every good-based business, there is an expectation of a certain amount of loss. Typically, that estimate is established at the beginning of a fiscal cycle and written off. The account is tabbed to ensure it stays within guidelines.

Since most estimates are well within reality, there is no "reaction" in terms of pricing. As this loss is already anticipated, there is nothing to react to.

Click to expand...

I agree with this, but the reason that they are anticipated is because they have happened in the past. So if losses stopped happening, they wouldn't be anticipated. If a company stopped having losses, they would stop anticipating for losses. Because losses happen, they continue to anticipate them. Therefore, continuing losses perpetuate continuing "accounting for future losses." Just because the impact is "built in" as opposed to "a reaction" doesn't make it less of an impact.

Look, i agree that given price is not impacted much by any given loss. But whatever small impact it has on a per unit basis is multiplied across lots and lots of buyers. Therefore, if jackwagons stealing things results in a price increase of a nickel on part x, and 3,000 people buy part x, then the impact on society was 150 dollars that they shouldn't have to pay because people are being jackwagons.

I'm not saying someone steals/breaks/whatever something and the price goes up the next day. And I'm not saying its even going to go up because of one event.

Anyways, interesting conversation. I'm done with it. And I reserve my right to not be amused by *****ebaggery.

The "shrink account" also covers things being dropped dented hurt in transit misordered or faulty. So all that would have to end too i guess. Im sorry for what i did. Especially since i just aim to do BIAB and wont need a mash tun..

underground and under the influence

Looks like a good place to stop.