templar_llc

Answer however you like.

I feel it is the greed of those corporate heads and the immediate staff they have employed and the tactics they use to exploit the consumer. I mean really why would you pay $5.00 for a can of 99 olives when you could have bought the same can with 100 olives for $2.50. The idea here is that some "bright guy" is going to save his employer money by removing one olive from the can, that's less to process and package and purchase on their part. But they call it new and improved remove the count of olives off the packaging so the consumer doesn't realize they are not getting the same amount but less and are paying more...for what? So other companies see this and then market the same way leaving the consumer little or no choice. (this is merely an example)

I would also like to point out the most obvious. Fuel price gouging, which is still going on. Companies have overstock and yet the price is going back up....what!!!! How about "paper" entities that do not actually hold oil but will trade in it driving the market value up...ho win the heck can you sell what you don't own and it be legal? That would be oversight on the part of the FTC to regulate crap like that, but they haven't because they have not been allowed to.

In order to keep this short Ill go at it like this.

1. Manufacturer greed.

2. Failing regulations.

3. No regulations.

4. Price gouging.

5. Consumer laziness.

When you look a the business that are closing, keep these things in mind. Could you have afforded those prices prior to them having to close the doors, does it really cost that to produce, ship, market, and general overhead (yes there is plenty of greed there in case you didn't see the utility bills), will the rest of the consumer nation wake up and say wait a second these prices are to high and unrealistic for the product and the cost that have accrued from the labor in the sweat shops to the store front?

Who is the better hockey player? I would have to go with mighty JOE! Simply because to compare players of todays game against the older format is pretty much a stupid thing to do. With all of the modifications of the game at the NHL level favor the quicker shooter rather than the hard hitting and grinding players of the past, including a Joe Sakic. I fel that if Sakic came into the game now as a rookie much like Crosby he too would be talked over the dinner plate or the bar stool beer. So really there, in my mind is no comparrison between the two.

How do you feel about people comparring the older players who played under the old rules to a new hockey game that is designed for the speedy players that come out?