Any more ex-Fonterra suppliers out there?

[Katman]

It's not a cash shortage issue, it's just plain increasing their margin a the cost of their suppliers. They're behaving just like the multinationals we all love to hate.

Dude, you're normally the veritable Champion of Corporate Greed.

Why the about face?

Is it because you're suddenly on the receiving end?

[Ocean1]

Dude, you're the veritable Champion of Corporate Greed.

Why the about face?

Is it because you're suddenly on the receiving end?

No change here, dude, I've always been anti-arsehole, no matter how big or small they come. What I've always been decidedly in favour of is people paying for what they agreed to buy, and people delivering what they've been paid for. Pretty simple stuff, really.

It's no different to one of your clients deciding not to pay one of your bills until he's had another eight pay cheques as a matter of policy. And your reaction to that next time they walked into your shop would be exactly the same: fuck off until you pay your bills.

[mashman]

Why legislate for it at all? If the supplier and the consumer can't agree a price + terms and conditions then the deal doesn't get done. That's the core principle of a free market, nobody is being forced to buy or sell.

If Fonterra find themselves unable to source services for the price and conditions they're offering then they'll either have to pay more, pay it earlier or do without. A situation I'm contributing to in a very small way not because their policies really hurt me but because I don't like seeing the big guys bullying the little guys.

How else do you enforce payment? Sorry, "So let's keep the rules appropriate for those small enterprises, eh?" and the "core principle of a free-market" bits do not compute.

Fair enough... but doesn't that depend on how badly the supplier needs the work?

[sidecar bob]

How else do you enforce payment? Sorry, "So let's keep the rules appropriate for those small enterprises, eh?" and the "core principle of a free-market" bits do not compute.

Fair enough... but doesn't that depend on how badly the supplier needs the work?

The key here is to never place yourself in a position to Need the work to survive. A heap of small clients is better than one giant fuckwit, in this case Fonterra.

[Ocean1]

How else do you enforce payment? Sorry, "So let's keep the rules appropriate for those small enterprises, eh?" and the "core principle of a free-market" bits do not compute.

Fair enough... but doesn't that depend on how badly the supplier needs the work?

The rules in question are the supplier's rules, usually written on the back of their invoice, govt has no part to play in any normal commercial agreement. They're the rules the purchaser agreed to when he ordered the goods/services in question. Why does govt need to get involved in a private commercial agreement between two business entities?

The only time I expect that to happen is through the commerce commission, if someone is taking advantage of a monopoly, for example. In other words when a market's freedom is being fucked with.

Yes, and how badly the client needs the work to be done. And as long as that balance isn't fucked with then you can say that business is fair and reasonable.

[mashman]

The key here is to never place yourself in a position to Need the work to survive. A heap of small clients is better than one giant fuckwit, in this case Fonterra.

Perfect system for it.

[Ocean1]

The key here is to never place yourself in a position to Need the work to survive. A heap of small clients is better than one giant fuckwit, in this case Fonterra.

Or alternatively command a price that compensates for that risk and if they call you on it then be prepared to walk away.

I know a lot of ex-employees of big businesses, (mostly specialist techies) that now work for the same companies, (or their descendants or competitors) as contractors at 4-5 times their old rate. I know of quite a few where their clients, (ex employers) have failed to learn the lesson the first time around when they made these guys redundant and have tried to dictate terms again.

The thing an MBA fails to teach these economic geniuses is that they're not selling a product, or a service, they're selling the ability to produce it...

[mashman]

The rules in question are the supplier's rules, usually written on the back of their invoice, govt has no part to play in any normal commercial agreement. They're the rules the purchaser agreed to when he ordered the goods/services in question. Why does govt need to get involved in a private commercial agreement between two business entities?

The only time I expect that to happen is through the commerce commission, if someone is taking advantage of a monopoly, for example. In other words when a market's freedom is being fucked with.

Yes, and how badly the client needs the work to be done. And as long as that balance isn't fucked with then you can say that business is fair and reasonable.

I'm still wondering who is going to enforce the rules? Let alone who is going to set the framework within which rules can be set. That requires a third entity.

Heh... or someone believes that anti-competitive behaviour is being promoted

I'm not a fan of the approach.

[Ocean1]

I'm still wondering who is going to enforce the rules? Let alone who is going to set the framework within which rules can be set. That requires a third entity.

Heh... or someone believes that anti-competitive behaviour is being promoted

I'm not a fan of the approach.

We're talking about a deal two entities have already agreed to. Who else should expect any right to dictate the terms of an agreement not involving them? If there wasn't the intention to pay for the product you agreed to buy then you don't have an agreement, what you've got is theft. THEN you get to call the enforcers.

No, beliefs don't, (or shouldn't) play any part in setting anti-competitive behavior rules.

And like I said, if you've got no skin in the game then you don't get any say in the terms of the agreement. And that's entirely fair.

[sidecar bob]

Or alternatively command a price that compensates for that risk and if they call you on it then be prepared to walk away.

I know a lot of ex-employees of big businesses, (mostly specialist techies) that now work for the same companies, (or their descendants or competitors) as contractors at 4-5 times their old rate. I know of quite a few where their clients, (ex employers) have failed to learn the lesson the first time around when they made these guys redundant and have tried to dictate terms again.
.

And then they wonder why the same product costs 5 times as much to produce, the retail price has quadrupled & they're still going backwards.

[mashman]

We're talking about a deal two entities have already agreed to. Who else should expect any right to dictate the terms of an agreement not involving them? If there wasn't the intention to pay for the product you agreed to buy then you don't have an agreement, what you've got is theft. THEN you get to call the enforcers.

No, beliefs don't, (or shouldn't) play any part in setting anti-competitive behavior rules.

And like I said, if you've got no skin in the game then you don't get any say in the terms of the agreement. And that's entirely fair.

I get that. Who controls the "arbiter"?

They shouldn't, but they do Comes back to that "arbiter" thing and rules thing.

Shame you see the economy as a game.

[Ocean1]

I get that. Who controls the "arbiter"?

They shouldn't, but they do Comes back to that "arbiter" thing and rules thing.

Shame you see the economy as a game.

What "arbiter"? And what is it with you and "control"? An agreement between two parties doesn't require "policing" unless one of those parties fails to do what he agreed to.

So your answer to the possibility that someone's beliefs may interfere with a commerce commission ruling is to get them involved in every single agreement?

I don't. I'd have thought it was pretty obvious by now that I see the economy as a series of mutually advantageous agreements. If that's not the case then pleas feel free take that as read.

[HenryDorsetCase]

What "arbiter"? And what is it with you and "control"? An agreement between two parties doesn't require "policing" unless one of those parties fails to do what he agreed to.

So your answer to the possibility that someone's beliefs may interfere with a commerce commission ruling is to get them involved in every single agreement?

I don't. I'd have thought it was pretty obvious by now that I see the economy as a series of mutually advantageous agreements. If that's not the case then pleas feel free take that as read.

John Milton Keynes might say the invisible hand of the market was the arbiter.

or that other dude. With the beard. Karl Marx.

above my desk I have a picture of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. For, uh, reasons. In our office we have four Mao portraits I can think of.

[mashman]

What "arbiter"? And what is it with you and "control"? An agreement between two parties doesn't require "policing" unless one of those parties fails to do what he agreed to.

So your answer to the possibility that someone's beliefs may interfere with a commerce commission ruling is to get them involved in every single agreement?

I don't. I'd have thought it was pretty obvious by now that I see the economy as a series of mutually advantageous agreements. If that's not the case then pleas feel free take that as read.

"Arbiter" = "policing". In a slightly different vein, an agreement between 2 parties most definitely does require "policing", else it wouldn't require money.

Eh? Quarter Past 2.

So you used the word game for another reason?

[James Deuce]

The thing an MBA fails to teach these economic geniuses is that they're not selling a product, or a service, they're selling the ability to produce it...

It's fun being in the middle of a situation when an MBA equipped account manager suddenly realises that's the opportunity he's missed. The means of production is key to everything in any economic equation. It's been ideologically diminished. In the meantime I'm collecting the kudos for preventing disasters and saving a million or so off a client's annual bill because we treat them with respect, not as a cash cow. The long view is something Western society does not value.