On Sep 18, 6:18 pm, "Noozer" wrote:
So, if one consumer purchases a single Canadian made shovel for $50 and
ten
consumers purchase a Chinese made shovel for $5 the market is even? I
think
not. 1 Canadian shovel does not equal 10 Chinese shovels.

In the economy and especially in things like balance of payments,
exactly the same. Besides, this tells nothing about the quality or
anything else of interest about the shovels. Differences in steel, for
instance between the two.

My point is that eventually all that folks will buy is the $5 shovel and
then what happens to the company making $50 shovels?

Why can't the company making $50 shovels make $5 shovels too?

Giving the consumer a range of choices is a common business practice.

Selling a cheaper product is often used to support any additional
costs for producing a more expensive product.

Producing only one product is like selling to only one company...life
is good when the sales are there and the company goes belly up when
the sales disappear.

Diversification to lessen risk is a lesson you learn in Business
101....do you think the MBAs skipped that class to drink more beer?

It comes down to corporate greed and stupidity.

TMT

In article ,
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Hactar wrote:

In article ,
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
George wrote:

RickH wrote:

China can make things real cheap and fast, but they dont believe in QA
departments.

Don't kid yourself. They are quite capable of making quality stuff. Its
the "Walmart mentality" buyers who keep on insisting on even cheaper
prices so then the quality falls as expected.

There was some ass on sci.electronics.design a while back trying to
sell his company's SMD crap and bragging, "It only has a 1% failure
rate".

Think about this: If a board has 100 parts that means on average, you
have a 100% average failure rate for an assembled board. If it has more
parts, the rate goes up, as well.

How can it possibly go up? A basic course in probability would serve
you well.

"1% failure rate" means each part has a 99% probability of NOT failing
(in some unspecified timespan, maybe on delivery).

Their spec was at delivery.

Put 100 of these
together and (assuming the failures are independent) the assemblage has
a 0.99^100 = 0.366 = 36.6% probability of not failing (in the same
timespan). That means a 63.3% chance of failure.

How many products have you see with less than 100 components? The
last design I worked on had over 5,000 SMD components.

Hey, I didn't come up with the "100" number. You did, 21 lines up. 5000
independent failures (each of which has a probability of 1% of happening)
would mean a net failure rate of 1-(1-1%)^5000 = about 1 part in 10^22
less than certainty. I suspect typical failure rates (per component)
are several orders of magnitude better.

You've never met Mr. Murphy have you? Motorola had well over 100%
failure rate at the end of the production line on their TV sets when
they sold their consumer electronics division to Matsu****a. The
components they were using were well over .1% failure rate, yet they had
multiple defects in most sets, and very few that worked in final test.

Well I guess they count a board as failing double if there are two
separate faults. Most humans would put things into two categories, PASS
and FAIL.

--
The powers in charge keep us in a continuous stampede of patriotic
fervor with the cry of national emergency. Always there has been some
terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not furnish the sums demanded.
Yet these disasters seem never to have been quite real. -- D. MacArthur

Hactar wrote:

In article ,
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

How many products have you see with less than 100 components? The
last design I worked on had over 5,000 SMD components.

Hey, I didn't come up with the "100" number. You did, 21 lines up. 5000
independent failures (each of which has a probability of 1% of happening)
would mean a net failure rate of 1-(1-1%)^5000 = about 1 part in 10^22
less than certainty. I suspect typical failure rates (per component)
are several orders of magnitude better.

I said in that example of one failure in 5000 parts, but there are
other failure modes in electronics manufacturing. BTDT, wore out a box
full of soldering iron tips.


You've never met Mr. Murphy have you? Motorola had well over 100%
failure rate at the end of the production line on their TV sets when
they sold their consumer electronics division to Matsu****a. The
components they were using were well over .1% failure rate, yet they had
multiple defects in most sets, and very few that worked in final test.

Well I guess they count a board as failing double if there are two
separate faults. Most humans would put things into two categories, PASS
and FAIL.


It is two failures, if it takes two repairs to make it work. You
troubleshoot to find the first problem and have to stop, till that
repair is made. For instance, you are missing a rail from the power
supply, and the CPU is bad. HITH do you find the second failure, until
the supply is repaired? If it takes ten attempts to repair a $8,000
circuit board, then it has ten separate failures. A bad solder joint is
a failure, but multiple bad joints may, or may not be multiple failures.


Electronics manufacturing is not simple Pass / Fail, except on $1
throwaway Chinese crap.



--
My sig file can beat up your sig file!

on 9/16/2007 10:31 PM willshak said the following:
on 9/16/2007 10:23 PM Sevenhundred Elves said the following:
wrote:


Bob Ward wrote:

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:23:44 GMT, "Jerry Foster"
wrote:


The chairs were put away and I haven't been able to bring myself to
trust any kind of holder since then, alas.

Jeannie



I don't know the geometry of your chairs, but, in the case of a
simple
hammock, the tension on the supports greatly exceeds the weight of
the person in the hammock. How greatly depends on how much the
hammock is allowed to sag.

Jerry


I question your geometry.

I question your trigonometry.

Especially on a simple hammock, where the design requires TWO points
of support. No way can you DOUBLE the user's weight by any kind of
angle trickery.

What is the tangent of 90 degrees?

Xho


Maybe you should explain what kind of hammock you mean. I think I know
what you're getting at, and what the misunderstanding is.

Below is my idea of a hammock. In this type of hammock the fasteners are
attached to the beam. The only force on the fasteners is what is
necessary to hold up the seat and its occupants. (ASCII art,
non-proportional font required for viewing)

_____.___________________________________._____
|_____|___________________________________|_____| -- Beam
|| 0-- Fastener 0 ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||--Support
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| |-- Chain | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | _________________________________ | ||
|| |/ \| ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | Backrest | ||
|| | | ||
|| | | ||
|| | _________________________________ | ||
|| |´ `| ||
|| | Seat | ||
|| |___________________________________| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
\\// -- Grass \\//


But I believe you were thinking about something like what I've shown
below. In this type of hammock the force on the fasteners easily exceeds
the weight of the seat with occupants, because of the geometry, just
like you say.

| | | |
| | Fastener Chain | |
|___| / v |___|
|____}------,-----------------------------------,------{____|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |--Support
| | |-- Chain | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | _________________________________ | | |
| | |/ \| | |
| | | | | |
| | | Backrest | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | _________________________________ | | |
| | |´ `| | |
| | | Seat | | |
| | |___________________________________| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
\\||// \\|||//

This should neatly reconcile your different opinions, I hope.

S.


Very nice ASCII art. However, my idea of a hammock is different. To
me, a hammock is for napping in the back yard when you should be doing
something that the SWMBO has told you to do. Usually strung between
two trees, but some come with frames for hanging.


Speaking of hammocks, there was a film clip on CNN-HN this morning
(9/19/07) of 3 wild Black bears playing on a hammock in the back yard of
a house in NJ.
It'll probably show up on YouTube shortly.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

on 9/19/2007 12:47 AM Too_Many_Tools said the following:
On Sep 18, 6:18 pm, "Noozer" wrote:

So, if one consumer purchases a single Canadian made shovel for $50 and
ten
consumers purchase a Chinese made shovel for $5 the market is even? I
think
not. 1 Canadian shovel does not equal 10 Chinese shovels.

In the economy and especially in things like balance of payments,
exactly the same. Besides, this tells nothing about the quality or
anything else of interest about the shovels. Differences in steel, for
instance between the two.

My point is that eventually all that folks will buy is the $5 shovel and
then what happens to the company making $50 shovels?


Why can't the company making $50 shovels make $5 shovels too?


Their workers make more than a dollar a day.

Giving the consumer a range of choices is a common business practice.

Selling a cheaper product is often used to support any additional
costs for producing a more expensive product.

Producing only one product is like selling to only one company...life
is good when the sales are there and the company goes belly up when
the sales disappear.

Diversification to lessen risk is a lesson you learn in Business
101....do you think the MBAs skipped that class to drink more beer?

It comes down to corporate greed and stupidity.

TMT




--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:47:03 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Why can't the company making $50 shovels make $5 shovels too?

Typically, the reason for doing so is maintaining a "premium brand
identity", which makes perfect sense.

Giving the consumer a range of choices is a common business practice.

So is maintaining a reputation.

i

In article ,
Ignoramus29233 wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:47:03 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
Why can't the company making $50 shovels make $5 shovels too?

Typically, the reason for doing so is maintaining a "premium brand
identity", which makes perfect sense.
Many do. For instance, many of the store brand products you see in
target or even WalMart are made by the same guys and gals who make the
"brand name" thing you see right next to it.

on 9/19/2007 8:44 AM willshak said the following:
on 9/16/2007 10:31 PM willshak said the following:
on 9/16/2007 10:23 PM Sevenhundred Elves said the following:
clipped

Very nice ASCII art. However, my idea of a hammock is different. To
me, a hammock is for napping in the back yard when you should be
doing something that the SWMBO has told you to do. Usually strung
between two trees, but some come with frames for hanging.


Speaking of hammocks, there was a film clip on CNN-HN this morning
(9/19/07) of 3 wild Black bears playing on a hammock in the back yard
of a house in NJ.
It'll probably show up on YouTube shortly.

I didn't realize the attraction of a hammock to bears. A search on
YouTube with the search phrase - bear hammock - turned up a few
instances from the past. The one I saw this morning might have been from
a woman who has filmed them before, and has named the big bear 'Amis'.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:00:26 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Ignoramus29233 wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:47:03 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
Why can't the company making $50 shovels make $5 shovels too?

Typically, the reason for doing so is maintaining a "premium brand
identity", which makes perfect sense.
Many do. For instance, many of the store brand products you see in
target or even WalMart are made by the same guys and gals who make the
"brand name" thing you see right next to it.

I also tend to think that if Walmart has products of Company X on its
shelves, then their stuff is probably not worth buying, even not from
Walmart.

i

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:22:29 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Then take automobile engines. Chevrolet imports lots of them from Shanghai.
Compare the costs with those made in Canada.

Or electric motors. As of a few years ago, the US sold more electric motors
to China than we bought from them.

Silverware. Eyeglasses. Leather shoes. Men's suits. Automobiles.
Motorcycles. Replacement windows. Insulation. Lumber. Aluminum. Detergents.
Electric drills. Outboard motors and boats. Trucks. Aircraft. House siding.
Meat. Vegetables. Fishing rods.

And so on, for an overwhelming list of products. China "dominates" in the
cheap end of consumer products. Their quality is ****-poor. They're a
natural marriage with Wal-Mart.

--
Ed Huntress


Go knock yourself out surfing http://www.alibaba.com/ on the stuff you
can import from China. All it takes is a simple visit to Beijing or
Shanghai to get a good idea of the top class stuff in every category.

"Ignoramus29233" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:00:26 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:
In article ,
Ignoramus29233 wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:47:03 -0700, Too_Many_Tools

wrote:
Why can't the company making $50 shovels make $5 shovels too?

Typically, the reason for doing so is maintaining a "premium brand
identity", which makes perfect sense.
Many do. For instance, many of the store brand products you see in
target or even WalMart are made by the same guys and gals who make the
"brand name" thing you see right next to it.

I also tend to think that if Walmart has products of Company X on its
shelves, then their stuff is probably not worth buying, even not from
Walmart.

You've missed the point completely. If two items come from the same
production line, and one has a national brand name label and the second has
a store-name label -- e.g., the first is "Truetemper" and the second is
"Target" or "Walmart" -- the cost to produce the store brand is always less,
EVEN IF THE ITEMS ARE IDENTICAL IN CONSTRUCTION -- because there is little
or no marketing cost compared to the branded item. Another example --
Gibson refrigerators cost less than their identical Whirlpool clone.
Marketing and overhead costs for store brands are almost invariably lower,
yet the merchandise may be from the same production line.

That's a big reason store brands can be sold at a lower price -- they have a
lower cost for the identical product because they're not burdened with the
advertising costs of the national brand.

In article ,
"JimR" wrote:
That's a big reason store brands can be sold at a lower price -- they have a
lower cost for the identical product because they're not burdened with the
advertising costs of the national brand.

Contraiwise, they may also have lower tolerance components, or the same
components, but fall in a quality-control-acceptance zone lower than the
other product produced in the same factory. This has been somewhat
documented with tiawanese/chinese woodworking tools, where you might
think the only difference between 4 brands of "apparently identical but
for the paint color" tools are produced from the same castings. One
paint color gets better castings, different bearings, etc...

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:05:59 -0400, JimR wrote:

"Ignoramus29233" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:00:26 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:
In article ,
Ignoramus29233 wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:47:03 -0700, Too_Many_Tools

wrote:
Why can't the company making $50 shovels make $5 shovels too?

Typically, the reason for doing so is maintaining a "premium brand
identity", which makes perfect sense.
Many do. For instance, many of the store brand products you see in
target or even WalMart are made by the same guys and gals who make the
"brand name" thing you see right next to it.

I also tend to think that if Walmart has products of Company X on its
shelves, then their stuff is probably not worth buying, even not from
Walmart.

You've missed the point completely.

I did not miss the point, I simply did not reply to it and mentioned
something else.

If two items come from the same production line, and one has a
national brand name label and the second has a store-name label --
e.g., the first is "Truetemper" and the second is "Target" or
"Walmart" -- the cost to produce the store brand is always less,
EVEN IF THE ITEMS ARE IDENTICAL IN CONSTRUCTION -- because there is
little or no marketing cost compared to the branded item. Another
example -- Gibson refrigerators cost less than their identical
Whirlpool clone. Marketing and overhead costs for store brands are
almost invariably lower, yet the merchandise may be from the same
production line.

That's a big reason store brands can be sold at a lower price -- they have a
lower cost for the identical product because they're not burdened with the
advertising costs of the national brand.

This looks at it backwards. The "cost of marketing" is the expense of
the company and how you allocate it (to all items, to corporate
overhead, etc), is arbitrary.

Due to advertising, the company can charge more for branded product,
and thus it is normally the case.

i

In article ,
Ignoramus29233 wrote:

This looks at it backwards. The "cost of marketing" is the expense of
the company and how you allocate it (to all items, to corporate
overhead, etc), is arbitrary.

Not always, or even often. While some of it may "squishy" a lot of the
difference can be seen in things like no advertising budget needed, many
fewer sales people (don't need to go to schmooz every hardware store,
just the one or two biggies.


Due to advertising, the company can charge more for branded product,
and thus it is normally the case.
There is a definite premium that the brandname can often get that
isn't an issue with store brands. But even then, you have to defend the
brand name and that can be expensive.

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:15:22 -0500, Ignoramus29233
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:00:26 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Ignoramus29233 wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:47:03 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
Why can't the company making $50 shovels make $5 shovels too?

Typically, the reason for doing so is maintaining a "premium brand
identity", which makes perfect sense.
Many do. For instance, many of the store brand products you see in
target or even WalMart are made by the same guys and gals who make the
"brand name" thing you see right next to it.

I also tend to think that if Walmart has products of Company X on its
shelves, then their stuff is probably not worth buying, even not from
Walmart.

i

So your screen name stems from Truth in Advertising legislation, I
take it?

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Ignoramus29233 wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:00:26 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Ignoramus29233 wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:47:03 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
Why can't the company making $50 shovels make $5 shovels too?

Typically, the reason for doing so is maintaining a "premium brand
identity", which makes perfect sense.
Many do. For instance, many of the store brand products you see in
target or even WalMart are made by the same guys and gals who make the
"brand name" thing you see right next to it.

I also tend to think that if Walmart has products of Company X on its
shelves, then their stuff is probably not worth buying, even not from
Walmart.

Perhaps not or, at least, not from Wal*Mart. It has long been claimed
that Wal*Mart's ability to dictate price to suppliers sometimes causes
manufacturers to compromise on quality or features in order to stay in
business, and the volume of the order makes bottom-line-this quarter sense
to make a production run with deleted features or second-run parts. For
instance: Levis. See:
http://www.cio.com/article/31948/Sup..._into_Wal_Mart




--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:06:49 -0700, Bob Ward wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:15:22 -0500, Ignoramus29233
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:00:26 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Ignoramus29233 wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:47:03 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
Why can't the company making $50 shovels make $5 shovels too?

Typically, the reason for doing so is maintaining a "premium brand
identity", which makes perfect sense.
Many do. For instance, many of the store brand products you see in
target or even WalMart are made by the same guys and gals who make the
"brand name" thing you see right next to it.

I also tend to think that if Walmart has products of Company X on its
shelves, then their stuff is probably not worth buying, even not from
Walmart.

i

So your screen name stems from Truth in Advertising legislation, I
take it?


I am of the opinion that Walmart sells substandard goods (which do not
perform their intended purpose). Companies that make such goods cannot
be trusted as much as companies that do not sell such substandard
goods.

Now, if you like Wal-mart, you can go and buy your tools like a
compressor, battery charger, etc there, but I personally will take a
pass.

i

I didn't get a chance to read this thread, but get the idea of what's
it's about from the title :-)

I think China's slowly trying to kill us off one at a time via their
products through Walmart!

You've got to read the link below as the photos are unbelievable. Does
China rinse it's plastic goods in some type of toxic acid just before
shipping them to us?? The story below was just given a segment on the
news the other day. I sure feel sorry for that woman's feet!

http://www.phonifier.com/phonify.php...2Fwalmart2.htm

on 9/19/2007 10:53 PM Pamela G. said the following:
I didn't get a chance to read this thread, but get the idea of what's
it's about from the title :-)

I think China's slowly trying to kill us off one at a time via their
products through Walmart!

You've got to read the link below as the photos are unbelievable. Does
China rinse it's plastic goods in some type of toxic acid just before
shipping them to us?? The story below was just given a segment on the
news the other day. I sure feel sorry for that woman's feet!

http://www.phonifier.com/phonify.php...2Fwalmart2.htm


There are a lot of people that are allergic to latex. Just as there a
lot of people that are 'deathly' allergic to peanut butter. I can eat
peanuts 24/7 and it is one of the things that I buy at the store first.
PBJ sandwiches are a normal staple of mine. Just because someone gets a
reaction from latex doesn't mean that the rest of us have to avoid it.
If you ever go into the hospital for treatment, make sure that you
advise the staff that you are allergic to latex. They want to know.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

"willshak" wrote in message
...
on 9/19/2007 10:53 PM Pamela G. said the following:
I didn't get a chance to read this thread, but get the idea of what's
it's about from the title :-)

I think China's slowly trying to kill us off one at a time via their
products through Walmart!
You've got to read the link below as the photos are unbelievable. Does
China rinse it's plastic goods in some type of toxic acid just before
shipping them to us?? The story below was just given a segment on the
news the other day. I sure feel sorry for that woman's feet!

http://www.phonifier.com/phonify.php...2Fwalmart2.htm


There are a lot of people that are allergic to latex. Just as there a lot
of people that are 'deathly' allergic to peanut butter. I can eat peanuts
24/7 and it is one of the things that I buy at the store first. PBJ
sandwiches are a normal staple of mine. Just because someone gets a
reaction from latex doesn't mean that the rest of us have to avoid it. If
you ever go into the hospital for treatment, make sure that you advise the
staff that you are allergic to latex. They want to know.

Do you even know what an allergic reaction rash looks like?

Those were BURNS!

on 9/20/2007 12:33 AM Noozer said the following:
"willshak" wrote in message
...

on 9/19/2007 10:53 PM Pamela G. said the following:

I didn't get a chance to read this thread, but get the idea of what's
it's about from the title :-)

I think China's slowly trying to kill us off one at a time via their
products through Walmart!
You've got to read the link below as the photos are unbelievable. Does
China rinse it's plastic goods in some type of toxic acid just before
shipping them to us?? The story below was just given a segment on the
news the other day. I sure feel sorry for that woman's feet!

http://www.phonifier.com/phonify.php...2Fwalmart2.htm



There are a lot of people that are allergic to latex. Just as there a lot
of people that are 'deathly' allergic to peanut butter. I can eat peanuts
24/7 and it is one of the things that I buy at the store first. PBJ
sandwiches are a normal staple of mine. Just because someone gets a
reaction from latex doesn't mean that the rest of us have to avoid it. If
you ever go into the hospital for treatment, make sure that you advise the
staff that you are allergic to latex. They want to know.


Do you even know what an allergic reaction rash looks like?

Those were BURNS!

Oh, really? I guess you know more than than I do. I'll accept your
expertise on the subject.
Don't expect a response to anything you have to say further. You're the
boss.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Sep 16, 2:23 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:29 pm, RickH wrote:





On Sep 15, 8:36 pm, Jeff Wisnia wrote:

Automotive fuses...

Today's mail brought me a Safety Recall notice from Harbor Freight
telling me to stop using, remove any in use, and return the 120 piece
Mini-Blade Automotive Fuse Assortment I'd tacked onto an order I placed
with them a few months ago, because getting 120 fuses for $4.99 seemed
like a good deal. (TOO good a deal I guess...)

They're paying the postage, will refund $4.99 and gave me a "$5.00 Off
coupon" good till next February.

The recall notice includes this explanation:

"Specifically, manufacturing inconsistencies max exiat with the
materials, connections or size of the fuse elements which could result
in the fuses failing to protect the circuit from exessive current which
could cause damage to a vehicle and possibly a fire."

What's next folks?

The fuse issue isn't as funny as the "Stove Bolt Assortment" I bought
from Harbor Freight several years ago and stuck on the shelf. When I
finally wanted to use eight matching fasteners rather than the onsies
and twosies I can get from my "hell box" I went to that assortment, only
to find that all the 10-24 nuts in it had missed the threading operation
and had smooth bore holes in them.

Just for ****s and grins I wrote a letter to HF and taped a couple of
the unthreaded nuts to it. I described the problem and explained that I
assumed the threads were on backorder and asked when they expected to
ship them to me. I wasn't sure what that would get me, but figured
someone might get a laugh out of it and maybe send me another box of
fasteners.

Unfortunatly, my letter was answered by some ditzy woman with no sense
of humor because I all I got was a letter from her saying my complaint
exceeded their allowable time limit for returns and there was nothing
they could do about it now.

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.98*10^14 fathoms per fortnight.

Sounds like my Chinese kitchen faucet that lasted all of 3 days.

I hear they are planning on importing a $9000 car to the US, the
Cheri, those fuses should work in those.

China can make things real cheap and fast, but they dont believe in QA
departments.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The consumer IS the QA department.

And the irony is that it is American companies that are selling the
stuff to us.

They are the ones who closed their eyes to this developing problem.

And they are as usual trying to pass the buck to the supplier instead
of taking responsiblity themselves.

TMT- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

An example of closing the barn door after the horse has left the
building....

Only a kick in the old profit line will get their attention.

TMT

Toy recalls put testing labs on overtime By MICHELLE R. SMITH,
Associated Press Writer
Thu Sep 20, 4:22 PM ET



Gone is the 40-hour work week at Specialized Technology Resources Inc.
Boxes of toys are piling up in the middle of its testing lab, workers
are coming in on weekends, and product testers who normally would
check tools or candles are working on chess sets and plastic cars.

Business is bustling since the recent recalls of millions of toys.
Management at the international product testing company is considering
adding to its 1,600-person staff.

"Right now, we're using everybody in toy land," said Linda Root,
manager of the company's toy testing lab here.

The recalls have toy companies from the largest toy maker Mattel to
small importers clamoring to hire companies such as STR to test and
retest their toys as a way to allay consumer fears ahead of the key
holiday shopping season.

Several testing firms operate worldwide, including Switzerland-based
SGS Group, which has 48,000 workers in 1,000 locations, Bureau Veritas
Group, with 26,000 employees in 700 locations, and London-based
Intertek, which employs 20,000 people in 100 countries.

Mattel's first recall this summer, 1.5 million toys tainted with lead
paint, was a wake-up call for the industry, said Sue DeRagon, STR's
associate director of toys and premiums. Since then, Mattel and others
have recalled more than 20 million toys for high lead levels or for
small magnets that children can swallow, prompting toy companies to do
more tests.

That's kept the lab, housed in an old textile mill in this town north
of Hartford, plenty busy. Toy companies are sending samples of
finished toys to test, especially for lead and magnets, which can be
dangerous if they are swallowed and join together in the digestive
system.

Testers conduct a battery of tests on each toy, based either on U.S.
toy safety standards or something more stringent, if that's what a
company wants.

To check for lead, lab workers use a razor blade to scrape off paint
from the toy's painted surface. They need .1 grams of paint to test,
which can be a challenge when dealing with something like dice which
has only painted dots, or a chess set with lots of nooks and crannies.

"It is very tedious work. It's not easy," Root said. "You do have to
pay attention so you don't lose fingers and cut yourself in any way.
There is no easy way of getting it off. It can take hours."

If a piece of a toy can be grasped or bitten, such as an arm or leg on
an action figure, testers put that piece in a torque gauge and twist
it to see if it snaps. Then, they pull the arm or leg for 10 seconds.
Any piece that breaks off is measured in a "small parts cylinder." If
it fits inside the shot glass-sized cylinder, it could choke a child.

Toys are also dropped several times and placed over a candle flame for
five seconds, then allowed to burn for one minute to see whether they
will easily catch fire.

Testers check for sharp edges and points, and look for long strings or
other pieces of cloth that could strangle a child. If a loop of string
can pass over a metal "head probe" about the size of a baby's head, it
could be dangerous, Root said.

Testers also look for so-called "filth" in the stuffing inside plush
toys.

"You find bugs. Dead bugs usually. If they sweep up the floor, there
could be sawdust," Root said. "We found just recently we had one that
had metal shavings in it."

STR even sends toys out to a local day care center and testers watch
the children play.

"We'll direct them and say, 'See if you can break the head off this
figure,'" DeRagon said. "It's important to get some real-life
information. Let's really see how they're playing with it."

American law does not require toys to be tested before they get into
children's hands, although the Toy Industry Association now supports a
federal mandatory testing requirement. For now, how thoroughly toys
get tested - if at all - can vary widely from one company to another.

The cost of testing is often borne by the manufacturer or importer. A
basic lead test could cost $35 for a toy line, DeRagon said.

Costs for more extensive tests can range from a couple hundred dollars
for a line of toys that's already packaged and in a warehouse, down to
nearly negligible if a company has a long-term testing program in
place at the assembly line, said Sean McGowan, an analyst with Wedbush
Morgan Securities.

Much of the testing that's been going on recently is retesting, so
it's more expensive, he said. More regular testing, which the industry
is now considering making a requirement, would bring down costs, he
said.

Companies are supposed to adhere to voluntary standard consumer toy
safety regulations. Toy makers, testers and retailers work with the
Toy Industry Association to set the standards.

"What's scary is when you hear a toy manufacturer say 'Huh, I've never
of this,'" DeRagon said.

Companies like Pawtucket, R.I.-based Hasbro, Van Nuys, Calif.-based
MGA Entertainment, and Canadian companies Spin Master and Mega Brands
already require all their toys to be independently tested.

Several toy companies are retesting toys they've already checked - and
some retests have resulted in recalls, such as vinyl bibs and wooden
art sets recalled by Toys "R" Us last month after new tests found
excessive levels of lead. The retailer this month said it will use an
independent laboratory to test every branded product.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. increased the number of toys it tests. Mattel
promised to test the safety of Chinese-made products with its own
laboratories or with company-certified labs. The toy store FAO Schwarz
will require its suppliers to test all toys with an independent lab.
Even the Walt Disney Co. said it will independently test toys that
feature its characters.

STR and other toy testing firms won't release the names of the
companies they work for, citing client privacy. But DeRagon said STR,
which has two dozen locations around the world, counts 285 toy
companies as active clients. Since Mattel's first recall this summer,
STR has received 25 inquiries from toy companies and signed up at
least half of those as clients, she said.

STR, which tests toys at six of its locations, does most of its
testing in China and Hong Kong, where most toys are produced. That
allows inspectors and testers tighter watch over the production
process, DeRagon said. In companies with stringent quality controls,
she said, inspectors will pull five samples from every production line
every two hours. The lab in Enfield typically tests toys made in the
United States or toys that have already been shipped to the U.S.

This time of year is always busy for toy companies as they rush to get
their products on toy shelves by October ahead of the holiday shopping
season. That makes it all the more important for toy manufacturers,
designers, importers and toy stores to quickly ensure the safety of
their products, DeRagon said.

"The timing is just really critical for the toy companies because it
is coming up to the critical season," she said. "They have to make
sure that the toys are going to be safe."

___

On the Net:

Specialized Technology Resources, Inc.: http://www.strlab.com

Toy Industry Association: http://www.toy-tia.org

Mattel, Inc.: http://www.mattel.com

Toys "R" Us: http://www.toysrus.com

Wal-Mart Stores Inc.: http://www.walmartfacts.com

FAO Schwarz: http://www.fao.com

SGS Group: http://www.sgs.com

Bureau Veritas Group: http://www.bureauveritas.com

Intertek Group: http://www.intertek.com

On Sep 19, 1:41 pm, Ecnerwal
wrote:
In article ,

"JimR" wrote:
That's a big reason store brands can be sold at a lower price -- they have a
lower cost for the identical product because they're not burdened with the
advertising costs of the national brand.

Contraiwise, they may also have lower tolerance components, or the same
components, but fall in a quality-control-acceptance zone lower than the
other product produced in the same factory. This has been somewhat
documented with tiawanese/chinese woodworking tools, where you might
think the only difference between 4 brands of "apparently identical but
for the paint color" tools are produced from the same castings. One
paint color gets better castings, different bearings, etc...

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

True...one can NEVER just assume that it applies to a group of
items...one must always compare each item on a case by case basis.

Advertising is just one more factor that companies use to inflate
profit margins.

TMT

On Sep 19, 3:17 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

Ignoramus29233 wrote:
This looks at it backwards. The "cost of marketing" is the expense of
the company and how you allocate it (to all items, to corporate
overhead, etc), is arbitrary.

Not always, or even often. While some of it may "squishy" a lot of the
difference can be seen in things like no advertising budget needed, many
fewer sales people (don't need to go to schmooz every hardware store,
just the one or two biggies.

Due to advertising, the company can charge more for branded product,
and thus it is normally the case.

There is a definite premium that the brandname can often get that
isn't an issue with store brands. But even then, you have to defend the
brand name and that can be expensive.

The case of cheap versus expensive "poisoned"pet foods turning out to
be the same food from the same factory is an example where the
consumer was paying only for a name while the producer laughed all the
way to the bank.

They aren't laughing now.

Saving a few cents on QA has cost them plenty.

I wonder if the CEO's compensation will suffer?

TMT

On Sep 19, 6:55 pm, Lee Ayrton wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Ignoramus29233 wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:00:26 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Ignoramus29233 wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:47:03 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
Why can't the company making $50 shovels make $5 shovels too?

Typically, the reason for doing so is maintaining a "premium brand
identity", which makes perfect sense.
Many do. For instance, many of the store brand products you see in
target or even WalMart are made by the same guys and gals who make the
"brand name" thing you see right next to it.

I also tend to think that if Walmart has products of Company X on its
shelves, then their stuff is probably not worth buying, even not from
Walmart.

Perhaps not or, at least, not from Wal*Mart. It has long been claimed
that Wal*Mart's ability to dictate price to suppliers sometimes causes
manufacturers to compromise on quality or features in order to stay in
business, and the volume of the order makes bottom-line-this quarter sense
to make a production run with deleted features or second-run parts. For
instance: Levis. See:http://www.cio.com/article/31948/Sup...ips_How_Levi_s...

--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There was a business life before Walmart.

If a company doesn't like the business practices of Walmart, they can
make the business decision to find customers elsewhere.

The whining of companies about Walmart's business practice is a red
herring.

TMT

Mattel apologizes to China, pledging to take responsibility for
defective toys
September 21, 2007
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90778/6268472.html

Thomas Debrowski, an executive of Mattel, apologized Friday to a
senior Chinese official for the inconvenience it has caused to Chinese
consumers after recalling millions of China-made toys and pledged to
take responsibility, according to a Xinhua witness.

During his talk with Li Changjiang, head of the General Administration
of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, Debrowski admitted
that the vast majority of its recalled toys were of design flaws
rather than the manufacturing errors of China.

According to a press release announced by a lawyer of the Mattel, 17.4
million toys have been recalled because of loose magnets and those
recalled because of impermissible levels of lead numbered 2.2
millions.

The magnets related recalls were due to emerging issues concerning
design and this has nothing to do with whether the toys were
manufactured in China, said the press release.

"Mattel does not require Chinese manufacturers to be responsible for
the magnets related recalls due to design problems," it said.

It also admitted that Mattel's lead-related recalls were "overly
inclusive" as the company were "committed to applying the highest
standards of safety for its products".

"The follow-up inspections also confirmed that part of the recalled
toys complied with the U.S. standards."

The same high standards to recalls of its products have been applied
in the EU and other countries despite the fact that some of these
products may have met local safety standards. its said.

Source: Xinhua

On Sep 21, 1:28 am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Sep 16, 2:23 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:





On Sep 15, 10:29 pm, RickH wrote:

On Sep 15, 8:36 pm, Jeff Wisnia wrote:

Automotive fuses...

Today's mail brought me a Safety Recall notice from Harbor Freight
telling me to stop using, remove any in use, and return the 120 piece
Mini-Blade Automotive Fuse Assortment I'd tacked onto an order I placed
with them a few months ago, because getting 120 fuses for $4.99 seemed
like a good deal. (TOO good a deal I guess...)

They're paying the postage, will refund $4.99 and gave me a "$5.00 Off
coupon" good till next February.

The recall notice includes this explanation:

"Specifically, manufacturing inconsistencies max exiat with the
materials, connections or size of the fuse elements which could result
in the fuses failing to protect the circuit from exessive current which
could cause damage to a vehicle and possibly a fire."

What's next folks?

The fuse issue isn't as funny as the "Stove Bolt Assortment" I bought
from Harbor Freight several years ago and stuck on the shelf. When I
finally wanted to use eight matching fasteners rather than the onsies
and twosies I can get from my "hell box" I went to that assortment, only
to find that all the 10-24 nuts in it had missed the threading operation
and had smooth bore holes in them.

Just for ****s and grins I wrote a letter to HF and taped a couple of
the unthreaded nuts to it. I described the problem and explained that I
assumed the threads were on backorder and asked when they expected to
ship them to me. I wasn't sure what that would get me, but figured
someone might get a laugh out of it and maybe send me another box of
fasteners.

Unfortunatly, my letter was answered by some ditzy woman with no sense
of humor because I all I got was a letter from her saying my complaint
exceeded their allowable time limit for returns and there was nothing
they could do about it now.

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.98*10^14 fathoms per fortnight.

Sounds like my Chinese kitchen faucet that lasted all of 3 days.

I hear they are planning on importing a $9000 car to the US, the
Cheri, those fuses should work in those.

China can make things real cheap and fast, but they dont believe in QA
departments.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The consumer IS the QA department.

And the irony is that it is American companies that are selling the
stuff to us.

They are the ones who closed their eyes to this developing problem.

And they are as usual trying to pass the buck to the supplier instead
of taking responsiblity themselves.

TMT- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

An example of closing the barn door after the horse has left the
building....

Only a kick in the old profit line will get their attention.

TMT

Toy recalls put testing labs on overtime By MICHELLE R. SMITH,
Associated Press Writer
Thu Sep 20, 4:22 PM ET

Gone is the 40-hour work week at Specialized Technology Resources Inc.
Boxes of toys are piling up in the middle of its testing lab, workers
are coming in on weekends, and product testers who normally would
check tools or candles are working on chess sets and plastic cars.

Business is bustling since the recent recalls of millions of toys.
Management at the international product testing company is considering
adding to its 1,600-person staff.

"Right now, we're using everybody in toy land," said Linda Root,
manager of the company's toy testing lab here.

The recalls have toy companies from the largest toy maker Mattel to
small importers clamoring to hire companies such as STR to test and
retest their toys as a way to allay consumer fears ahead of the key
holiday shopping season.

Several testing firms operate worldwide, including Switzerland-based
SGS Group, which has 48,000 workers in 1,000 locations, Bureau Veritas
Group, with 26,000 employees in 700 locations, and London-based
Intertek, which employs 20,000 people in 100 countries.

Mattel's first recall this summer, 1.5 million toys tainted with lead
paint, was a wake-up call for the industry, said Sue DeRagon, STR's
associate director of toys and premiums. Since then, Mattel and others
have recalled more than 20 million toys for high lead levels or for
small magnets that children can swallow, prompting toy companies to do
more tests.

That's kept the lab, housed in an old textile mill in this town north
of Hartford, plenty busy. Toy companies are sending samples of
finished toys to test, especially for lead and magnets, which can be
dangerous if they are swallowed and join together in the digestive
system.

Testers conduct a battery of tests on each toy, based either on U.S.
toy safety standards or something more stringent, if that's what a
company wants.

To check for lead, lab workers use a razor blade to scrape off paint
from the toy's painted surface. They need .1 grams of paint to test,
which can be a challenge when dealing with something like dice which
has only painted dots, or a chess set with lots of nooks and crannies.

"It is very tedious work. It's not easy," Root said. "You do have to
pay attention so you don't lose fingers and cut yourself in any way.
There is no easy way of getting it off. It can take hours."

If a piece of a toy can be grasped or bitten, such as an arm or leg on
an action figure, testers put that piece in a torque gauge and twist
it to see if it snaps. Then, they pull the arm or leg for 10 seconds.
Any piece that breaks off is measured in a "small parts cylinder." If
it fits inside the shot glass-sized cylinder, it could choke a child.

Toys are also dropped several times and placed over a candle flame for
five seconds, then allowed to burn for one minute to see whether they
will easily catch fire.

Testers check for sharp edges and points, and look for long strings or
other pieces of cloth that could strangle a child. If a loop of string
can pass over a metal "head probe" about the size of a baby's head, it
could be dangerous, Root said.

Testers also look for so-called "filth" in the stuffing inside plush
toys.

"You find bugs. Dead bugs usually. If they sweep up the floor, there
could be sawdust," Root said. "We found just recently we had one that
had metal shavings in it."

STR even sends toys out to a local day care center and testers watch
the children play.

"We'll direct them and say, 'See if you can break the head off this
figure,'" DeRagon said. "It's important to get some real-life
information. Let's really see how they're playing with it."

American law does not require toys to be tested before they get into
children's hands, although the Toy Industry Association now supports a
federal mandatory testing requirement. For now, how thoroughly toys
get tested - if at all - can vary widely from one company to another.

The cost of testing is often borne by the manufacturer or importer. A
basic lead test could cost $35 for a toy line, DeRagon said.

Costs for more extensive tests can range from a couple hundred dollars
for a line of toys that's already packaged and in a warehouse, down to
nearly negligible if a company has a long-term testing program in
place at the assembly line, said Sean McGowan, an analyst with Wedbush
Morgan Securities.

Much of the testing that's been going on recently is retesting, so
it's more expensive, he said. More regular testing, which the industry
is now considering making a requirement, would bring down costs, he
said.

Companies are supposed to adhere to voluntary standard consumer toy
safety regulations. Toy makers, testers and retailers work with the
Toy Industry Association to set the standards.

"What's scary is when you hear a toy manufacturer say 'Huh, I've never
of this,'" DeRagon said.

Companies like Pawtucket, R.I.-based Hasbro, Van Nuys, Calif.-based
MGA Entertainment, and Canadian companies Spin Master and Mega Brands
already require all their toys to be independently tested.

Several toy companies are retesting toys they've already checked - and
some retests have resulted in recalls, such as vinyl bibs and wooden
art sets recalled by Toys "R" Us last month after new tests found
excessive levels of lead. The retailer this month said it will use an
independent laboratory to test every branded product.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. increased the number of toys it tests. Mattel
promised to test the safety of Chinese-made products with its own
laboratories or with company-certified labs. The toy store FAO Schwarz
will require its suppliers to test all toys with an independent lab.
Even the Walt Disney Co. said it will independently test toys that
feature its characters.

STR and other toy testing firms won't release the names of the
companies they work for, citing client privacy. But DeRagon said STR,
which has two dozen locations around the world, counts 285 toy
companies as active clients. Since Mattel's first recall this summer,
STR has received 25 inquiries from toy companies and signed up at
least half of those as clients, she said.

STR, which tests toys at six of its locations, does most of its
testing in China and Hong Kong, where most toys are produced. That
allows inspectors and testers tighter watch over the production
process, DeRagon said. In companies with stringent quality controls,
she said, inspectors will pull five samples from every production line
every two hours. The lab in Enfield typically tests toys made in the
United States or toys that have already been shipped to the U.S.

This time of year is always busy for toy companies as they rush to get
their products on toy shelves by October ahead of the holiday shopping
season. That makes it all the more ...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh look....Mattel is now kissing China's butt....

Notice it was not the CEO offering the "gesture".....

So when is the Mattel CEO going to fall on his sword?

Or better yet, give back his years of compensation that led up to this
disaster?

TMT

Mattel apologizes to China over recalls By ALEXA OLESEN, Associated
Press Writer

U.S.-based toy giant Mattel Inc. issued an extraordinary apology to
China on Friday over the recall of Chinese-made toys, taking the blame
for design flaws and saying it had recalled more lead-tainted toys
than justified.

The gesture by Thomas A. Debrowski, Mattel's executive vice president
for worldwide operations, came in a meeting with Chinese product
safety chief Li Changjiang, at which Li upbraided the company for
maintaining weak safety controls.

"Our reputation has been damaged lately by these recalls," Debrowski
told Li in a meeting at Li's office at which reporters were allowed to
be present.

"And Mattel takes full responsibility for these recalls and apologizes
personally to you, the Chinese people, and all of our customers who
received the toys," Debrowski said.

The carefully worded apology, delivered with company lawyers present,
underscores China's central role in Mattel's business. The world's
largest toy maker has been in China for 25 years and about 65 percent
of its products are made in China.

The fence-mending call came ahead of an expected visit to China by
Mattel's chairman and chief executive, Robert A. Eckert. Following the
massive recall, Eckert told U.S. lawmakers he wanted to see Mattel's
mainland inspections first hand.

Mattel ordered three high-profile recalls this summer involving more
than 21 million Chinese-made toys, including Barbie doll accessories
and toy cars because of concerns about lead paint or tiny magnets that
could be swallowed.

The recalls have prompted complaints from China that manufacturers
were being blamed for design faults introduced by Mattel.

On Friday, Debrowski acknowledged that "vast majority of those
products that were recalled were the result of a design flaw in
Mattel's design, not through a manufacturing flaw in China's
manufacturers."

Lead-tainted toys accounted for only a small percentage of all toys
recalled, he said, adding that: "We understand and appreciate deeply
the issues that this has caused for the reputation of Chinese
manufacturers."

The slew of Chinese-made toys since June by Mattel and other smaller
toy makers has resulted in many parents scouring for U.S.-made label
stamped on playthings at toy stores. That is no easy feat when more
than 80 percent of toys sold in the U.S. are made in China.

Mattel's mea culpa could help reshape the debate surrounding Chinese-
made toys.

In fact, new research from two business professors shows that recalls
due to problems with the U.S. maker's design accounted for the vast
majority - about 76 percent - of the 550 U.S.toy recalls since 1988.

The report, released earlier this month from Paul R. Beamish, an
international business professor at Canada's University of Western
Ontario, and Hari Bapuji, business professor at University of
Manitoba's I.H. Asper School of Business in Winnipeg, Canada, found
that recalls blamed on design problems and manufacturing defects, such
as lead paint or poor craftmanship, both rose in the past two years as
U.S. makers have shifted more of their production to China.

But they noted that, "if shifting manufacturing to China resulted in
poorer quality goods, then the number of toys recalled due to
manufacturing should be greater than the number recalled due to
design," the report said. But that is not the case.

"Nobody gets a free ride on this," said Beamish, arguing that toy
makers' obsession to quickly get new products to market before they
are widely copied has resulted in a lot of cost-cutting and inadequate
testing.

In a statement issued by the company Friday, Mattel said its lead-
related recalls were "overly inclusive, including toys that may not
have had lead in paint in excess of the U.S. standards.

"The follow-up inspections also confirmed that part of the recalled
toys complied with the U.S. standards," the statement said, without
giving specific figures.

The co-owner of the company that supplied the lead-tainted toys to
Mattel, Lee Der Industrial Co. Ltd., committed suicide in August
shortly after the recall was announced.

Li reminded Debrowski that "a large part of your annual profit ...
comes from your factories in China.

"This shows that our cooperation is in the interests of Mattel, and
both parties should value our cooperation. I really hope that Mattel
can learn lessons and gain experience from these incidents," Li said,
adding that Mattel should "improve their control measures."

Li, the head of China's General Administration of Quality Supervision,
Inspection and Quarantine, also expressed his appreciation for
Debrowski's "objective and responsible attitude toward the recent toy
recall."

Chinese food, drugs and other products ranging from toothpaste to
seafood are under intense scrutiny because they have been found to
contain potentially deadly substances.

But China has bristled at what it claims is a campaign to discredit
its reputation as an exporter. It accuses foreign media and others of
playing up its product safety issues as a form of protectionism.

Beijing insists that the vast majority of its exports are safe but has
stepped up inspections of food, drugs and other products in response
to the concerns.

Li told reporters after meeting with Debrowski that the government had
taken swift action against Lee Der, shutting down its operations and
revoking its business license. Four people from the company also face
criminal charges, he said, without giving details.

Since this summer's recalls Mattel has announced plans to upgrade its
safety system by certifying suppliers and increasing the frequency of
random, unannounced inspections. It has fired several manufacturers.

Tests had found that lead levels in paint in recalled toys were as
high as 110,000 parts per million, or nearly 200 times higher than the
accepted safety ceiling of 600 parts per million.

Mattel's shares fell from the mid-$23 level following the first recall
in early August, reaching as low as $20.97 on Sept. 10. They have
since rebounded, and rose 55 cents, or 2.33 percent to $24.11 in
morning trading Friday..

China has become a center for the world's toy-making industry,
exporting $7.5 billion worth of toys last year.

_____

AP Business Writer Anne D'Innocenzio in New York contributed to this
report

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
The case of cheap versus expensive "poisoned"pet foods turning out to
be the same food from the same factory

Not necessarily. Just because two recipes both contain wheat gluten
does not mean they are identical recipes.

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

On Sep 21, 2:17 pm, clifto wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
The case of cheap versus expensive "poisoned"pet foods turning out to
be the same food from the same factory

Not necessarily. Just because two recipes both contain wheat gluten
does not mean they are identical recipes.

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

Agreed...but it did come out that the foods were made in the SAME
way...just different packaging...and prices of course.

That industry has a significant damage control effort ahead of
it...poisoning children and pets causes people to have long, long
memories.

TMT

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 07:37:55 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Sep 19, 3:17 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

Ignoramus29233 wrote:
This looks at it backwards. The "cost of marketing" is the expense of
the company and how you allocate it (to all items, to corporate
overhead, etc), is arbitrary.

Not always, or even often. While some of it may "squishy" a lot of the
difference can be seen in things like no advertising budget needed, many
fewer sales people (don't need to go to schmooz every hardware store,
just the one or two biggies.

Due to advertising, the company can charge more for branded product,
and thus it is normally the case.

There is a definite premium that the brandname can often get that
isn't an issue with store brands. But even then, you have to defend the
brand name and that can be expensive.

The case of cheap versus expensive "poisoned"pet foods turning out to
be the same food from the same factory is an example where the
consumer was paying only for a name while the producer laughed all the
way to the bank.

They aren't laughing now.

Saving a few cents on QA has cost them plenty.

I wonder if the CEO's compensation will suffer?

TMT

No, we've established that they only get credit for the good stuff -
there minions heads wsill roll, but they get the full Monte paycheck.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 07:41:09 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Sep 19, 6:55 pm, Lee Ayrton wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Ignoramus29233 wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:00:26 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Ignoramus29233 wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:47:03 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
Why can't the company making $50 shovels make $5 shovels too?

Typically, the reason for doing so is maintaining a "premium brand
identity", which makes perfect sense.
Many do. For instance, many of the store brand products you see in
target or even WalMart are made by the same guys and gals who make the
"brand name" thing you see right next to it.

I also tend to think that if Walmart has products of Company X on its
shelves, then their stuff is probably not worth buying, even not from
Walmart.

Perhaps not or, at least, not from Wal*Mart. It has long been claimed
that Wal*Mart's ability to dictate price to suppliers sometimes causes
manufacturers to compromise on quality or features in order to stay in
business, and the volume of the order makes bottom-line-this quarter sense
to make a production run with deleted features or second-run parts. For
instance: Levis. See:http://www.cio.com/article/31948/Sup...ips_How_Levi_s...

--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There was a business life before Walmart.

If a company doesn't like the business practices of Walmart, they can
make the business decision to find customers elsewhere.

The whining of companies about Walmart's business practice is a red
herring.

TMT


Walmart is simply doing what a vast number of Americans want - selling
a low quality item for a cheap price. If they weren't doing exactly
that then they wouldn't be a success.

You don't get to be a 900 lb. gorilla by selling a product that the
public doesn't want at a price higher then he is willing to pay.

All over the world there are companies selling quality albeit at a
higher price then Walmart. Rolex Watch comes to mind - a really well
made watch for a substantial price. I don't believe that Walmart has
harmed their business at all. Mercedes, Gucci, I could go on and on,
but quality merchandize is there if one wants to buy it.

There is an old saying in Asia, "you pay peanuts, you get monkeys".
The same can be applied to merchandize, "you buy cheap, you get
cheap".




Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

On Sep 21, 7:56 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 07:41:09 -0700, Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Sep 19, 6:55 pm, Lee Ayrton wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Ignoramus29233 wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:00:26 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Ignoramus29233 wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:47:03 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
Why can't the company making $50 shovels make $5 shovels too?

Typically, the reason for doing so is maintaining a "premium brand
identity", which makes perfect sense.
Many do. For instance, many of the store brand products you see in
target or even WalMart are made by the same guys and gals who make the
"brand name" thing you see right next to it.

I also tend to think that if Walmart has products of Company X on its
shelves, then their stuff is probably not worth buying, even not from
Walmart.

Perhaps not or, at least, not from Wal*Mart. It has long been claimed
that Wal*Mart's ability to dictate price to suppliers sometimes causes
manufacturers to compromise on quality or features in order to stay in
business, and the volume of the order makes bottom-line-this quarter sense
to make a production run with deleted features or second-run parts. For
instance: Levis. See:http://www.cio.com/article/31948/Sup...ips_How_Levi_s...

--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There was a business life before Walmart.

If a company doesn't like the business practices of Walmart, they can
make the business decision to find customers elsewhere.

The whining of companies about Walmart's business practice is a red
herring.

TMT

Walmart is simply doing what a vast number of Americans want - selling
a low quality item for a cheap price. If they weren't doing exactly
that then they wouldn't be a success.

You don't get to be a 900 lb. gorilla by selling a product that the
public doesn't want at a price higher then he is willing to pay.

All over the world there are companies selling quality albeit at a
higher price then Walmart. Rolex Watch comes to mind - a really well
made watch for a substantial price. I don't believe that Walmart has
harmed their business at all. Mercedes, Gucci, I could go on and on,
but quality merchandize is there if one wants to buy it.

There is an old saying in Asia, "you pay peanuts, you get monkeys".
The same can be applied to merchandize, "you buy cheap, you get
cheap".

Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As some one who works in the home improvement field Retail consumers
want cheap as I hear it every day and China produces cheap and with
low Quality . You get what you pay for people nothing more if it is
cheaper it is.

wrote:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 07:41:09 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Sep 19, 6:55 pm, Lee Ayrton wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Ignoramus29233 wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:00:26 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Ignoramus29233 wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:47:03 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
Why can't the company making $50 shovels make $5 shovels too?

Typically, the reason for doing so is maintaining a "premium brand
identity", which makes perfect sense.
Many do. For instance, many of the store brand products you see in
target or even WalMart are made by the same guys and gals who make the
"brand name" thing you see right next to it.

I also tend to think that if Walmart has products of Company X on its
shelves, then their stuff is probably not worth buying, even not from
Walmart.

Perhaps not or, at least, not from Wal*Mart. It has long been claimed
that Wal*Mart's ability to dictate price to suppliers sometimes causes
manufacturers to compromise on quality or features in order to stay in
business, and the volume of the order makes bottom-line-this quarter sense
to make a production run with deleted features or second-run parts. For
instance: Levis. See:http://www.cio.com/article/31948/Sup...ips_How_Levi_s...

--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There was a business life before Walmart.

If a company doesn't like the business practices of Walmart, they can
make the business decision to find customers elsewhere.

The whining of companies about Walmart's business practice is a red
herring.

TMT

Walmart is simply doing what a vast number of Americans want - selling
a low quality item for a cheap price. If they weren't doing exactly
that then they wouldn't be a success.

You don't get to be a 900 lb. gorilla by selling a product that the
public doesn't want at a price higher then he is willing to pay.

All over the world there are companies selling quality albeit at a
higher price then Walmart. Rolex Watch comes to mind - a really well
made watch for a substantial price. I don't believe that Walmart has
harmed their business at all. Mercedes, Gucci, I could go on and on,
but quality merchandize is there if one wants to buy it.

There is an old saying in Asia, "you pay peanuts, you get monkeys".
The same can be applied to merchandize, "you buy cheap, you get
cheap".


Good, Fast, Cheap. Pick any two.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

In article ,
wrote:

Mercedes, Gucci, I could go on and on,
but quality merchandize is there if one wants to buy it.

Mercedes is quality? Ha. Maybe fifty years ago. Now, it's **** with a
famous emblem, and Toyota means quality.

In article , D Murphy wrote:

SNIP before that, mostly previously quoted material

What is "quality"?

Is it a reliable uninspired too small econobox sold at a premium price
due to its carefully cultivated reputation of reliability?

Is it a big heavy car sold at a premium due to its prestigous marquee,
prone to the occasional expensive failure but made out of nicer stuff
with a better ride and more comfort?

Or is quality making the car exactly to the blueprint tolerances no
matter the end result? A perfectly machined and assembled Yugo is still a
Yugo.

Is quality performance, comfort, ride, economy, reliability, or
reputation?

Or is quality a car so beautiful that you can't take your eyes off of it?

Who is responsible for quality? Management, Design, Engineering,
Manufacturing, or Inspection?

Toyota might mean quality to you, but in my case it was one of the most
miserable POS cars that I've ever owned. That singular experience has
tainted my view of anything they make.

Call your Toyota dealer and tell them your Camry spun a cam bearing, or
needs a water pump, or has a blown head gasket. Then ask them if they
have any experience fixing that problem. See what they say. I'll bet they
won't tell you that they've never had to make that repair before.

A fuse, a bolt, or a nut is either made to the required specs or it
isn't. Quality isn't subjective at all. An automobile is another matter.

I am rather fond of Honda Civics, even owned one.

As for ask the dealer whether they have experience fixing a specific
problem or another - I think most have plenty to fix. I would distrust
one getting few repairs or claiming to get few repairs even more than I
would distrust "stealerships" in general.

I think one measure of quality is how many miles on average the car
lasts before it gets scrapped, and another is per-mile cost of repairs
on average before it gets scrapped.

Of course, these are not exclusive of other things, such as:

* Is fuel economy good for a car of such size, weight and engine size and
cylinder count?

* Is acceleration, both at low speed and at freeway speed, good for a
car of such size, weight, engine size and cylinder count?

* Does the car corner well? Does it feel well when cornering, or does it
require you to get "sea legs" (and steering skills) for it, like a late
1980's Olds Cutlass Ciera or similar car?

* Does the car ride nice and quiet?

* Do the climate control and accessories work well?

* Does the car leak or not in a rainstorm?

* How do the above fare after 100,000 or 175,000 or whatever miles?

* Crash safety?

* Crash costliness, such as cost of repair after some specific low speed
crash (such as 5 MPH hitting a wall or a pole - for some time in the past
in the USA, cars were required to hit a solid wall forward or backward at
5 MPH with no need for repairs, now that's 2.5 MPH)

I do remember how a Yugo back when its sticker price was $39xx (IIRC)
was found to suffer $2600 or so in damage from a 5 MPH crash test, IIRC
from hitting a pole at such speed (I do not remember well which end was
the bad end to hit at such speed).

* How is the functionality design of things such as optical design of the
legally required lights? How well do the headlights help you see what
you need to see? Do they do so with less glare to oncoming drivers?
Are the tail/brake lights well-visible without being glary or
distracting?

* Does a car get better in above areas without being ugly like a beached
obese whale?

- Don Klipstein )

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:08:08 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Mercedes, Gucci, I could go on and on,
but quality merchandize is there if one wants to buy it.

Mercedes is quality? Ha. Maybe fifty years ago. Now, it's **** with a
famous emblem, and Toyota means quality.


I'm not going to get into a long discussion about quality but to a
great extent quality is a perceived value. I have a Hong kong made
electronic watch that keeps as good time as my Rolex. Is quality
keeping accurate time or is it a stainless and gold bracelet that lets
people know I've made it?

To most of Asia a Mercedes is the epitome of car ownership. Is a
Mercedes really that good or does it make the neighbors drool?

A toyota is for the proletariat...

Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:57:24 +0700, wrote:


Mercedes, Gucci, I could go on and on,
but quality merchandize is there if one wants to buy it.

Mercedes is quality? Ha. Maybe fifty years ago. Now, it's **** with a
famous emblem, and Toyota means quality.


I'm not going to get into a long discussion about quality but to a
great extent quality is a perceived value. I have a Hong kong made
electronic watch that keeps as good time as my Rolex. Is quality
keeping accurate time or is it a stainless and gold bracelet that lets
people know I've made it?

To most of Asia a Mercedes is the epitome of car ownership. Is a
Mercedes really that good or does it make the neighbors drool?

A toyota is for the proletariat...

Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)


One more point. In China private cars MUST be scrapped at 10 years.
Taxis at 8 years. There is no point making cars that will last 20
years or good for say 300,000 miles. For the price you pay it is
probably worthwhile to get a new $12,000 China made car every five
years rather than keep your $40,000 one on the road until it dies.
You rarely see stalled or delerict cars on China's roads. Chinese
models are made for the China market first. The export market is
miniscule.

In article , h wrote:

is the Chinese government
populated only by control freaks

um, it *is* communist.

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 00:24:55 -0400, h wrote:


"PaPaPeng" wrote in message One more point. In
China private cars MUST be scrapped at 10 years.
Taxis at 8 years. There is no point making cars that will last 20
years or good for say 300,000 miles.

That's totally insane. I'm in my 50s, and I have NEVER bought a car that
wasn't at least 10 years old with around 150,000 miles, and I usually keep
them for 5-8 years. Do the Chinese just make **** cars or is the government
populated only by control freaks? And no, my car NEVER breaks down or dies
on the road, since I keep it extremely well-maintained. Well, we ran out of
gas once, but that wasn't the car's fault.


I'd like to restate my point as "There is no point building a car like
a tank aka Detroit Iron."

Japan had this must scrap law at least 30 years ago. In their crowded
roads and limited land there were several public policy decisions that
led to the laws. The environmental one of course is to remove older
cars off the roads. Older cars have lower fuel efficiency, contribute
to air pollution as well as road pollution from oil drips. Then there
are safety concerns as older cars tend to be less well maintained yet
requiring more maintenance. The economic one is to keep Japan's car
production lines open and provide a large domestic market for new
models over shorter model change cycles.

Singapore for sure, and I think Hongkong too, has similar 10 year and
must scrap law. In Singapore you cannot even sell it to a chop shop.
That 10 year old car must be sold to the local steel mill for a total
meltdown. You have to get their certificate of destruction before you
can buy a new car.

Singapore is a tiny country of only 682.7 sq. km or 3 1/2 times the
size of Washington DC. To discourage car ownership a Toyota Camry
will set you back SGD 120,000 (1 USD = 1.5 SGD) That's only the
sticker price. To buy that you have to apply for a permit to buy a
car at more than SGD 1000. The annual road fee to use that car is
also over SGD 1000. A luxury car like the Mercedes Benz, a BMW or a
Lexus will set you back SGD 300 to 500 thousands. And these figures
are likely significant underestimates. The costs are so mind boggling
I no longer care to ask my friends there. Yet when you visit the
roads are jammed packed with the costlier makes, their reasoning being
that the car they buy will have to last 10 years and they might as
well buy the costliest one they can afford.

Me? I get around on a bicycle and I am in my mid 60s. Love it.

China came late into the automobile ownership game. I think this 10
year and must scrap law is a good ecological and ecomonic policy on
many levels.

As for engineering durability the China made cars will be of as good a
quality as you can find anywhere in the world. China produces top
quality steel, metals, plastics, etc. and her engineering is as good
as anywhere else. These are the same materials used in the foreign
owned car manufacturers to make their cars in China for the domestic
market and for export. There is no profit in using sub standard
materials or engineering as it costs the same in investment, in labor
and in time. It is highly unlikely that they can even find
substandard materials to work with. When you run a production line in
the hundreds of thousands you cannot afford to have your production
line held up because of substandard materials that require fixes while
in process. Given current design and manufacturing technologies it is
almost impossible to make a really bad car. Automobiles have become
commodities and a fashion statement.

Below is a currrent report from China. You will get an idea why all
the major auto manufacturers in the world want to jump into that
market.

============================



Official: China expected to produce 8.5 mln autos in 2007
September 23, 2007
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90778/6268974.html


China's auto production saw an annual growth rate of 45.8 percent
since 2002 and the country is expected to produce 8.5 million units of
automobiles in 2007, a senior official with the top economic planner
said at a forum Saturday.

By the end of 2006, output value of the country's auto industry
accounted for 3.7 percent of China's gross domestic production, said
Zhang Guobao, vice minister of National Development and Reform
Commission.

Meanwhile, employment in auto and auto-related industries accounted
for one-sixth of the nation's total workforce, he said.

China produced 5.75 million motor vehicles in the first eight months
of this year, up 23.6 percent over the same period last year,
according to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers.

Official statistics show that China exported 294,000 autos in the
first seven months this year, up 70.3 percent from the corresponding
period last year. Auto exports may exceed 500,000 units for the whole
year.

During the period, China also exported auto parts worth 8.85 billion
U.S. dollars, up 32.4 percent from the same period last year.

Source: Xinhua

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:26:43 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article , h wrote:

is the Chinese government
populated only by control freaks

um, it *is* communist.

With that kind of simplistic thinking you wouldn't know what hit you
when it does. This thread is small potatoes in the greater scheme of
things. The tsumani that will hit before the year is out will be
which country will come out least mangled by the banking and monetary
crisis triggered by the subprime crisis.

Quote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Cont...&site=1&page=0


Fears of dollar collapse as Saudis take fright
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, International Business Editor
Last Updated: 10:14pm BST 21/09/2007

Saudi Arabia has refused to cut interest rates in lockstep with the US
Federal Reserve for the first time, signalling that the oil-rich Gulf
kingdom is preparing to break the dollar currency peg in a move that
risks setting off a stampede out of the dollar across the Middle East.

"This is a very dangerous situation for the dollar," said Hans
Redeker, currency chief at BNP Paribas.


China is not going to help either:-

China's inflation policy
stirs the world
September 22, 2007
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_B.../II22Cb01.html

China's current inflation is a case of prolonged currency
undervaluation in tandem with export-led growth. As such,
exchange-rate revaluation should be a central element of its
anti-inflation policy. Instead, China has chosen to rely exclusively
on monetary tightening, raising interest rates and reserve
requirements on bank deposits. This places the burden of
trade-imbalance adjustment squarely on the US. - Thomas Palley

PPP: Palley's article also warns China not to hold onto the fixed
exchange rate with the USD. Probably not. But any upward revaluation
of the Yuan will come too late to rescue the USD. The only question
now is how low will the USD fall? My guess is a 20 percent drop.