Are you accusing me of talking bullshit? You, the immortal genius who claims that trans-Pacific airfreight costs $1,000 per pound when it actually costs just over $1.00?
The supreme Economist who claims that things go up in price the more you buy? And who hasn't worked out that if it costs more per unit to buy two of something than one of something, then people will buy one, twice? You are a moron, my friend, plain and simple. John On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:18:10 +0100, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BS. Larger quantities only are cheaper when they still fit inside the > cheapest method of shipping, without monopolizing it (If you suddenly > started using up all available cheap air freight, your prices are going > to go up, a lot), which is only viable for small quantities of items. > And if that doesn't do bulk shipments, then either you go by sea or you > pay more. > > Most electronic goods are shipped by sea in containers. Pentax cameras > fall into that category, as does most of Canons stuff. Only expensive, > low volume sales items would be shipped by air (Like a Canon 1Ds or > Hasselblad H2D, and the former likely gets sent by sea anyways, stuffed > into a container with 40 tons of Rebel XT's). > > -Adam > > > > John Forbes wrote: > >> It would never be more expensive to ship a larger quantity. It would >> only >> be more expensive if you were shipping one huge item that wouldn't fit >> conveniently into a conventional aircraft. Something like a Sherman >> tank, >> or perhaps Canon's latest pro body. Pentax cameras are not in that >> league. >> >> 40 ton containers go by sea because they contain items of relatively low >> value and there is no hurry to get them to their destination. Items >> shipped by air are typically sent in much smaller packages. >> >> I have no idea how Pentax ships its cameras. I am simply saying that >> $1,000 per pound for airfreight is a load of baloney. Get real. >> >> John >> >> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:15:40 +0100, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> John Forbes wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Aaron, >>>> >>>> When you're in a hole, stop digging. >>>> >>>> And put your brain in gear. >>>> >>>> As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not >>>> higher ones. >>>> >>>> I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And >>>> LESS >>>> for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would >>>> just >>>> ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? >>>> >>>> Work it out for yourself. >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why >>> we >>> use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air >>> freight. >>> >>> >>> -Adam >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
