Predator - Pay More, Get Less?

BarringerCues

BarringerCues

Registered
Hello Friends...

This is also published at http://barringercues.com/predatorcues.html

This new policy described below takes effect on October 1, 2007 so this is very timely. The reasons for my motivation are at the very end.

This is one mans opinion...

I encourage each and every one of you to take the time to actually sit there and digest exactly what I am saying here as the ramifications are tremendous to our industry and sport.

It's not often that I will sit down and take pen to paper in this magnitude but I am in such an uproar over recent events that I feel obligated to say something. Has the USA and its peoples degenerated to such an extent that we now put profits over morality and right. I'd like to think not but the silence is deafening. I cannot believe that merchants within the billiard industry have not spoken up about such manipulation and price fixing. I am equally surprised that the billiard publications (Billiards Digest, Inside Pool) have not picked up on this most very serious story about price manipulation which affects each and every consumer out there today. However, it?s not surprising that the billiard publications don?t report on such stories since Predator is a major advertiser in their publications. I guess advertising dollars is more important that public interest.

So, now you ask just what is it that I am talking about? Well picture this my friends.
What do you think if I were to tell you that Chevron, BP, Shell or any other gasoline supplier sent out memo's to their retailers that they could not sell a gallon of gas below $3 a gallon regardless of the wholesale price discount. How would you feel about that?

Better yet, what if I were to tell you that GM told it's new car showrooms that the most they could discount a vehicle to the consumer would be 20% otherwise they'd pull their license or stop shipping cars to that showroom. How would you feel about that?

What would you say? I would venture to say that you'd be upset to say the least. Rest assured there would be incredible public outcry and as sure as the sun would come up tomorrow, the Attorney General would certainly become involved.

However, in the small niche market of billiards, just such events are taking place right at this very moment. The culprits are Predator Products, the manufacturers of those Chinese made, glued-up shafts and production cues.

Here's my take on the situation in reviewing Predator's attorney's letter and his 51 page (yes I digested 51 pages of legal mumbo jumbo) report citing case law supporting (or trying to) 'price-fixing'. This attorney's report, lulled Predator into the false sense of security of believing that they can manipulate the market and blackmail their distributors into submission. The title of the letter was: "Predator: Price Restraints on Retailers in Light of Recent Court Precedent". Their own attorney admits that they are promoting "Price Restraints".

I would venture to say that in Predator's quest to manipulate and control the market they retained big gun attorneys to produce a report supporting their, what I like to term, an illegal stance and price fixing strategy. I'm sure Predator paid dearly for this report. In all fairness, I'm certain that if I were to pay an attorney, I could produce a report in my defense which would support my stance that Price Fixing, such as Predator is trying to sell to its distributors, is illegal. You get whatever you pay for and this report that Predator obviously paid for is the end result. Predator wanted price fixing strategy and their paid lawyers (otherwise known as hired guns) provided the scant proof.

The keyword(s) here is the admission of the attorney to call the report and its manipulation of the market - "Price Restraints". The attorney is correct in calling it that as it is "Price Restraints" which Predator is trying to sell to their distributors. Predator is trying to sell 'price fixing as 'resale price maintenance' which is nothing more than a play on words.

I have spoken with several of Predator's large distributors who have admitted to me that they are going to go along with Predator for fear of being 'cut-off' by Predator. I guess when a large portion of your business depends on Predator Products, then the manufacturer can blackmail you into doing whatever it is that they want you to do. What happened to right ?vs- profits. What happened to protecting the rights of consumers and keeping with American tradition of a free enterprise system? This is what happens when companies put profits over morality. This is why American business is degenerating. This is why and how the 'Me Before Anyone' generation is trying to run business today.

Predator is relying upon the 51 page document to put into force their new price fixing policy where distributors cannot discount more than 20% from MSRP. Additionally, Predator is also telling distributors that they cannot give away any free merchandise when selling Predator products as well so as to appear as a value added promotion. In doing so, Predator is manipulating the market, destroying competition, controlling and monopolizing the marketplace.

Predator is relying upon 'the rule of reason' which distinguishes between restraints and anticompetitive effects that are harmful to the consumer -vs- procompetitive effects that are in the consumers best interest.

So, there you have it. You have two statements of law:
1) restraints and anticompetitive effects that are harmful to the consumer (actual Predator tactics)
2) procompetitive effects that are in the consumers best interest (Predator defense strategy)

Predator is relying upon procompetitive law to support their price fixing strategy. Now, let us take a few moments to shoot holes into this non-sensical law.

I would be quite amused to see Predators defense as how they are promoting procompetitive effects that are in the consumers best interest when they are price fixing whereby causing increased pricing for the consumer and where dealers are forbidden to do any 'value added' promotions featuring Predator Products. How can these tactics be in the "best interest" of the consumer! Furthermore, how can threatening their distributors by cutting them off be procompetitive?

Case law specifically states that the law is replete with procompetitive justifications. However, a few recent studies on this subject also cast doubt on the conclusion that the practice meets the criteria for the procompetitive rule. More simply put and in my opinion, Predator's stance on their procompetitive marketing strategy will NOT hold up in a court of law and can easily be challenged

Antitrust laws primary purpose is to protect interbrand competition and 'price fixing' is trying to eliminate intrabrand price competition and aids in the manufacturers position against competing brands.

And, setting minimum resale prices may also have anticompetitive effects, and unlawful price fixing is designed to obtain monopoly profits. This is, in my opinion, exactly what Predator is trying to do. Predator is trying to monopolize the market and monopolize profits by using strong arm tactics and threatening its distributors that they either play along or be cut-off, hardly a procompetitive defense as Predator is alleging.


CONTINUED NEXT POST.....
 
Last edited:
Resale price maintenance agreements can help to reinforce the competition-inhibiting behavior of firms in concentrated industries. In such industries firms may tacitly collude, i.e., observe each other's pricing behavior, each understanding that price cutting by one firm is likely to trigger price
competition by all. Where that is so, resale price maintenance can make it easier for each producer to identify (by observing retail markets) when a competitor has begun to cut prices. And a producer who cuts wholesale prices without lowering the minimum resale price will stand to gain little, if anything, in increased profits, because the dealer will be unable to stimulate
increased consumer demand by passing along the producer's price cut to consumers. In either case, resale price maintenance agreements will tend to prevent price competition from 'breaking out' and they will thereby tend to stabilize producer prices. One surely has to wonder if Viking, Pechauer, McDermott and Predator are all towing the same line here to support their own product lines, do away with competition and charge higher prices to the consumer. Does anyone out there believe these tactics to be procompetitive?

Predator's own attorney writes, "More subtle indication of anticompetitive behavior is retailers colluding to fix prices and collectively mandating the manufacture requires other retailers to follow suit. Such pull from the retailer side would be anticompetitive, as it would give inefficient retailers higher profits. Additionally, a manufacturer must not use price restraints to discourage retailers from selling rival products. If a manufacturer has a large market share and sets price restraints, or a large portion of manufacturers in an industry set price restraints, a court will look closely at the restraint to determine its legality. Since Predator, Brunswick, McDermott, Pechauer and Viking are all practicing 'price fixing' tactics (which accounts for "a large portion of manufacturers") , one has to wonder if collusion or cooperation are factors in this case. One also has to wonder if retailers or distributors have contacted Predator to complain about some merchants selling products at lower prices whereby Predator instituted this new price fixing policy to satisfy the needs of some its retailers against lower price retailers. We've all heard of retailers complaining about retailer "X" who is selling product for less than retailer "Y". If so, this would be anticompetitive.

Those who express concern about the potential anticompetitive effects find empirical support in the behavior of prices before, and then after, Congress in 1975 repealed the Miller-Tydings Fair Trade Act. Those Acts had permitted (but not required) individual States to enact 'fair trade' laws authorizing minimum resale price maintenance. At the time of repeal minimum resale price maintenance was lawful in 36 States; it was unlawful in 14 States before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Senate. Comparing prices in the former States with prices in the latter States, the Department of Justice argued that minimum resale price maintenance had raised prices by 19% to 27%. This was great for manufacturers but not for consumers!

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) staff, after studying numerous price surveys, wrote that collectively the surveys indicated that resale price maintenance in most cases increased the prices of products sold.

Most economists today agree that, in the words of a prominent antitrust treatise, "resale price maintenance tends to produce higher consumer prices than would otherwise be the case".

It is uniformly acknowledged that resale price maintenance and other vertical restraints lead to higher consumer prices.

Economic discussion, such as the studies the Court relies upon, can help provide answers to these questions, and in doing so, economics can, and should, inform antitrust law. But antitrust law cannot, and should not, precisely replicate economists' (sometimes conflicting) views. That is
because law, unlike economics, is an administrative system the effects of which depend upon the content of rules and precedents only as they are applied by judges and juries in courts and by lawyers advising their clients. And, that fact means that courts will often bring their own administrative judgment to bear, sometimes applying rules of per se unlawfulness to business practices even when those practices sometimes produce benefits.

Those who wish courts to change so well-established a legal precedent bear a heavy burden of proof. In-other-words --- good luck Predator.

A brief for Consumer Federation of America comments by Wal-Mart's founder 25 years ago that relaxation of the per se ban on minimum resale price maintenance would be a 'great danger' to Wal-Mart's then-relatively-nascent business. In-other-words, Wal-mart's business model was structured around low price competition. Imagine if manufacturers set restraints, there may have never been a Wal-mart (which some may argue is a good or bad thing).

New distributors, including internet distributors, have similarly invested time, money,
and labor in an effort to bring yet lower cost goods to Americans.

What about malls built on the assumption that a discount distributor will remain an anchor tenant?

What about home buyers who have taken a home's distance from such a mall into account?

What about Americans, producers, distributors, and consumers, who have understandably assumed, at least for the last 30 years, that price competition is a legally guaranteed way of life?

Putting the Court's estimate together with the Justice Department's early 1970's study translates a legal regime that permits all resale price maintenance into retail bills that are higher by an average of roughly $750 to $1000 annually for an American family of four. Just how much higher retail bills will be after the Court's decision today, of course, depends upon what is now unknown, namely how courts will decide future cases under a ?rule of reason.? But these figures indicate that the amounts involved are important to American families and cannot be dismissed as 'tiny'.

The per se rule forbidding minimum resale price maintenance agreements has long been embedded in the law of antitrust. It involves price, the economy's ?central nervous system. It reflects a basic antitrust assumption that consumers often prefer lower prices to more service. It embodies a basic antitrust objective of providing consumers with a free choice about such matters.

In conclusion, Predator's attorney writes:
"As far as a set 'rule of reason' or set procedures for litigating a case under the new rule, the Court gives scant guidance. It states, that as courts gain experience in these cases, courts will set rules and procedures to eliminate anticompetitive practices. Thus, how the 'rule of reason' will actually be applied in specific circumstances will not be known until the new rule is litigated.

He continues...
"In light of the application of the rule of reason to price restraints, Predator may set a price restraint restricting the sale price charged by its retailers. However, prior to setting the restraint, Predator should document the motivation and reasons, considering the above factors to ensure the price restraint is done to promote competition in the industry".

In conclusion & The Final Bottomline...
I don't know how you read those two statements above my friends, but it is up to Predator to document each and every reason as to why it is price fixing each and every item it sells and in doing so, Predator must show how it is done to promote competition in the industry. This is certainly a hercluean task my friends and surely impossible for Predator to display.

OK, so to recap: Predator must show how setting prices at a discount of no more than 20%, how Predator is not allowing its distributors to 'value add' to Predator Products and how threatening distributors that they will be cut-off if they don?t tow the Predator line can possibly be done to promote competition in the industry is beyond comprehension. The only thing these things do is manipulate the market, increase costs to consumers, monopolize Predator Products and lastly add to Predators own coffers.

CONTINUED NEXT POST...
 
Last edited:
And, by Predator's own attorney's words, there is no guarantee that the courts would rule in Predator's favor. To the contrary, Predator's attorney states so himself, thus, how the 'rule of reason' will actually be applied in specific circumstances will not be known until the new rule is litigated?.

There is not enough case law. And, what law is on the books is very much against price fixing.

In-other-words my friends, if someone challenged Predator's motives, Predator's own attorney is not sure as to what the outcome would be if Predator enforced its price fixing strategy. It is this writers opinion, that while Predator may have deep pockets, Predator is also very deeply at risk because should Predator lose its fight, it would be libel for mega millions in damages. Very interesting my friends and if I were a betting man, I?d lay odds against Predator; given big gun attorneys to fight for the consumer and distributors, my money is on us!

My opinion, and this is sad to say, but I believe that Predator is relying, in large part, on the ignorance of their distributors and fear-factor to further their own agenda.

However, should industry leaders cower in light of Predator's, what I like to term as illegal price fixing, then the consumers should vote with their pocket-books and boycott Predator products until such time as to break the back of Predator to remove price fixing tactics from their distributors. In addition, Brunswick, McDermott, Viking and Pechauer are also 'price fixing' to their distributors with the same maximum 20% discount to consumers on advertised pricing (Pechauer 10%). Where will it end?

Where does the problem really begin. I don't think one can fault Predator itself but one needs to look into the background and recent history of the company and its management. This writer believes Predator has lost sight of itself being an American Company. At one time Predator manufactured all its products right here in sunny Jacksonville, Florida. However, to increase profits and produce more product for less money, Predator abandoned American workers and went over seas to Communist China. In dealing with the Communists, perhaps now one can understand Predator's way of thinking and their stance on price fixing as a way of life. Predator needs to wake up and realize that this is the USA and we?re not Communists ruled by a dictator. And, Predator cannot dictate to its distributors at what price they can or cannot sell their products. We have freedom of speech and freedom of choice and freedom to compete without restraint.

Predator Products anyone?

And, that's my two cents worth. Thank you for reading this and I will have no further comments as I?ve devoted just about all the time I want to on this subject. Now it's up to you.

--
Kind Regards,

Joe Barringer

Barringer Custom Cues

Web Site: http://www.BarringerCues.com

P.S. For those of you who want to see who is representing Predator: http://r-f.cc/main.html Pretty impressive but sheer power does not make a wrong into a right.

And remember: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Do the Predator distributors and consumers want to give Predator that power?

And, many of you are probably asking just what sparked my decision to write this? I received this information a while ago and was motivated to write this. I wrote about half and let it fall by the wayside until recently when one of my suppliers wrote me and said that they were enforcing 'price fixing' tactics on products we sold. I told them that they could shove their 'price fixing' tactics where the sun never shines. Their decision inspired me to finish what I had started out to do. No one will ever threaten to cut me off for how I price products that I sell into a free market society. And, if Predator distributors don't do something about this, they can expect other manufacturers to follow suit and impose price fixing restraints on most all their product lines which they carry. The distributors have the investment in inventory and a free enterprise system ensures free competition. Predator would have you believe otherwise. I got the email and so will they. The time to act is sooner than later. The end.
 
Last edited:
I am not even going to read the second and third parts of this post. I tend to not post on threads that I know will get hostile, but I will in this case.

As a new poster on this site BC, perhaps you have been lost in your own little custom world for so long that you have forgotten what keeps this game alive....sponsors. Do you want to take over the sponsorship that Predator gives to our sport?

I really don't care if people like their cues but don't give me the "legal" garbage. Predator has a right to put a minimum on what you can sell their product for. It is called brand management. It is NOT illegal. How much do you pay for a Nike t-shirt? I guarantee no where near cost for either Nike nor the store. It is a 50 cent shirt with 5 cents worth of stitching yet you are ok with paying $29.95? Do not attempt to compare Predator with the major gas companies. At least a Predator price is the same from dealer to dealer and will stay that price overnight!

What would Predator tell is dealers not to sell below a margin? It keeps dealers fair. Less price slashing and wars that would inevitably destroy the brand credentials and eventually find dealers selling at nearly a loss.

In closing, save the hatred for the successful for somewhere else unless you are planning on showing ALL of us what TRUE sport sponsorship is all about and YOU take the role the Predator plays. Lets see how you fare.

And by the way, as a marketing guy, "value added" selling is the most basic form of selling which has no interest in dollar value, hence anyone can do it. Value added selling is based in the premise that quality sells. All you need to sell Predator via "value added" tactics is to show the deflection ratings vs competitor shafts, explain C4 technology, explain the increased use of phenolic in the joints and a variety of other factors that are Predators Unique Selling Features. Grab a marketing class and let me know if your stance doesn't change a bit.

Signed,

Pissed Predator Player
 
Last edited:
5 or 6 years ago when I first started buying cues, I looked at a 3K1 that retailed for about $550.00. A local pool has was selling Predator cues, and quoted me $420.00 on the cue. I went to a billiards store that sells Predator and they wanted $550.00 and wanted to know the name of the place that gave me the $420.00 price so they could report them to Predator. I was appalled and never did business with that store. After that, I noticed that the price of new Predator cues went up on eBay, so I guessed that there was price manipulation going on. Even though I bought the 3K1 for $420.00 it really wasn't worth that much, and it doesn't play very well due to the uni-loc connection. I have a much fancier, new Predator that I aquired in a "distressed" sale, it plays fine, but it really isn't very well constructed compared to cues that are similarly priced.

Predator seems to be in the shaft business, but I prefer shafts by the custom cuebuilder, or even an ob1 or Universal. Another shaft I really like for some reason is the Sharpshooter that came with a cue I picked up on eBay. There is something about the Sharpshooter shaft
 
Last edited:
Pool Sponge

The flaw in your logic. Predator has recently backed out of sponsorsing as many players as they once did. Predator now sponsors only a handfull of players and they are the UPA's chosen few. Kind of ironic how Predator sponsor's UPA events and Dragon Promotions. Another tangled web to bring up at a later date.


As for Barringers Cue's response. Great read. Now is Predator legally capable of dictating what their distributors' sell for. Sadly yes, if you want to be a distributor, and new Predator products can only be sold through Predator distributor. Now can they dictate what a Predator product sells for on the secondary market, NO!!! Is this right that Predator has repeatedly increased prices and lowered manufacturing costs, Yes and NO. Will Predator eventually lose market share by over-pricing their products, likely, but it will takes years to see the down-ward slide. Is Predator going to be hurt by a few lost customers, NO. Will Predator hurt as a company if it loses a majority of its customers, YES. The easy way is for the distributors to stand their ground and claim that this is their business. We control our prices. We buy your product and make our own set profit margins. That is what the distributors must do to stand their ground. Now this coin flip works both ways. Distributors could increase their sale prices above Predator's MSRP.

In conclusion: Predator has increased prices above inflation while constantly lowering production costs. Are we still recieving similiar or better products from Predator? My opinion is NO!!! Predator came out with the P-1 series after moving from a Jacksonville built product(the original series) to Canada( the P-1 series). Than from Canada(P-1 series) to China(P-2 series). My opinion the easiest way to cover-up a difference of product quality is to change by discontinuing a series and making a new series. Does each shaft play different? YES!!! Which one hits better? My personal opinion is the ORIGINAL SERIES. Has quality falling with each product change? Yes!! Are their more defects and cheaper construction techniques today? Yes!!

Can this debate go on forever? YES
 
i read most of that quickly and it looks like a Sherman Anti-trust case to me in the real world however they are a small fish in the business world and whos gonna bring the case foward, its too small in the grand scheme of things and their cues suck anyways.
 
eventually find dealers selling at nearly a loss.

There is always a settling point on anything for sale...Maybe their cues are not selling for x number of dollars...Does that mean the business's are supposed to just sit on the cue...Predator already got their price that they wanted for the cue and now you say that business's selling their cues just has to suck it up and wait for that right person to come along and pay what Predator thinks is a fair price... Get real...Don
 
Are as angry at apple for them controlling the price of their porducts.....
same thing....


they can restrict their 314 prices as much as they want ...its their product...if the price is way to high.. then the market will correct it..people will stop buying all together or cheaper good at equal value hit the market.

Shane <-----has bigger fish to fry
 
JoeyInCali said:
Bose and Saturn control their retail prices.
So, what's new?
Click to expand...

PING (golf clubs) has one of the most stringent pricing polocies out there. They are known for pulling accounts from retailers after sending in their own people to haggle....
 
Also not going to read all that . . .

But , sounds like little more than MAP. Manufactures have been doing these things for years , ultimately trying to protect thier 'good' dealers and keep the fly by nights and garage dealers from setting up shop , cutting overone else out and then taking thier money and leaving the pricing mess for everyone else to clean up.

Same reason why most don't warranty Flea bay buys and other similar detrimental situations to long term legit business. Like everything else , if you don't like it don't sell their product.

:)

If . . . I understood the jist of the post wrong , then nevermind. :D
 
BarringerCues said:
Resale price maintenance agreements can help to reinforce the competition-inhibiting behavior of firms in concentrated industries. .........
Click to expand...

.....I got no clue whether you are right or wrong but if you want to get people on your side you are going to have to present it much differently. I am not reading that and I bet I am not alone.

Perhaps BOLD your main conclusions and support it with the crap no one is going to read.
 
comparing the gasoline and predators pricing structure is just "apples & oranges". nothing to compare. those of us in the billiards retailing business know that we get most price lists with 4 tier pricing. (1)MSRP or retail,
(2)MAP or Minimum Advertised Price, (3)wholesale, and (4)quantity wholesale.

we are told we cannot be a dealer for said products if we "Advertise" them in a media (print, radio,www). this has nothing to do with making a deal for a lot less than the 20% or 25% discount allowed by MAP.

the transaction between a retailer and his customer is not defined by law as "Advertising", so a lot of Barringer's rant has no basis in fact.

cues are not in a constant flux at the wholesale level as crude oil is, so the comparison is ludacris.

the only thing that I see in Predator's pricing structure would be the government charging somebody in the marketing pipeline with making an unfair profit. not gonna happen, cause there's not a national security issue and people can live without a Predator cue/shaft. gas is something we can't presently live without and we all know what happened when congress investigated that industry: NOTHING ! :mad:
 
Actually some manufacturers have unilateral pricing which means that the retailer is unable to even sell it below a certain price without losing their ability to carry the product. Someone mentioned Bose Corporation; they've been unilaterally priced for years.

MAP (minimum advertised pricing) has been around for many years, in dozens of industries, and will continue to be so for many more in the future. If you've purchased a car, golf clubs, billiard equipment, electronics or clothing as a consumer, you've likely purchased goods that were MAP priced.

The way for a manufacturer to beat it? Make a superior product at a lower price. For the customer to beat it? Don't buy manufacturers' product that are priced this way. (Good luck with that if you care to buy something of quality.)

If you, as a manufacturer, are surprised by this, it just means you haven't been around sales for very long. Sorry to shock you.

Brian in VA
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Schon, Pechauer and other cue manufacturers ask (require?) their retailers to advertise at no less than 20% off msrp. Don't know how Predator's practice differs from these other makers.

Like most responders, I seriously doubt if Predator's practice is illegal. If they can sell at the fixed price, more power to them. I certainly won't buy one of their products new, when there are so many nearly new productions on the secondary market, and when there are so many talented custom cue makers selling their cues for less than Predator.
 
supreme court

Fatboy said:
i read most of that quickly and it looks like a Sherman Anti-trust case to me in the real world however they are a small fish in the business world and whos gonna bring the case foward, its too small in the grand scheme of things and their cues suck anyways.
Click to expand...


The supreme court just ruled in a similar case and said what predator is doing is legal. I think the case had to do with hand bags.
 
I think thats why you dont see alot of Pool halls selling Predator products, alot of thier sales are from internet selling.

I personally wouldnt buy a Predator cue, because for the same price you can get a good custom cue, that isnt made over in China.

I also have seen a pool hall try to sell the BK1 and had the price set at 399$ well the cue sat there for months on end, untill the owner sold it for 300$ which is basically the same price you can get online.
 
I have read only the posts barringer posted and the one after it so please bear with me, I'll read all the other posts asap, but I feel that I must reply now but I am way too tired to read the whole thread through (it's 23:40 here). Sorry again.

What I have to say about all that you said is that it appears to be an attempt to have a kick/offend (or whatever, I am lack of proper expressions) on Predator.
My first concern is that throughout your post you say everywhere: PREDATOR. However you mention other brands ["Brunswick, McDermott, Viking and Pechauer"] there too, but you won't mention them anywhere else. This is why I reckon that you are trying to offend Predator and not anyone else.

Secondly, I am quite sure, that many have mentioned it before me, but there are countless other companies who do EXACTLY the same. In Hungary if I want to open a McDonald's restaurant I'll have to buy the license of it, have to have McDonald's accept the place where I want to open my restaurant ( for e.g. they won't let me open a McD. in the middle of the Big-Plain, a.k.a. Alf?ld in Hungary ). And finally they WILL tell me how much can I ask for a cheeseburger. And can I stand up and say that "Screw you McDonald's, I want to open a restaurant of your in the middle of nowhere and sell hamburgers for 12 cents?" No I can't.

Finally, I feel quite pointless with all that "support-America-and-screw-everyone-else-who-manufactures-something-abroad". I do know that I definitely won't get more popular with that statement and I am sorry if I hurt anyone's feeling. But if I were Chinese I'd say that it is offending and insulting to say that me, a Communist should stay unemployed just because I work for less money than you do - and meanwhile I do my job at the same level like you.
Do you know what is going on this country? Many of the world's very best doctors and surgeons and scientists were and are Hungarian and what did they do and do even today? They are going abroad, especially to AMERICA. And we don't say here that "ooohh screw The States and everyone in it", we are working (or at least starting to work) hard on getting all those men and women stay here.

If, for example, the 'writer' and author of this thread wouldn't be working hard on trying to offend a company that is mainly in his own country perhaps all would be a bit better.
And I am not saying this because I have any problems with you, Barringercues, I am saying it because what I see here, in my poor and shameful country is that all the 10 million inhabitants living here are trying to get one another's works go crap, they want to dupe, to con each other's jobs and lives.
If you, in The States start doing the same, you'll in just as deep s**t as Hungary is right now.
And I don't want to see you in that trouble as I really want to work in America and not here, in Hungary...

Sorry if I've been too long and once again, all I intend is to warn you before it's too late. And I would like to ask for your excuse and oversight if I hurt you with anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top