Tragedy of the Commons

I applaud your knowledge on the various doctrines, but find it irrelevant in this case. I simply quoted from the one religion with which I am familiar and do not pretend to offer a thesis in any of my chats. They are my just my personal observations without recourse to a golden rulebook. However I'm happy that others can google pedantic details, or even draw on their superior learning without being critical of them.

 

Rule@18. Knowledge of how to be civilized has been around for a while. I suspect it arrived with agriculture, but those folkks were not initially big on writing.

For full adoption, or humans performing to (this new) spec. we can only urge further patient waiting.

 

#iplug. I'm afraid we must differ on what we see as relevant. The quotation was from a source familiar to me and of the others I know little or nothing. My comments were not aimed at people from faiths beyond my ken but apologised in advance for any offence I may have inadvertently caused.

 

Back in early Prius days, more than a few free replacements to traction batteries and steering assemblies were done by Toyota. Including a few initiated at this very web site . Feeds into 'reliability reputation' idea above.

 

they are still being done today. unfortunately, from the info we get here, it can be difficult to tell if toyota makes its decisions arbitrarily, or if there is a method to their madness.

 

I'll also return something that is labeled as suitable for the intended purpose, but turns out to be unsuitable. E.g. an accessory that was clearly labeled as Windows Compatible, but I could not get it to function after two days of work. So looked up Microsoft's own list of certified Windows Compatible hardware devices, and found the device in question to be very clearly absent. (Some other similar devices of the same brand were on the official MS list.) So returned it, and pointed to that conflict between the label and the official MS list as a reason why I should be exempt from the retailer's restocking fee. They agreed.

 

I had hoped that no one would be, but it seems I myself was offended by your apparent intervention on my behalf. I'm sorry if I overreacted, but nowadays, political correctness has gone into turbo-overdrive. Someone apologising to everyone and his uncle on my behalf is objectionable, unqualified and unnecessary...
But! I apologise if you were upset by my repost. Truce?

 

Can somebody please translate this whole thread into English for me? No need for all the fancy talk.

The only thing I understood, is a guy bought a suit, and then returned it after the wedding. Right?

Why didn't I think of that!!

 

You did, but your brand new wife said NO! Remember?

 

Much worse, is the irresponsible people that stupidly (or purposely) over-extend themselves financially, run up all kinds of personal debt, and then go off and declare Chapter-13 bankruptcy! Have all their debt wiped off the books.

Then they'd do it again a few years later. Not sure if the courts still allow that, but I knew people in the 1990's that declared bankruptcy twice, and got away with it.

 

I wonder, in terms of (frequency of occurrence) ✕ (social cost per occurrence), which would come out the bigger deal?

-Chap

 

They both stink.

 

I was listening to Quirks and Quarks on CBC radio, they were discussing how the more you lie the easier it becomes, less physiological stress.

Maybe applicable to bankruptcy too?

 

I think in the original situation as outlined by the OP the evaluation is pretty easy.

One needs to look at the intent of the offered money back guarantee.
Retailers aren't in the business of renting suits, or providing free loans of clothing.

Conceivably the person "borrowing" the suit, isn't unhappy with the suit for any reason, other than they feel they don't really need one, and it's the cheapest way for them personally to obtain usage for a singular event. But as pointed out, that's what rentals are for.

Therefore, I think the action is wrong.

Even with money back guarantees, or lenient return policies, goods are sold with the idea that people are legitimately purchasing the item with the intent of obtaining long term, permanent ownership. The majority of consumers follow this pattern.

I've heard of people that however DO abuse return policies. Even so much as people "purchasing" big screen TV's for The Superbowl, only to return them ASAP after the game.

It seems pretty simple to me however, although many retailers offer a 100% satisfaction return policy, it is obviously not offered with the intent of giving people Free Access to goods rental.
People that abuse this loophole? Are abusing the system. Yes, this eventually results in higher costs for those that are HONESTLY purchasing with the intent of really owning those same said goods.

I don't see much of a question connected. It is wrong.

The fact that it's relatively easy to do, and perhaps many people do it? Doesn't make it right.

 

Maybe business needs some sort of "returns" score, like a credit score. But yeah, more Big Brother lies that way.

I know when I've return things at a local hardware store they ask for my name and phone number. I'm thinking they want to get a sense if you've got a justifiable reason, or doing this regularly as a ruse.

 

This is embarrassing to admit, but I rented a suit for my wedding! I've never owned one, and never thought I would need one... And I'm glad I never bought one, because of all the weight changes I've gone thru.

One good thing, a lot of those returned items are sold at a discount to other people. (But I don't think I would buy a computer that was returned.) Those retailers that have such a liberal return policy, I guess they don't mind, or they write it off, or something.

 

Long, long ago, I had a friend whose kitchen had a more or less complete set of flatware bearing various airline logos. You can tell how long ago this was, because it was when airlines not only served actual meals on planes, but served them on plates, with metal flatware.

My friend insisted that (a) they buy in such quantities, the cost to them is negligible compare to what we pay at retail, and (b) they surely assume the passengers are going to walk off with it.

I ended up being curious enough to call an airline. After being routed around for a while to someone who had any clue what I was asking about, I got someone who gave me a ballpark on what they paid for the stuff, which was a little less, but not much less, than I had paid for my very plain set at Meijers ... and also, they owned replating equipment, for when their plated flatware began wearing thin. The airline ... owned replating equipment.

They (diplomatically?) declined to directly address my question about whether they expect passengers to walk off with the flatware ... but I guessed you don't invest in equipment to replate your worn flatware, unless you're hoping to have it for a while.

-Chap