First Brands (Fram) bankruptcy

[ZeeOSix]

There is nothing specifically "capitalistic" about lowering quality. It happens in every system.

The point is, any capitalistically ran company will always look for ways to reduce the cost of making the product. The whole driving force of capitalism is to make as much profit and ideally grow a company while doing that. Cutting quality of a product is a way of doing that to a certain degree, and it's often used and pushed to the limits in some cases. Of course if that tactic is pushed too far it can backfire. So It is pretty specific to capitalism. How else are you going to lower costs of making a product and still sell it for the same price, or even maybe for more in an economy experiencing undue inflation.

Now compare the PG filters made in China (decidedly not capitalism) to the stuff currently being made by First Brands and M&H. The CCP made stuff is superior.

Even companies outside of this country are ran to maximize profits if they are not governmental controlled. The wholesale cost of said products of course depend on other factors, such as the cost of labor and doing business in said countries, and of course "trade laws". But the fact is, any business is capitalistic at it's core because the goal (beside that of a charity organization) is to maximize profits. That's the core of running a capitalistic company. Would anyone here run a company that the goal is not to maximize profits without destroying the company?

The only and proper definition of capitalism is that the market allows participants to make decisions on their own - without outside interference. First Brands chose to make lousy filters, while the Chinese chose (were told?) not to. Capitalism had little to do with either choice.

Obviously there is a lot more going on with First Brands than just a failure at capitalism. Bad business decisions and outright law breaking and embellishment isn't part of actual capitalism last time I checked ... maybe it is in the "new economy", lol.

 

[SC Maintenance]

The point is, any capitalistically ran company will always look for ways to reduce the cost of making the product. The whole driving force of capitalism is to make as much profit and ideally grow a company while doing that. Cutting quality of a product is a way of doing that to a certain degree, and it's often used and pushed to the limits in some cases. Of course if that tactic is pushed too far it can backfire. So It is pretty specific to capitalism. How else are you going to lower costs of making a product and still sell it for the same price, or even more due to say an economy experiencing undue inflation.

Again, this is not a function of capitalism. A free market company will want to maximize profit. They can do this by selling high quality at a higher price, making the same quality at a lower price (improved efficiency), or cut costs (ie shrinkflation as one example). Or doing some combination of all 3. Capitalism had nothing specifically to do with First Brands collapse - either the fraud or the quality decline.

There is nothing inherently capitalistic about cutting quality. It does happen often, but in every system. Its typically the lazy way out. The best companies improve quality and lower cost - which is the basic definition of productivity - output of GDP per unit of labor.

 

[Pablo]

Again, this is not a function of capitalism. A free market company will want to maximize profit. They can do this by selling high quality at a higher price, making the same quality at a lower price (improved efficiency), or cut costs (ie shrinkflation as one example). Or doing some combination of all 3. Capitalism had nothing specifically to do with First Brands collapse - either the fraud or the quality decline.

There is nothing inherently capitalistic about cutting quality. It does happen often, but in every system. Its typically the lazy way out. The best companies improve quality and lower cost - which is the basic definition of productivity - output of GDP per unit of labor.

View attachment 305934

Excellent points. Well made

 

[ZeeOSix]

Again, this is not a function of capitalism. A free market company will want to maximize profit. They can do this by selling high quality at a higher price, making the same quality at a lower price (improved efficiency), or cut costs (ie shrinkflation as one example). Or doing some combination of all 3. Capitalism had nothing specifically to do with First Brands collapse - either the fraud or the quality decline.

Cutting corners to reduce cost is one tactic that's specific to capitalism - regardless of them trying to make production more efficient and cranking out more products per man-hour. If those two things balance out some what (more efficiency work force helps the impact of more costly materials for example) , then it's a plus for the company. In today's economy, trying to make things with more quality and maybe therefore more expensive to manufacture (like paying more for better materials), then selling at a higher price won't fly too well in today's economic environment. You think if Fram brought back the Ultra and made it even better than before and it cost $20+ a pop that many people would buy that? I don't.

I never said the failure of First Brands was a direct result of it's poorly ran capitalism tactics, although it could have played a part. When a company decreases the quality of their products while increasing the price at the same time it certainly can have an impact on their profits and their success or failure. Just look at what Boeing went through with some obvious design and quality issues - major blow to their bottom line.

There is nothing inherently capitalistic about cutting quality. It does happen often, but in every system. Its typically the lazy way out. The best companies improve quality and lower cost - which is the basic definition of productivity - output of GDP per unit of labor.

Sure, a company can improve quality if there's an inherent issue with it to begin with, by improving design, materials and manufacturing processes ... but, that typically involves spending company profits to make those improvements, and that could force an increase in the price of product in the end. You can't make big changes like that for no internal money spending.

Cutting quality of a product to reduce the manufacturing cost, then selling that product at the same price or even a higher price is truly a capitalistic business tactic. First Brands/Fram clearly did that with the Fram Ultra filter as we all saw unfold here. It happens all the time, and it's happening more than ever since 2020 from you know what, and other aspects of the current economy. Tell me what product you're getting that's the same of better quality at the same price it was 2 or 3 years ago.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Cutting corners to reduce cost is one tactic that's specific to capitalism

This is absolutely not specific to capitalism as I have shown already through examples. Clearly you just hate capitalism. Not much point in continuing the discussion after that.

 

[ZeeOSix]

This is absolutely not specific to capitalism as I have shown already through examples. Clearly you just hate capitalism. Not much point in continuing the discussion after that.

Regardless of how you define it, one main driving force of a capitalistic business it to maximize profits. The word "innovate" in the statement below certainly can involve corner cutting to reduce production costs, and possibly quality of the product sold at the same price or even at an increased price. It's not "hating" capitalism (your projecting now), it's a tactic and a fact of capitalism that's used by some companies.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Regardless of how you define it, one main driving force of a capitalistic business it to maximize profits. The word "innovate" in the statement below certainly can involve corner cutting to reduce production costs, and possibly quality of the product sold at the same price or even at an increased price. It's not "hating" capitalism (your projecting now), it's a tactic and a fact of capitalism that's used by some companies.

View attachment 305959

Well if you want your google AI model to give you the proper answer - then you need to ask the proper questions.

I suggest ditching your AI fake answers and read some Adam Smith or Milton Friedman.

Capitalism is simply a free market with minimal government intervention, where participants can pursue their own ideas - which are often motivated by profit, for better or worse. It makes no promises - of quality or anything else. But it is not the only system of markets that produces lousy quality or cost cutting. Look no further than Chernobyl for a classic corner cutting example.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Well if you want your google AI model to give you the proper answer - then you need to ask the proper questions.

I suggest ditching your AI fake answers and read some Adam Smith or Milton Friedman.

Capitalism is simply a free market with minimal government intervention, where participants can pursue their own ideas - which are often motivated by profit, for better or worse. It makes no promises - of quality or anything else. But it is not the only system of markets that produces lousy quality or cost cutting. Look no further than Chernobyl for a classic corner cutting example.

Your "definition" of capitalism isn't in the direct/focused context of this discussion, except for the bold part about profit. Cutting corners is what a capitalistic ran company might do to maintain or increase profits. That's the main focus and context here.

The definition you gave of: "Capitalism is simply a free market with minimal government intervention, where participants can pursue their own ideas - which are often motivated by profit, for better or worse" is broad and correct. BUT, just as I and ol' searching says, capitalism is motivated by profit, just as you have said in your definition, and I have said many times. So seems we agree there, and that's the focus and context of my comments from the beginning. It's a fact that cost cutting and product quality can be decreased to maintain or even increase profits (until it backfires and hurts sales and profits), and it clearly is specific to a capitalistic ran company, and always will be. Even a kid running a lemon aid stand can practice these tactics to make more profits.

"Capitalism is simply a free market with minimal government intervention, where participants can pursue their own ideas - which are often motivated by profit, for better or worse"

A capitalistic ran company in a free market can "pursue their own ideas" on how to cut corners because they are motivated by profit. Pretty simple to see that cutting corners on the product can be used as a tactic that's "motivated by profit".

 

[GW.]

Profit or power. It doesn’t matter what the system is. Scumbags will be scumbags. Unfortunately it’s human nature. This is heading towards a

 

[KEVINK0000]

In before this gets locked. Sorry guys.

Again, calling this Capitalism is incorrect. It’s like calling a Corolla a truck. This was value diminishment, not value addition. Not creation of wealth, destruction of wealth. There are other names for this.

 

[ZeeOSix]

This is heading towards a

It shouldn't be ... no real politics involved in this discussion. It's discussing how companies and the economy operates. Not any different than all the discussions in the "Investor's Blog" thread.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Again, calling this Capitalism is incorrect.

Do some more research of what the underlying backbone of capitalism is, which is highly motivated by profits. Pretty much any source will tell you that. If the motivation of running a capitalistic company isn't for making profits, what's their "real" motivation?

 

[KEVINK0000]

I suggest the same for yourself, friend

Do some more research of what the underlying backbone of capitalism is.

 

[Pablo]

In before this gets locked. Sorry guys.

Again, calling this Capitalism is incorrect. It’s like calling a Corolla a truck. This was value diminishment, not value addition. Not creation of wealth, destruction of wealth. There are other names for this.

Theft happens when humans are involved in all systems

 

[ZeeOSix]

I suggest the same for yourself, friend

That's all you got? The main goal of making profit and how to achieve it is the focus of my comments. It's not hard to realize that a capitalistic ran company can cut corners and decrease quality due to the way the management wants to make business decisions and operate the company - even the kid running a lemon aid stand can do decision making exercises like that. Pretty easy to understand that how a company operates is connected to the goal of making and ideally maximizing profits and keeping the company operating or growing.

 

[SC Maintenance]

That's all you got? The main goal of making profit and how to achieve it is the focus of my comments. It's not hard to realize that a capitalistic ran company can cut corners and decrease quality due to the way the management wants to make business decisions and operate the company - even the kid running a lemon aid stand can do decision making exercises like that. Pretty easy to understand that how a company operates is connected to the goal of making and ideally maximizing profits and keeping the company operating or growing.

I don't think anyone is arguing that part.

However you seem to think this is a specific trait of capitalistic systems - and its not. It can happen in any system. In fact, I would say capitalism is the fastest system for punishing those companies that eat their own seed corn because when someone screws up there are many other people ready to swoop in to compete. For example specific to Fram, who heard of Premium Guard and there variants 3 years ago? Do you think they would be getting as much shelf space as they are if Fram had continued making a quality product?

 

[ZeeOSix]

I don't think anyone is arguing that part.

That's the only part I'm focusing my comments on ... that fact that a capitalistic ran company in a free economy can make the management decision to reduce quality (and size if applicable) of any product if they so choose to in order to make more profit. Simple as that. Yet, people are trying to disagree with that statement, even though they come around and say they do agree that's possible. It's plain and simple, a company operates to make money and profit and they can do basically anything they want short of breaking any laws to try and make more profit. That's the basic definition of capitalism ... you gave that definition in post 220 and 227.

Post 220: "The only and proper definition of capitalism is that the market allows participants to make decisions on their own - without outside interference."

"Make decision on their own" ...
Translation: Made the decision to cut corners and reduce quality to reduce manufacturing cost and thereby keeping profits the same or possibly even increasing profits.

Post 227: "Capitalism is simply a free market with minimal government intervention, where participants can pursue their own ideas - which are often motivated by profit, for better or worse. It makes no promises - of quality or anything else."

"Where participants can peruse their own ideas - which are often motivated by profits" ...
Translation: Made the decision to cut corners and reduce quality to reduce manufacturing cost and thereby keeping profits the same or possibly even increasing profits.

This is what I have been saying all along in this thread ... that's been my focus and context in the discussion.. So where's the disagreement?

However you seem to think this is a specific trait of capitalistic systems - and its not.

It certainly can be a trait in a capitalistic system, as explained. Do you think no company has ever made a decision to reduce the quality of a product in order to keep making profit on the sale of that product? We say it happen with the Fram Ultra oil filter - many thread all about that. If you agree that they can and do, then you agree with my viewpoint and comments about that specific aspect of capitalism.

Do you agree, yea or no, that a capitalistic ran company can make decisions to cut corners and decrease the quality of the product to help maintain or increase profits? From the two quoted statements of yours in post 220 and 227 (as shown above) I'd say the answer is yes. Those two statements you made in post 220 and 227 is basically what I've said all along.

It can happen in any system. In fact, I would say capitalism is the fastest system for punishing those companies that eat their own seed corn because when someone screws up there are many other people ready to swoop in to compete. For example specific to Fram, who heard of Premium Guard and there variants 3 years ago? Do you think they would be getting as much shelf space as they are if Fram had continued making a quality product?

Well, there ya go - an example of what I'm saying about cutting quality. Again, the example of Fram/First Brands changing the Ultra and Titanium made people here lose their minds and many have now jumped over to the PGI filters because the construction and quality is superior and the performance is pretty close to what the OG Ultra was. This is exactly what I'm saying about a capitalistic ran company making changes to maintain or increase profits. You know the changes made to the Ultra was driven by bottom line profits ... why else would they change it? You saw the aspect of capitalism I'm describing happen right here on BITOG with an oil filter that was super popular here, and now nobody in the know cares about it anymore.

 

[SC Maintenance]

That's the only part I'm focusing my comments on ... that fact that a capitalistic ran company in a free economy can make the management decision to reduce quality (and size if applicable) of any product if they so choose to in order to make more profit. Simple as that. Yet, people are trying to disagree with that statement, even though they come around and say they do agree that's possible. It's plain and simple, a company operates to make money and profit and they can do basically anything they want short of breaking any laws to try and make more profit. That's the basic definition of capitalism ... you gave that definition in post 220 and 227.

Post 220: "The only and proper definition of capitalism is that the market allows participants to make decisions on their own - without outside interference."

"Make decision on their own" ...
Translation: Made the decision to cut corners and reduce quality to reduce manufacturing cost and thereby keeping profits the same or possibly even increasing profits.

Post 227: "Capitalism is simply a free market with minimal government intervention, where participants can pursue their own ideas - which are often motivated by profit, for better or worse. It makes no promises - of quality or anything else."

"Where participants can peruse their own ideas - which are often motivated by profits" ...
Translation: Made the decision to cut corners and reduce quality to reduce manufacturing cost and thereby keeping profits the same or possibly even increasing profits.

This is what I have been saying all along in this thread ... that's been my focus and context in the discussion.. So where's the disagreement?


It certainly can be a trait in a capitalistic system, as explained. Do you think no company has ever made a decision to reduce the quality of a product in order to keep making profit on the sale of that product? We say it happen with the Fram Ultra oil filter - many thread all about that. If you agree that they can and do, then you agree with my viewpoint and comments about that specific aspect of capitalism.

Do you agree, yea or no, that a capitalistic ran company can make decisions to cut corners and decrease the quality of the product to help maintain or increase profits? From the two quoted statements of yours in post 220 and 227 (as shown above) I'd say the answer is yes. Those two statements you made in post 220 and 227 is what I've said all along.


Well, there ya go. Again, the example of Fram/First Brands changing the Ultra and Titanium made people here lose their minds and many have now jumped over the the PGI filters because the constrution and quality is superior and the performance is pretty close to what the OG Ultra was. This is exacly what I'm saying about a capitalistic ran company making changes to maintain or increase profits. You know the changes made to the Ultra was driven by bottom line profits ... why else would they change it? You saw the aspect of capitalism I'm descrobing happen right here on BITOG with an oil filter that was super popular here, and now nobody in the know cares about it anymore.

The fact First Brands did what they did is not a function specific to capitalism.

Your continued long winded rants about "capitalistic system" simply proves your mis-placed bias.

I should have quit long ago.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The fact First Brands did what they did is not a function specific to capitalism.

Why do you think they changed the Ultra if is wasn't meant to keep the profit margin up on that filter? The shenanigans going on with this First Brands bankruptcy issue is far beyond how a capitalistic ran company should operate. My focus and context is on the corner cutting aspect of what a capitalistic company can (and does) do in order to maintain profits, especially in the latest economic environment. If you don't see that, then don't know where you're coming from or what you're real argument in this discussion is.

Your continued long winded rants about "capitalistic system" simply proves your mis-placed bias.

I should have quit long ago.

I have to be long winded sometimes to make people understand when they can't get it after repeated explanations. You didn't answer my yes or no question in post 238 - what's the answer to the question? Based on your own comments in post 220 and 227 you obviously agree with the focus of my comments because what you said is basically what I've said all along, that capitalism is driven by the goal to make profit, even if that means to make the free decision by company management to cut corners and decrease the quality of the product. It's a pretty simple aspect of free capitalism. Operate too much and far into that product quality cutting and it could backfire on the ones who make the decision to do so for the goal of profit.

 

[autoapprentice]

Clearing out the stock