Gun maker Colt files for bankruptcy amid tough US market

[laklak]

Colt rested on their laurels. Their weapons were generally far pricier than those coming out of Ruger or Bushmaster., and they've had continuing quality issues. Their response to the Obama Gun Windfall reads like a primer for how not to run a firearm company. Actually, their entire corporate history reads like that, from their founding. Shame to see an American icon is such straits, but stupid management is as stupid management does. Didn't help that the then CEO lobbied for strict gun control laws in the 90s, that pissed off a lot of gun people and they have long memories. No great loss, plenty of other gun manufacturers are doing great.

[Svartalf]

interesting insights, thanks

[klr]

Colt rested on their laurels. Their weapons were generally far pricier than those coming out of Ruger or Bushmaster., and they've had continuing quality issues. Their response to the Obama Gun Windfall reads like a primer for how not to run a firearm company. Actually, their entire corporate history reads like that, from their founding. Shame to see an American icon is such straits, but stupid management is as stupid management does. Didn't help that the then CEO lobbied for strict gun control laws in the 90s, that pissed off a lot of gun people and they have long memories. No great loss, plenty of other gun manufacturers are doing great.

Sounds a bit like Kodak, just not keeping up with the times, and placing too much faith in brand loyalty and outdated products.

[mistermack]

I've always thought that this business of credit is ludicrous.

Why should big companies be able to get such credit from their suppliers? I suppose it's a form of begging on the part of the supplier.
I would give them an option. Pay as you go, for one price, or pay on credit, for a higher price, with the difference going to insurance on the debt. Like the bail-bond insurance scheme.

The insurance companies would be better placed to calculate the financial health of a company, and thus the level of premiums, or whether to refuse insurance.

Companies living on the edge would find themselves having to pay up front, which would be better for everyone.

Employees ought to be covered by similar insurance by law. So they get paid, if the company goes under.

[Forty Two]

I've always thought that this business of credit is ludicrous.

Why should big companies be able to get such credit from their suppliers?

Because in a free society, free people can contract at arms length to lend/borrow money on terms agreeable to them?

I suppose it's a form of begging on the part of the supplier.
I would give them an option. Pay as you go, for one price, or pay on credit, for a higher price, with the difference going to insurance on the debt. Like the bail-bond insurance scheme.

And, you'd be free to do so. Other people could do otherwise.

[mistermack]

Your point being what, exactly?

I did already know people are free to do all that. It's common knowledge.

I said I find the system of giving credit to huge companies ludicrous. Not compulsory.

There is a sort of compulsion, along the lines of ''take it or leave it'' , and of course, suppliers are free to ''leave it''. But they won't get much business that way.

It's a hang-over from the days of aristocracy, when rich people demanded credit from the poor.
It's still happening that way. If the poor want credit, they pay through the nose for it.

And getting your wages paid at the end of a month is the same thing. You are required to work a month, and give the company four weeks credit. Again, you are free to take it, or leave it, if you don't want a job.

It's not as free a choice as you make out.

[Forty Two]

Your point being what, exactly?

Just to answer your question. You asked "why?"

I did already know people are free to do all that. It's common knowledge.

Yes, but you asked why. And, the reason is that if you want to have a free society, you have to allow people the freedom to make arms length transactions.

I said I find the system of giving credit to huge companies ludicrous. Not compulsory.

Well, you asked why they should be able to get that kind of credit.

There is a sort of compulsion, along the lines of ''take it or leave it'' , and of course, suppliers are free to ''leave it''. But they won't get much business that way.

That depends on the industry and the supplier. If the buyer needs the supplies badly enough, the suppliers can set the terms.

It's a hang-over from the days of aristocracy, when rich people demanded credit from the poor.
It's still happening that way. If the poor want credit, they pay through the nose for it.

Which makes perfect sense, because they present the largest risk of default. If I have a choice to lend money to a poor person or a rich person, I'll lend to the rich person any day of the week. I'll have to charge him less interest, because he can go somewhere else to find a willing lender. Someone with low income (or a lot of debt as compared to income) is not going to get as favorable a rate as someone with a high income (or low debt compared to income) because of the obvious risk.

Why in the world should it be otherwise?

Now, if you didn't want a free credit market, you could always distort the market by forcing lenders to charge high risk borrowers the same as low risk borrowers. But, it seems rather unfair to do that -- someone who is low risk shouldn't have to pay as much for credit as someone that is high risk, should they?

And getting your wages paid at the end of a month is the same thing. You are required to work a month, and give the company four weeks credit. Again, you are free to take it, or leave it, if you don't want a job.

Very true. Although some positions offer signing bonuses - and even things like lump sum moving expenses paid, down payments on houses and such. There is up front money. These are not the norm, of course, because to get that you have to have some bargaining power, which means someone is going to feel that they need to pay you in order to get what they want. If you are just one out of many available people to fill the position, I'm not sure why anyone would pay you in advance for work you didn't do.

It's no different than when we hire someone to come and fix your air conditioner or roof. You don't pay the guy until they've done the work, or at least you don't pay the guy everything -- you may put a deposit down, but you'd be crazy to pay the guy first, on the if/come that he's going to come and do the work.

There doesn't seem to be anything manifestly wrong about that.

It's not as free a choice as you make out.

This relates to the definition of "free choice." Free choice doesn't mean that people don't have relative disparities in bargaining power. It's in the nature of a free market that some people will be able to bargain for better rates than others. Some folks won't have any bargaining power. I don't even try to bargain with the post office for the price of a stamp, or the 7-11 Store for the price of a Pepsi. The supermarket sets prices, and no matter how hard I try, i can't get them to budge on the price of chicken per pound. The rat basterds!

[mistermack]

Are you a sock puppet?

[pErvinalia]

I suspect he's Seth.

[mistermack]

I suspect he's Seth.

Me too. Unless it's Coito reincarnated.

I think Seth is getting touchy about his own self-label of troll.
Seth, if you want to un-troll, just stop trolling, and remove the label.

[pErvinalia]

Oh yeah, it could be Coito. Reads more like Coito than Seth. But I also concur with what you are saying about Seth. I've thought for a little while now he is regretting being proud about being a troll. He discovered that no one takes trolls seriously. Oops.