Word Play: Schemes And Scams

Every scam is a scheme, but not every scheme is a scam.

Scheme

/noun/

- a large-scale systematic plan or arrangement for attaining some particular object or putting a particular idea into effect.

Scam

/noun/

- a dishonest scheme; a fraud.

These two terms are largely used in business vernacular, with and without political overtones.

Besides the issues of equitable pay, a better distribution of wealth, concepts of man's ownership of nature, and other things yet to be resolved regarding one man's irresponsible greed or a man's lack of responsibility... let us consider the image I snapped of some shorts I bought earlier this year.

I censored the brand name and store name to highlight some points, one being pricing.

Another point: despite man's inherent failures, schemes and scams are intertwined and sometimes play both a positive and a negative role not always clear.

How any such thing is viewed as wholly or partially positive / negative depends on interpretations and understanding.

Understanding is unique to the individual... and not all individuals agree with the interpretations and understandings of others... despite definitions and popular or persistent sentiments.

A business model bound by law and intended to be ethical (a scheme) is to provide goods at a competitive and reasonable price, portraying an inherent value reflected in price, and all parties involved receive a return for their labor or involvement.

This is the perfect scenario scheme, but such is not always the case in this world.

Price difference.

The business reality (schemes riddled with scams passed off as dignified schemes) is that the shorts are made at such a lower cost basis that there is a profit still realized even at $8.00 instead of $38.00.

Of course, I purchased the shorts from a reseller (an entity who purchased the items, at a discount, from another retailer).

The actual cost of the shorts (per unit) is unknown to me... and unless I was in the business myself, I won't likely find out.

But I would guess they are, with all costs considered en mass, less than $1.00 per unit... and likely under $0.50 per unit.

That is a very low threshold considering that both machines and human labor compliment and also compete in production.

A sad fact of this world the race to lower prices and sales... or is it?

Depends on who you ask.

This is why it is so vital 'how' a person measures themselves and what is defined as 'worth' when it comes to things outside and beyond the human body, even things we are somehow convinced we need or want.

It is a scam when man measures themselves according to metrics of production and business... this being a faulty logic of man argued as rational... yet this scam is widely accepted as 'normal'.

For the original seller(s), $38.00 is an obviously better goal... while the consumer would rather buy at $8.00 when compared to $38.00.

As to how much of a discount (or possible loss) went to the original seller when they sold this inventory to the discount retailer is also an unknown to me.

I am not making an argument for or against the current schemes and scams of the business world, nor about prices and wages and economic slavery, but rather the fact that these numbers and business ideas are largely relative... and always changing.

Relative

/adjective/

- considered in relation or in proportion to something else

Tomorrow, shorts may go widely out of style or fall out of popularity for some reason.

So although these particular shorts may then be offered at $1.00 there may be no buyers... because of the 'scam' of popular trends and societal tastes.

And besides, as an extreme example, the outlawing of certain clothing styles or the promotion of others or the lack of shame in some people with their choice of clothing or the expectations of others of what should be worn out in public, each human schematic relating to clothing and propriety can, to one person, seem like a bogus scam... while to another person seem a proper scheme.

The 'scheme' of making shorts (pants without the lower legs being covered) may become very unfashionable... and shorts may not even be accepted if given away... but may be accepted just to turn them into something else (a washrag, for example).

Shorts too short are arguably indecent.

Yet, to suggest such a thing to some people may be insulting.

Some people for whatever reason desire to show off their body by lesser clothes (covering less).

To suggest such a thing is to challenge societal norms reflecting an entrenched depravity... and to also challenge an individual's sense of self and how they value themselves (either too highly or too lowly, either way likely to be correct).

I don't have issue with shorts themselves (when measured below the knee for me personally and for all others).

I do have issue with shorts advertising something in a cheap way or something cheaply valued.

That something being of considerable value and not to be thrown away to the highest bidder or the more beguiling of pursuers.

There is an ethical argument, but this has an answer being measured against popular value sets.

The scams (in my opinion) will persist regarding branding marketed as more valuable or important, not so much according to quality of product.

Of course, there are brands known for quality.

This can be found out when buying very inexpensive clothes and them lasting only a few months and a few washes... while a better product (commanding a higher cost at times) lasting many years and many washes.

After learning about wholesale and retail, production, sourcing, marketing, and all the rest of it, these 'discount' numbers don't fool me.

But the nature of the market is one where the path to lest resistance is the often trodden one.

Most people buy what is most affordable.

The brand name is not alluring (to me), but rather quality.... and quality is not always 'only' found with name brands.

To me, the brand name ideal can also be both a scheme and a scam.

I've purchased brand name clothing items and found some of them them very poorly made, while finding similar items with no recognizable or popular brand names being superior or quite decent.

Some products and services have built a name (brand) for themselves, due to good or superior products and services.

But realize that those products and services do not always stay superior or 'better', but sometimes waiver or fall to pieces or become obsolete.

Overpriced shoes (or other clothing items or accessories), connected to celebrity, is a case in point regarding a scam... regardless how 'nice' or 'well built' the items are.

To minds who are convinced by marketing schemes, a celebrity endorsement is a very powerful and influential scam (but not to this man).

So as not every scam is viewed as a scheme gone foul, and not every scheme is an outright scam, so also do tastes and name brands and quality products go unrealized or overshadowed or overly appreciated.

When I was a young man, I was convinced by name brands... since brand labels was all I understood and all that I could comprehend at that time.

A knee-jerk reaction would occur when I found name brand items reflecting a 'discount' price, similar to the image in this article.

Nowadays, it is less about the brand and more about the quality and price.

A great scheme for those on the profiting side is to produce products for very cheap while being able to command high prices (due to branding, notoriety, etc.).

For those with little fashion sense or sensitivities to people's opinions of fashion, such notions have little sway over them.

Thus for them, their pocketbook have much more $$ available for more valuable / useful things... rather than portraying a public fashion show and pleasing the eyes of others.

To me, it is more about clean clothes than their branding.

It's more about clothes that utilize a proper use, like shorts for a hot day, a warm jacket for a cold day.

For me, it's more about comfortable clothes rather than nice looking clothes which are uncomfortable or too troublesome to wear only to impress others.

I wear sandals every day of the year... and only in near freezing temperatures do I have to wear closed shoes.

And if I could get away with it, I would wear sandals with a suit for special occasions or for certain societal demands.

And although in my eyes the sandals seem to complement my suit(s), to my wife's eyes sandals with a suit is a major faux pas, I kindly accommodate her dislike by gladly wearing fancy shoes to match a fancy suit.

Besides the vanity that comes along with brand names, or styles of clothes, or the concept that the person on whom more expensive clothes are clothing is somehow 'more' of something, is the notion of utility rather than fashion's command of price and equity... at least to me.