Is it wrong to....

to each his own....

if he thinks it's right, then let it be, dont waste your time and good morals on him.
 
Wow. Is this really going to/did happen? I didnt read the entire thread.. but just in reply to the first post,

I can't believe someone would do something like that. If you really need money THAT bad, get a better job. Stealing (and thus, lying) are some of the lowest acts, IMO. I hope nobody actually does this to make any sort of profit.

Shame on your friend, and let it be known that if i had the proper amount of information, I would report him to the authorities in less time than it took me to type this post.

Once again, I can't believe someone would actually consider this. What is this world coming to?

Oh, and as for the whole 'karma' topic, this won't be a religious topic. period.
 
Last edited:
jmhart said:
If the guy returns it and they give him cold hard cash, then they have just purchased that item for $52 when they would have normally purchased it for $25. Inventory cost has increased. Increased inventory cost yields less profit. If dude keeps cash, petsmart loses profit. Dude has stolen from petsmart.

Even if they give him in store credit, petsmart loses less money. They still lose money. Dude has stolen from petsmart. Sure, he's stolen less profit, but he's still stolen.



Again, if dude keeps cash, inventory cost increases. Less profit. Theft.


This only works if dude spends the money at your store.


Again, now an item they "purchased" for $52 takes up shelf space. Shelf space has a cost. When they sell that item that they paid $52 they not only don't make profit, but they actually lose money because they item took up shelf space for 1 minute, 1 day, 1 week, any time, they still lost money to do inventory cost.

As I understand it, the dude is looking for a refund. Now, maybe he will spend the money there, but a refund is differnt than an exchange.

You are making a good point, ,but... If they "refund" the money for you, they are "purchasing" the product. It was not originally in their inventory, therefore it was "purchased" into inventory. And instead of "purchasing" it from a supplier, they are purchasing it from this guy's cousin with a substantially larger markup. So, that piece of inventory has a higher cost associated with it. That exact piece of inventory costs $52, versus the same one next to it that costs $25. When someone purchases the "$52" product, petsmart is now not making the $27 they would have made had that person purchased the $25 product.


So, perhaps they "lose" less profit by the dude stealing fish instead of stealing a filter, but the dude is still stealing and they are still losing money, not just profit. Their operating expense goes up.
Click to expand...


think it best to intrpret the store policiees when making these 'assumptions'.

The policies of both Petsmart and Petco here clearly state No reciept No cash.
the store 'may' issue an instore credit.

I based my judgement with this policy in mind.
so in essence you will be dealing with cost.
btw, this so called loss works out in their benefit when sdealing with customer service and customer satisfaction..which is worth far more then the loss of customer base.
without a good customer policy in place they may not be in business long.
afterall it is your customer service that really seperates you from your competitors.
 
star_rider said:
think it best to intrpret the store policiees when making these 'assumptions'.

The policies of both Petsmart and Petco here clearly state No reciept No cash.
the store 'may' issue an instore credit.

I based my judgement with this policy in mind.
so in essence you will be dealing with cost.
btw, this so called loss works out in their benefit when sdealing with customer service and customer satisfaction..which is worth far more then the loss of customer base.
without a good customer policy in place they may not be in business long.
afterall it is your customer service that really seperates you from your competitors.
Click to expand...

Ok, no cash. But the dude is stealing profit. As I mentioned, since he's exchanging for fish, which as mentioned have a lower margin of profit, they are losing less. But again, he is still stealing.

As for the kharma debate, I wasn't basing my points on what may or may not happen in the afterlife. I was just expressing an after thought.

While I am strong supporter of survival of the fittest, the fittest sometimes(and in many cases) are those that form a colony and work together(ants, herds of mammals, schooling fish). They ensure the greatest survival for all members. One or two may have to make a sacrifice, but it's best for the herd. Point is, it's best if we all work together, and don't steal from each other.

I believe I've already made the point how stealing from petsmart is stealing from the guy next door.
 
I don't really have much to add other than the guy/gal thinking about doing this is a knob...

I'm going to start giving counterfeit money to blind people because they don't know better and thus, deserve it.
 
Yeah.... me Tooo....... ummm ?

its not Karma

Its Called " S#$t happens"
 
I don't think that anything one can do to screw an evil corporation is wrong. Any way you can to discourage their existence - do it. I think it's more moral to steal from a corporation than it is immoral. I wouldn't dare to even think of doing this to a small store or to a person. But to me, stealing from the beast is an act of good rebellion.


HOWEVER, as stated before - it's not like the CEOs will suffer. It's just like it is - the little people are the ones who will get pay cuts, lose their jobs, etc. In this world where the president of a company can give himself a twenty million dollar raise and then lay off ten thousand workers, why should one expect this sort of vigilante economic justice to yield any results aside from hurting everyone else?

It's sad that there really seems to be no way to truly fight The Beast.

very sad indeed.
 
echoofformless said:
I don't think that anything one can do to screw an evil corporation is wrong. Any way you can to discourage their existence - do it. I think it's more moral to steal from a corporation than it is immoral. I wouldn't dare to even think of doing this to a small store or to a person. But to me, stealing from the beast is an act of good rebellion.


HOWEVER, as stated before - it's not like the CEOs will suffer. It's just like it is - the little people are the ones who will get pay cuts, lose their jobs, etc. In this world where the president of a company can give himself a twenty million dollar raise and then lay off ten thousand workers, why should one expect this sort of vigilante economic justice to yield any results aside from hurting everyone else?

It's sad that there really seems to be no way to truly fight The Beast.

very sad indeed.
Click to expand...


What alternative would you like to suggest that is more beneficial for the economy, innoviation, and job security than an "evil" corporation? Corporations are the logical conclusion of combining capitalism and democracy.

Man, I wish all company's could be privately owned. The world was such a better place when there were more John D. Rockefeller's and Cecil J. Rhodes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom