The Providence Journal (R.I.), March 10: China has finally had it. After years of North Korea’s bellicose language, rocket launches, nuclear tests, and attacks on South Korean targets, including civilians, Beijing is finally fed up with its so-called ally.
That’s the encouraging message one could deduce from the fact that the United Nations Security Council passed tough new sanctions on Pyongyang early this month. The vote was unanimous. That means that China isn’t going to run interference for its Communist brethren any longer.
The tough sanctions are designed to starve North Korea of the resources it needs to support its illicit – and frightening – nuclear program. As The Associated Press explains, the new sanctions will ensure “mandatory inspections of cargo leaving and entering North Korea by land, sea or air; a ban on all sales or transfers of small arms and light weapons to Pyongyang; and expulsion of diplomats from the North who engage in ‘illicit activities.”’
The cargo inspections, in particular, are key. Before these sanctions were passed, cargo was only searched if there was “reasonable suspicion” that it contained illicit material. That porous system manifestly didn’t work, as it did nothing to forestall North Korea’s nuclear development.
That’s not all. The sanctions also ban “the export of coal, iron and iron ore being used to fund North Korea’s nuclear or ballistic missile programs, and … all exports of gold, titanium ore, vanadium ore and rare earth minerals … and aviation fuel.” And they turn the screws on North Korean banks too.
North Korea reacted predictably to the development. The regime fired projectiles into the ocean and ordered the military to be ready to launch a nuclear attack. But it’s not as if carrots have worked either; nothing seems to diminish North Korean bellicosity.
Still, the sanctions are welcome news, insofar as any efforts to restrict North Korea’s military development are good news. It raises the question, however, of why these sanctions weren’t already in place, given more than a decade of nuclear build-up on the part of North Korea.
Had North Korea been subject to such stringent restrictions years ago, perhaps the world could have avoided the situation we now face: a totalitarian dictatorship, run by a grotesquely self-indulgent princeling, that is armed with nuclear weapons.
The Concord Monitor (N.H.), March 9: A Car Talk listener once posed the following profound question: “Is there ever a day when mattresses aren’t on sale?”
Probably not. The word “sale” provokes a Pavlovian response in many people. They salivate at the dream of getting a great deal and buying something for a lot less than the average sucker. But are there really all that many true sales out there? Not if the starting point is the manufacturer’s suggested retail price, list price or “original price.” More and more courts are considering whether the use of such terms should be considered deceptive advertising. Often, the answer is yes.
Last Sunday, New York Times reporter David Streitfeld pointed out that no matter what the suggested retail price is, it would be nearly impossible to find any retailer who is actually charging that price.
He cites example after example, such as a Le Creuset skillet variously advertised with a list price of $260 or $285 that all online retailers were selling for $200. Everyone expects a deal when they buy online. Starting from a high number, even if it’s fictitious, leads people to think they are getting one.
Fake starting prices, by whatever name, are being challenged by consumers, and in some cases have already led to million-dollar settlements. In a case under appeal, a California court hit online retailer Overstock.com with $6.8 million in penalties for misleading customers.
In a case many people can unfortunately relate to, a man purchased a patio set from Overstock for $450, a discount of 55 percent from its list price of $999, Streitfeld wrote. The man soon learned that Walmart was selling the same patio set for what turned out to be the common price of $247. An Overstock memo presented in court had this to say: “Oh I think it’s been established that the ‘List Price’ is egregiously overstated,” the memo said. “This place has some balls.”
Kohl’s, JCPenney and Amazon are among the companies that have faced or are facing court action over their use of list or suggested retail prices. Many more are likely to join the list.
It’s common to find that every seller, particularly online, is offering the same exact product at the same price. If they agreed to do that on their own, it would be considered price fixing and consequently illegal.
But a few years ago, conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court decided to allow manufacturers to dictate the lowest possible price a retailer could sell its product for. The makers could legally refuse to do business with merchants who didn’t agree, the court ruled. That ruling should be among the many that deserve reconsideration by a less activist, less partisan court.
The best way to get the best deal, with or without negotiation, experts say, is the same as it has always been. Consumers should do their homework, compare prices online and off by using exact make and model number, and consider shipping, taxes and other charges, return policies and offers that seem too good to be true.
To that we would add the value of buying locally, which keeps your money at work in your community, provides jobs, and helps your neighbors and the local economy.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
