When does a pricing error become false advertising?
"It's definitely annoying, but it's not necessarily false advertising. There is no rule or law that says they have to fix a pricing error at all, let alone within a certain period of time. Unfortunately they have no obligation to do business with you unless they take (and keep) your money. If they canceled the order and returned your money you have no binding agreement with them.  On top of that, in the US... 'misleading advertising' usually refers to ""Any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of goods, services or commercial activities"" (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a)). The main criteria that they evaluate before taking legal action is whether or not someone has suffered harm or loss due to the reliance on the bad information. But you're in Europe. The EU ideas behind misleading advertising tend to focus a lot more on comparing one product to someone else's and making subjective claims or false promises. Pricing does come up, but still, you need to have an ability to prove that you suffered harm or a loss from the business' actions.  Even if you were able to prove that, to force the business to change its price catalog, you would need to go through legal proceedings, demonstrate the harm that you've sustained, and then have a judge decide in your favor and order the supplier to comply. My guess is that it's just not worth it for you, but you haven't specified if this is just an annoying shoe-shopping experience or if you are regularly experiencing bait-and-switch tactics from a supplier that is a crucial part of a business operation.  If it's the former, just like a physical shop reserves the right to kick you out if you're not behaving, (but usually doesn't because they'd like to keep you as a customer), an online shop can update its prices whenever they like. They can change their prices too, and cancel orders.  If it's the latter, then start putting together some documentation on how many times this has happened and how it has damaged your business. But before you get on the warpath I would recommend you look for another place to buy whatever you have in mind, or else try a pound of sugar in your approach to this supplier... My own business experience has shown that can go a lot way in figuring out a mutually beneficial resolution. If you want to see a bit more...  Here is the EU Justice Commission's website on false advertising, Here is a PDF leaflet from the UK Office of Fair Trading that spells out what is explicitly not allowed from a business by way of advertising & business practices."
In this modern generation, Classifieds Australia  has become a growing industry around the world. Classifieds come into action when we need to promote our items through newspapers, online or other media solutions. Commercials in a newspapers are short, as they are charged for every line, in this case identified advertisements are useful since they are much more cost-effective than larger display advertisements, and are mostly used by individuals who have single items to provide or buy. Basically there are 2 ways you can make money from an investment, through income (eg: rent or dividends) and through the price of the investment going up (capital growth or gains). Most people associate negative gearing with investment properties but it can be done with shares and other investments where you borrow money to buy the investment and it produces an income of some sort. If the investment does not produce an income then you cannot negative gear it. Using a property as an example (in Australia), if all your expenses each month (loan interest payments, council and water rates, insurance and/or strata, advertising and management fees, depreciation, and maintenance expense) are greater than your income (rent), then you are negative gearing the investment property. This is a monthly loss on your investment which can be used to offset and reduce the amount of tax you pay during the year. So most people negative gearing an investment property will get a nice sum back when they do their tax returns. The problem with negative gearing is that you have to lose money in order to save some tax. So as an example, if you are on a marginal tax rate of 30%, for every $1 you lose from the investment property you will save 30c in tax. If your marginal tax rate is 45% then will save 45c in tax for every $1 lost on the investment property. Thus negative gearing becomes more tax effective the higher your income (and tax bracket). But you are still losing money overall. The problem is that most novice investors buy an investment property for the main purpose of reducing their taxes. This can be dangerous because the main reason to buy any investment should be that you consider it to be a good investment, not to save you tax. Because if the investment is not a good one, then you will not only lose money on the income side but also on the capital side. Negative gearing should be looked at as a bonus or additional benefit when chosing a good investment to buy, not as the reason to buy the investment. "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://pensionpartners.com/when-does-a-bubble-become-a-bubble/) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; When did it become a bubble? When does any bubble become a bubble? This is not an easy question to answer, particularly for an asset with no intrinsic value.  &gt; As we have seen, Bitcoin looked like a bubble in 2011 at $1. It looked like a bubble in 2013 at $200. And looks like a bubble today at $6,000.  &gt; If Bitcoin is trading at the same value a few years from now, but crashes many in between, was it a bubble? How much does it need to go down and how long does it need to stay down to meet the definition?   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/788avh/when_does_a_bubble_become_a_bubble/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~233567 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **Bubble**^#1 **Bitcoin**^#2 **value**^#3 **price**^#4 **look**^#5" "There are a few different ways you can look at this.  You can't really take money out of the economy, as it can't ""leave society"" and the economy is the interaction of society. One example kind of close to this was a multi-millionaire died without an heir with millions in his bank account. The bank will continue to use the funds, but the money itself won't be spent. Some people saw this as a ""waste"", like value was lost, but really all it does (hoarding money or even burning it) is change the money supply.  That being said there are two approaches to looking at capitalism as a *balanced* ecosystem. One is Keynesianism, which focuses on demand. The other is Marxism, which focuses on more internal mechanisms of capitalism. Both are concerned with inequality.  With high inequality, those with capital tend to have more reinvestment as a percentage of income/wealth. With a return on investment this will increase inequality. The Keynesian issue is that this will lower demand, creating imbalance in the economy and long-term problems to function. The answer was more redistribution and higher labor wages.  For Marxists, they believe that capitalism generates endless ""capital accumulation"", not because of a demand component, but because of labor theory of value. That wealth and value is not determined by the market, but at exploitation of labor. On this critical side you have critiques of the fetishism of market value. With high inequality you have money ""leaving the system"" in what some call waste--something not socially useful. Baran and Sweezy in ""Monopoly Capital"" talk about this in the form of things like military spending, and, I think, advertisement. But it can also relate to the generation of ""wealth"" (opposed to income). Things that don't hold inherent value, like art, becomes investment. You can't say it is ""taken out of "" the economy, but the value itself is generated by those who can purchase it. Though, I believe this value fetishism is more an outcome of the contradictions, rather than the cause.  What it does contribute to contradictions, however, is the rise of speculation. Rather than consumption or productive investment, accumulation will increasingly become speculative. Real estate is usually the primary example. Many people buy houses, condos, or land, not for use, but for the expectation that the value will go up. When bad enough this can reshape the market, so for people who aren't investing their rent/living cost increases.   This likewise happens with stocks and other financial investments. Again, it can't really ""leave the economy"", but it makes it more difficult for the ""traditional"" or productive and labor economy to operate." "It seems this will be very much driven by price discrimination.  If there are some customers who will pay up to $100, sell at that; and if there are others who'll pay $1 sell at that price. For instance you see computer games, which have zero marginal cost of production, sold at ""normal new release"" prices, at premium prices with a special box or doo-dad, and at discount prices once the game is a bit old." I don't get what the big fear of being marketed to is.  A customer isn't being forced into buying something, so they still have the option to say no.  I actually welcome the advertisements being curtailed to me my needs and wants.  That way I be bothered by things I don't want if I ever choose to pay attention to the advertisements. We actually have [a thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/GroceryStores/comments/10sldg/im_so_tired_of_this_grocery_shrinkray_bullshit/) about that going on right now in r/grocerystores.    It is a fine line to walk.  No one wants to visibly raise prices.  But they are still showing price per pound/ounce on the tag (right?  Every store I have been in shows that).  The consumer is partly to blame for allowing those shenanigans. It's also a pain in Alexa as the price they give is inclusive of any promo credits you may have. So it may say it costs $2 but in reality it cost you a $10 Amazon credit that you forgot you had and could have been used on almost anything else