An example:
If I make 30 shirts a day, but only sell 20 shirts a day, then I will have extra inventory of shirts in my warehouse, growing at the rate of 10 shirts per day. This costs me money, both because of the cost of the materials I bought to make the shirts that I’m not selling and because of the cost of storing the shirts.
Therefore, I should reduce my production so that I’m only making 20 shirts per day. That way my expenses and my income stay balanced.
Does that make sense?
In reference to “finished products” it means “products for which the production process is complete”; an item ready to sell.
Imagine a car - it is made of up many parts. Imagine that different companies make different pieces of the car: one makes the paint, one makes the electronics, one makes the seats. For each of these companies, the paint, the electronics, or the seat is a “finished product” within the definition of their business. When they are done making it, it is ready to sell to the car company. For the car company, the car is a finished product, and the car, electronics, and seats are just parts that they buy from the other three companies.
The finished product could be anything (the phrasing is intentionally vague) – a shirt, a car, a hammer, or illegal drugs – it isn’t important what the finished product is, because having too many unsold items of that product is bad for business regardless of what it is.
I would guess that the company in question had a production schedule based on what their sales rate had previously been – they produced enough to keep a certain level of inventory, enough so that being “out of stock” of an item was minimized, but not so much that they found themselves with a large amount of inventory (a bad thing, for several reasons, which Maggie noted).
I’d have to then guess that the recession led to decreased demand for the company’s products. Without a corresponding reduction in the company’s production schedule, under those conditions, they would continue to build up inventory.
very nice …That makes sense.
STILL I have some confusion . I’m breaking down the problem areas . Could you please explain those parts .
Here is the full context.
is not sniping = criticize ?
google define:snipping does not give suitable match compatible with this context. I assume snipping = criticize .
>>>can ever be anything …what is that **possible **anything ?
>>>>it is clearly not justified …why ? is it because he is an investor …an insider of the company who is alleging which could affect the share price down ? or any other reason for “not justified” .
>>>Rather, the increase in inventory is entirely attributable to products that have already been assigned to orders received from customers.
Sniping does not mean just criticizing, but criticizing in a mean way. Being mean is counterproductive.
It is not justified because management is not doing anything wrong.
And, yes, you got the last one right. That’s why management isn’t doing anything wrong. More orders means more inventory. It is a good thing.
I am not comfortable with this …
>>>It is doubtful whether an investor’s sniping at management can ever be anything other than counterproductive
this is confusing . investor argues that company is not slowing down production ( “*company’s failure to slow production *”) though there is a rise in inventory of finished products.
what is doubtful here ? why counterproductive is mentioned here.
First, just to make sure: “sniping” (one P) and “snipping” (two Ps) are two different words.
Second, as BigT says, “sniping” carries a little more meaning than just “criticizing.” The dictionary definition is “attacking a person or a person’s work with petulant or snide criticism, especially anonymously or from a safe distance.” As BigT says, this carries the connotation of not just criticism, but unproductive criticism.
Third, because “sniping” carries the connotation unproductive criticism, and “unproductive” is a subjective concept, this choice of words tells you more about the author of the paragraph than the investor he’s talking about. The author is saying, “in my opinion, the investor’s criticism is unproductive.” Clearly the investor would disagree.
I don’t understand the question here.
Here the author is introducing his argument. The *reason *the criticism is “clearly not justified” is contained in the next two sentences.
The author claims this:
Make sense?
I’ll just mention this because no one else seems to have picked it up.
Apart for the distinction between ‘fewer’ and ‘less’ for countable and uncountable, ‘few’ is absolute and ‘less’ is relative.
If I have 3 apples I have few apples.
If I have 3 million apples and Fred has 4 Million, I have fewer.
So your substitution was incorrect because the sentence is not making a comparison.
Thanks for the information. Those are very much helpful.
Could you please take a look at this …
**To protect certain fledgling industries, the government of Country banned imports of the types of products those industries were starting to make.
**
what is this “fledgling industries” ? what they do ? I’m not clear with the dictionary meaning.
>>banned imports of the types of products those industries were starting to make.
does this mean the industry will make products in-house now ? they can not import product because of the ban.
A fledgling is a juvenile bird which has just physically developed to the stage of being able to fly, but can’t actually fly properly yet due to lack of experience and/or confidence. A fledgling industry is then an area of industrial endeavour which is new (that is, a newly developed type or product) so therefore all the companies doing it are new too.
The sentence is saying that all local companies in the area of production involved are new (fledglings), and need to be protected from overseas competitors until they are big and experienced enough to successfully compete with them.
As a (totally fictional) example you might have a country like, say, Thailand that import all their mobile phones from Finland, Taiwan or China; then a local industry starts up (commonly encouraged or even sponsored by Government) and to protect it against the more mature and powerful foreign companies, the government ban the importation of mobile phones until the local industry is big enough to compete on an even footing.
Note that this can be counter-productive, as the local industry then grows in an artificial protected market wherein it doesn’t have any serious competition, and so has little motivation to make its product good, cheap and reliable; it will then try to extend the government ban on imports as they still can’t compete, and this can go on essentially forever. The government then has the invidious choice of opening competition again, which will help the customers but possibly destroy the local industry and therefore jobs, or be committed to protectionism forever. They will usually try to wind down the protectionism over a period. This is what happened here in Australia with local car manufacture.
aah …I found fledgling here 
I am sorry . I still have the confusion in that sentence.
I understand a fledgling is a juvenile bird.
they are saying “fledgling industries” …an industry comprising birds !!! what is that . what that industry do ? I never heard bird industries …hence little bit confused here.
>>>Imports of the types of products those industries were starting to make
what kind of products ?
It’s an analogy.
A fledgling bird is one that is unable to live without assistance (usually food from its parents).
In this case they are saying that the industry in question is not able to exist without assistance - in this example protection from strong foreign competition.
In some cases, though, ‘fledgling’ used in this manner may not imply any specific need for assistance. It may simply mean that the industry is very immature.
It’s completely irrelevant. Any industry that is just starting may need help of some kind. Monetary grants or tax allowances, for example.
To add to what qpw3141 said:
Someone who just starts driving a car could be a “fledgling driver;” someone who just starts dating cound have a “fledgling love life;” a brand-new religion could be a “fledgling church;” a couple that just had their first baby could be “fledgling parents;” and a new manufacturing sector could be a “fledgling industry.”
In your text (“To protect certain fledgling industries, the government of Country…”) the author could have chosen the word “new” instead of “fledgling” and the meaning would not change very much. However, since “fledgling” has the connotation of “vulnerable,” the use of “fledgling” is more apt for the point the author is trying to make (which is that the government of Country is trying to protect those industries).
awesome. That explains a lot. I got the analogy now.
very much helpful. Thanks for your time.
Please look at this FULL context . Its much complicated.
To protect certain fledgling industries, the government of Country Z banned imports of the types of products those industries were starting to make. As a direct result, the cost of those products to the buyers, several export-dependent industries in Z, went up, sharply limiting the ability of those industries to compete effectively in their export markets.
>>>As a direct result, the cost of those products to the buyers, several export-dependent industries in Z, went up, sharply limiting the ability of those industries to compete effectively in their export markets.
This construction is complicated. because of this bold middleman
As a direct result, the cost of those products to the buyers, several export-dependent industries in Z, went up, sharply limiting the ability of those industries to compete effectively in their export markets.
I assume say fledgling industry say for example, start up CAR industry . Now Govt is imposing ban on CAR / CAR parts import to protect the in-house CAR industry . Now , in this context what is several export-dependent industries in Z we can think of ? Role of this middleman is not clear.
also note , there are few commas in the construction and that makes the relationship scattered.
One function of commas is to set off a phrase that further defines or describes the preceding word or phrase. For example:
I am posting to answer themajestic, the starter of this thread.
Here “the starter of this thread” describes “themajestic,” in the same way that “several export-dependent industries in Z” describes “buyers.”
In my example, I could just as easily have said, “I am posting to answer themajestic, who is the starter of this thread.” Technically you could do something similar to your example, but the result would sound a little awkward.
Yous car example doesn’t work well, because I can’t think of any “export-dependent industries” that use cars in thier products. A better example would be if the “fledgling industry” was STEEL. Then the “export-dependent industries” could be cars, machinery, construction equipment, etc–anything that uses steel to make products.
I liked your STEEL example . yea thats a perfect example .
Feeling better but not 100% clear. Here I’m summarizing the things what I understand and
As a direct result, the cost of those products to the buyers, several export-dependent industries in Z, went up, sharply limiting the ability of those industries to compete effectively in their export markets.
SO, As for example here , I understand this way…
fledgling industry = STEEL industry
everal export-dependent industries in Z = car industry , machine industry , equipments industry …STEEL are used to make this products and also these are exported outside . so these are “export-dependent industries”.
>>>the cost of those products to the buyers,
cost of STEEL products to the buyers i.e to export-dependent industries.
>>>went up
rising
>>>sharply limiting the ability of those industries to compete effectively in their export markets
Here is the trouble.
I guess this way …not sure whether my assumption is correct or not
STEEL products are becoming costly . export-dependent industries buying STEEL products with high price and then they are exporting . definitely the exported price tag will be HIGH and thats why they can not compete in export markets.
Is this now correct in thinking ?
Yes, that sounds correct to me.
glad to know that
Could you please take a look at this …
Several industries have recently switched at least partly from older technologies powered by fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. It is thus evident that less fossil fuel is being used as a result of the operations of these industries than would have been used if these industries had retained their older technologies.
what is “at least partly” ? my doubt is can we use “at least” and “partly” TOGETHER ?
industry - older technologies - fossil fuel —>Could you please give an example of this ? Can we assume the vintage coal burning trains as an example ?
“Partly” means “to some extent.” Technically, “partly” could mean anywhere from “just a tiny bit” to “nearly completely” (like from 1% to 99%). Practially, one would rarely use “partly” when one could use “mostly,” so “partly” implies some limited amount, like “less than half” (although that’s not a hard rule). Likewise, one would rarely use “partly” when the amount is negligible. So you could think of some kind of series:
“Not at all” < “To a negligible amount” < “Partly” < “Mostly” < “Completely”
When the author says “at least partly,” he’s talking about a number of different industries: some of these industries have switched from older technologies “partly,” but some may have “mostly” switched, or even “completely” switched. Moreover, all of these industries have done more than just some token amount.
Bottom line: “at least partly” means “at a minimum, a limited amount, but in some cases more.”
The author is contrasting “older technologies powered by fossil fuels” to “new technologies powered by electricity,” so the “older technologies” could be anything using fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, or natural gas). A coal-burning train is an example, or it could be gas-powered ovens, or even gasoline-powered automobiles.