(or Profit/Loss statement if you prefer that terminology)
Also, your math doesn't seem to work.
Your Wholesale picture adds up to $51.60, yet you showed a wholesale price above of $50. That's selling at a loss. Maybe a socialist would run such a production company, but not for long.
Your Retail picture adds up to $103.20, yet you showed a retail price of $100. That's a selling loss too. Man, you'd be out of business in short order with that math.
You also don't explain what "retail financial expenses", and "manufacturing financial expenses" are. Do you mean OPERATING expenses? Please, there is standard language for these things to avoid confusion. If you want to use a different terminology, please provide definitions.
Also, you expressed a desire to eliminate "sales and marketing" as unneeded.
Tell me, where does the money paid to sales clerks, shop hands, managers, customer service reps, et cetera show up in your lists? (most of which make at or near minimum wage) I'd say it falls in both your alleged superfluous "sales and marketing" expense line, and your "retail financial expense" line.
You are making the errant assumption that you can dissolve retail and go straight from manufacture to the conusmer. Yes, you can collapse the functions all into one company, but the expenses won't go away from the total cost of delivering product to the end consumer. (they might be reduced, but not eliminated, not even close)
Doing so also violates a very important principle of economics called the "division of labor."
Some people are really efficient at making things. Others are not, but they are efficient at distributing and selling them.
You want to create a situation where the producers do the distributing and selling. This will by definition, proven by historical experience, result in less goods being sold, AND produced. Everyone will be poorer for the change.
You want to go backwards. The only result of that will be serfdom in a new feudalism.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: