Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / General => Topic started by: iamaboringperson on February 25, 2004, 08:20:02 AM
-
http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/24/1077594826710.html (http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/24/1077594826710.html)
The survey of 1000 people found eight in 10 Australians believe there are people who posses psychic powers. At least seven in 10 believe in the afterlife and in haunted houses.
:lol:
I must say that only a couple of months ago, I met a young woman who believed that her father haunted one of the rooms in her mothers house!
And that's only one of the many people I've met over the past year or so who believe in such things.
-
Make that two people in the last year, me, well you kinda met me last year, well learnt of my existence anyway, I'll shut up now... :nervous: :nervous: :nervous:
-
My sister in law is kind of a freak. She started screaming at me once last summer because I touched a rock she had on a bookshelf. I supposedly contaminated the crystal and brought her bad luck. :roll:
-
A flatmate a few years ago was watching UK Living (a crappy UK satellite/cable channel) with a guy who is supposedly psychic on it. I laughed, and my flatmate took me up on a serious argument on why I didn't believe that guy could do what he claimed.
In the end it comes down to, what if it really worked, that it wasn't just all cheap parlour tricks. Imagine how many people would be employed in the police force using these skills for starters... or as private detectives, or pretty much any field of work that requires a level of investigation. Me knowing what went wrong with a computer in five minutes because I'm psychic and had a vision of the user deleting all his files... :-)
-
T_Bone wrote:
My sister in law is kind of a freak. She started screaming at me once last summer because I touched a rock she had on a bookshelf. I supposedly contaminated the crystal and brought her bad luck. :roll:
Bet you felt like "contaminating" the side of her head with a clue-by-four.
-
mikeymike wrote:
Imagine how many people would be employed in the police force using these skills for starters...
Casinos would go broke.
Everything you buy would suddenly get way cheaper because the free market would operate efficiently since you would know what the other guys costs were and he wouldn't be able to make 200% margin.
-
Pha! Here in Groningen (northern part of the Netherlands) all this is just plain unthinkable.
-
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
mikeymike wrote:
Imagine how many people would be employed in the police force using these skills for starters...
Casinos would go broke.
Everything you buy would suddenly get way cheaper because the free market would operate efficiently since you would know what the other guys costs were and he wouldn't be able to make 200% margin.
After a time, that lack in profit would correct itself as businesses started making less money, paying less dividends, etc :-)
-
T_Bone wrote:
After a time, that lack in profit would correct itself as businesses started making less money, paying less dividends, etc :-)
Exactly. In a perfectly efficient, no-one makes any profit. Profit only comes from inefficiency, which comes from disrupting information. If I'm trying to sell you something, it is important that I never tell you what I paid for it.
-
RESPONSE-
Most certainly, just look to Pine Gap:
image (http://www.rense.com/1.imagesB/thegap2.jpg)
Photos Of Secret US Pine
Gap Australian Base (http://www.rense.com/general2/wx.htm)
-
Casinos would go broke.
Probably.
Everything you buy would suddenly get way cheaper because the free market would operate efficiently since you would know what the other guys costs were and he wouldn't be able to make 200% margin.
I disagree.
Why would people not buy just because there is a huge profit margin. I mean, everybody knows there is a profit margin, yet ofcourse they still buy.
If you want the product and are prepared to pay, you will buy regardless of whether you know what the profit margin is.
-
Let's see if I got this right.
If
product + 0% profit = selling price
Then
selling price >= good
Else
company + 0% profit = why bother
-
In a perfectly efficient, no-one makes any profit. Profit only comes from inefficiency, which comes from disrupting information.
People wouldn't have businesses without profit.
Who could be bothered going through all the crap that is necessary to open a shop, if there is no profit to be made?? That would be -> :crazy:
No profit = No businessIf I'm trying to sell you something, it is important that I never tell you what I paid for it.
Why is it important?
Sometimes people like to know what it cost the retailer before they buy. FACT.
-
company + 0% profit = why bother
:lol: Exactly!
And I think that's the logic that Fluff is trying to convey! Erm... I that is, I think he wants nobody to work or trade!
And 0 profit is NOT more efficient! Imagine if businesses(assuming they still existed) began making 0 profits(not deliberately for this example, but due to say... an "act of god").
Businesses would go broke, shut up shop, some new moron would come along who thinks he can do business, spends some dough to open a new shop - no profit, wham! No more business.
If people try to open shops, you'll find a big turn over of shop keepers in the same area. And a crap load of money will be wasted in doing it.
That sir, is not efficient! :lol:
-
iamaboringperson wrote:
No profit = No businessIf I'm trying to sell you something, it is important that I never tell you what I paid for it.
Why is it important?
Sometimes people like to know what it cost the retailer before they buy. FACT.
If people are rational, they will want to get the best price that they can for a given item. (This is why competition is supposed to serve the consumer by bringing down prices). If they know what the cost of the item was in the first place they can have a pretty good idea of their bargaining position and they can refuse to buy for more.
Example:
If you are trying to buy a watch from a guy and he wants $100 for it, and the information you have available is that other sellers are selling the watch for $50, you'll probably try to talk him down, or pass. If you also happen to know that he bought the watch for $5 you are more inclined to try to bargain for a lower figure than $50.
Given the choice between him getting profit and you getting a deal, which is the more important to you?
If you want to get a good price for something that you are selling, you must let the customer get the impression that they are getting a good deal out of you. If they find out how little you paid they will push harder for a better deal.
-
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
After a time, that lack in profit would correct itself as businesses started making less money, paying less dividends, etc :-)
Exactly. In a perfectly efficient, no-one makes any profit. Profit only comes from inefficiency, which comes from disrupting information. If I'm trying to sell you something, it is important that I never tell you what I paid for it.
Once you get rid of profit, what ensures efficiency? It's the prospect of profit that forces efficiency. If there's no chance of a profit, why strive for efficiency?
-
Let's do another one.
If
company machine + worker = product
And
Product + 0% profit = good
Then
worker = good
Else
company = greedy
-
T_Bone wrote:
Once you get rid of profit, what ensures efficiency? It's the prospect of profit that forces efficiency. If there's no chance of a profit, why strive for efficiency?
All else being equal, you increase profit by increasing efficiency within your organization. However, once the consumers find out that you can now produce for less, they improve their efficiency by making you forgo your profit.
Let's say company A produces raw materials.
Company B produces parts from As materials.
Company C produces product from Bs parts.
Assume that right now no-one makes profit. It's all break even.
Company A finds a way to produce for less. Efficiency of A goes up but the efficiency of the system remains the same. The same amount of end product at C still costs the same.
B finds out that A now has margin and asks for a better deal. Since their costs are now lower B has profit (but A looses margin). C finds out about Bs lowered costs and pushes them to pass it on.
Finally, at the end of the chain, efficiency is increased when C are forced by the consumer to lower their prices.
So long as there is competition and good information flow margins will be razor thin and transient. Overall efficiency will improve.
To prevent this a certain degree of information witholding and even misrepresentation must be entered into. Ther is also collusion between competitors (not necessarilly overt, but competitors keep an eye on each other to get a feel for what they should be bidding.
Other ways of introducing inefficiencies are government regulations and futures trading. One huge inefficiency enforced by government regulation, for example, is patent protection.
-
If you want to get a good price for something that you are selling, you must let the customer get the impression that they are getting a good deal out of you. If they find out how little you paid they will push harder for a better deal.
They might.
But that doesn't mean that the person who is selling is necessarily going to reduce their price as much as you want, and, in fact may not reduce the product at all.
I know of shop owners who buy from other shop owners knowing what the profit margin is. Everybody makes a profit. And nobody is unhappy.
Now, assuming that the buyer haggled the price down to around the sellers cost price. Don't you suppose that assuming the seller actually sells for that price(the alternative being keeping the goods and being out of pocket) that he'd give up?
There would never be a time of no profit. You'd either sell at a gain, or not.
Therefore nobody can be in business at selling with zero, or next to zero profit for long.
That is ineficiency.
-
One huge inefficiency enforced by government regulation, for example, is patent protection.
Removing the protection provided by patents is ineficient, because an inventor can make no profit on an invention that isn't released.
-
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
Once you get rid of profit, what ensures efficiency? It's the prospect of profit that forces efficiency. If there's no chance of a profit, why strive for efficiency?
All else being equal, you increase profit by increasing efficiency within your organization. However, once the consumers find out that you can now produce for less, they improve their efficiency by making you forgo your profit.
Let's say company A produces raw materials.
Company B produces parts from As materials.
Company C produces product from Bs parts.
Assume that right now no-one makes profit. It's all break even.
Company A finds a way to produce for less. Efficiency of A goes up but the efficiency of the system remains the same. The same amount of end product at C still costs the same.
B finds out that A now has margin and asks for a better deal. Since their costs are now lower B has profit (but A looses margin). C finds out about Bs lowered costs and pushes them to pass it on.
Finally, at the end of the chain, efficiency is increased when C are forced by the consumer to lower their prices.
So long as there is competition and good information flow margins will be razor thin and transient. Overall efficiency will improve.
To prevent this a certain degree of information witholding and even misrepresentation must be entered into. Ther is also collusion between competitors (not necessarilly overt, but competitors keep an eye on each other to get a feel for what they should be bidding.
Other ways of introducing inefficiencies are government regulations and futures trading. One huge inefficiency enforced by government regulation, for example, is patent protection.
All that might be plausable except for:
"Company A finds a way to produce for less"
Company A has no R&D, because Company A makes no profit.
Company A, even if it had any money for R&D, knows the return on investment into R&D would be zero, and everyone else knows it too, so they can't even get investors to invest in the company so that it may fund R&D.
Plus, Company A has no reason for R&D, there's no Patent protection, so let "someone else" do the R&D
Company A can only find ways to produce for less... by accident.
Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, where there are no psychic powers...
Company A channels a portion of profits into R&D.
Company A also gets investors to fund R&D
Company A benefits from this R&D to find ways to produce for less... AND benefits from accidental discoveries as well.
Company A is moving and shaking!
-
Company A has no R&D, because Company A makes no profit.
I disagree. Company A could always reduce the current wages, or even better, replace their employees with super efficient robots! :lol:
Company A is moving and shaking!
And billions of dollars of governemt grants aren't required to stimulate the ecconomy! :lol:
-
Well... I don't know about you, T_Bone, but I'm off to plough the feilds (to the benefit of the state)! :-P