If you insist on perverting the language, fine.

Post #7,302 by addison 8/31/01 12:24:14 AM Reply	If you insist on perverting the language, fine. I can't reply at length without being fairly insulting. But its a perversion of the whole concept to try and insist that legal forces are part of the market, and pointless to bother and argue if you'll take that stance, because its going to be impossible to dicuss. Addison
Post #7,307 by wharris2 8/31/01 4:46:23 AM Reply	noting previous antitrust vs. Microsoft Way too slow, way too inefffective. The current antitrust: way too slow, and even if Jackson's remedies went into effect, absolutely ineffective. Good point, Addison. French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #7,311 by Ashton 8/31/01 6:18:55 AM Reply	Absolute faith in a simplistic concept, 'free market' appears to have similar effect - when interpreted by homo-saps - as Absolute Faith in the OneTrueGod (all the assorted ones around, I mean): A nice irrational excuse to ignore the effect of power on ordinary homo-saps, believe in magical 'consumer feedback corrections' as will always correct Any atrocities: then sit back and watch as the money becomes more and more concentrated in fewer pockets. And call that, The Market's (God's) Will. Taliban, Middle East? Adam Smith - what's the difference? (No 'market correction' ever sent a perp to jail) A.
Post #7,317 by imric 8/31/01 9:58:40 AM Reply	So hostile... To the idea that government, and law, is part of the market. Why? Now you won't discuss it without getting 'insulting'? Go ahead - will those insults help to make your point? It's not supposed to be 'us and them', is it? Here in the US, at least, it's supposed to be 'We, the People'. Laws affect the market. The market affected the laws. Why is it 'perversion the whole concept' to claim that laws are part of the market? After all, laws are what make the enforcement of contracts and agreements possible, no? Or should we hope that a company that doesn't honor all it's contracts will 'eventually' go out of business because no-one will trust them? And, after all, what is this 'concept' you are talking about? Is it the concept of 'market', or the concept of an 'absolutely free market', something that doesn't exist now, and hasn't existed so long as governments have? Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #7,321 by addison 8/31/01 10:24:01 AM Reply	Because its a "concept" that disallows agreement. Why? Now you won't discuss it without getting 'insulting'? Go ahead - will those insults help to make your point? Because you are telling me I'm wrong, and then redefining meanings. I suppose you can do that, but the argument will turn Brycian. "That's not what that means!" Because with your definition - shoplifting is a market force. Firebombing a store that irritated you - is a market force. Corrupt cops are market forces. Well, hell. With that definition - and yes, if you're going to say that in response to monopolies, laws are market forces - then by that SAME definition, EVERYTHING [just about, excluding, say, weather] becomes a "market force" - and now you can't analyze ANYTHING, even in the sterile world of economics. The whole point of "market forces" is to exclude "real" things. Laws are specifically not addressed in beginning models, more so in more complex ones. Things that increase cost or decrease the price, they can be mapped. "Antitrust" cannot. Suddenly tossing that in is wrong - yes, wrong - and makes discussion impossible. Try and draw up a simple supply demand curve. Now show me where you're doing the "antitrust" representation. After all, laws are what make the enforcement of contracts and agreements possible, no? No. Contracts are distortions of the model. Just like ceilings, and floors. The whole concept of the "free market", which doesn't totally exist, is that there's open transactions. The more elasticity you have, the better. The less elastic, the more complex the modelling gets. Laws are represented as constraints on price, and contracts would be the same way. How do you propose, in the common supply/demand curve, to show the law for "monopoly" as part of the market? Addison
Post #7,325 by Silverlock 8/31/01 11:19:48 AM Reply	Now we know You finally explain why you get so hostile "Because you are telling me I'm wrong" And, of course, you never are. </sarcasm> Life is a Cabernet.
Post #7,341 by addison 8/31/01 1:15:35 PM Reply	Re: Now we know And, of course, you never are. How about the rest of that sentance you quoted? Not when I'm arguing with people who are mangling the usage of words to be "right", no. Nah, its more fun to pull words and put things in people's mouths, than to actually bother to think. (no sarcasm) Addison
Post #7,345 by Silverlock 8/31/01 1:58:22 PM Reply	Just going by history You have never once in all the years I have followed this group, ever admitted to being wrong about anything. And you accuse me of not thinking. Irony is so...... ironic. Life is a Cabernet.
Post #7,346 by addison 8/31/01 2:08:36 PM Reply	I suggest you repeat History, you've forgotten it. You have never once in all the years I have followed this group, ever admitted to being wrong about anything. And you accuse me of not thinking. Not reading perhaps. Admitted I was wrong on many an occasion. Of course, I didn't do that just because someone decided to redefine something that's been well defined in the course of my studies. Did it because they proved me well wrong. Last time Bryce said that, BTW, I'd admitted that twice in the same week - in the thread he was posting in. (not to him, to someone else) Drat. Not more of those blasted facts. Further proof is left as an exercise to the student. (And unlike some discussions, it does exist, so its not asking you to prove a negative). Of course.. then you'd have to admit that you... what was that about irony? Addison
Post #7,349 by Silverlock 8/31/01 2:29:17 PM Reply	Sorry dude, you just rub me the wrong way Facts is facts I guess. I don't remember the occasion of you saying you were wrong. That certainly doesn't mean it didn't happen, just don't remember it. I'd say I agree with you about half the time, but the manner and tone of your arguments stick in may craw. So, even when I agree with your position, I find myself disagreeing with your personality (for lack of a better word). I'll try to keep the heat down but I can't promise I will always be succesful. Life is a Cabernet.
Post #7,326 by imric 8/31/01 11:32:36 AM Reply	Sure. Whatever. Because you are telling me I'm wrong, and then redefining meanings. And this because I think the rules of a game are part of the game? How have I 'redefined' anything? Because with your definition - shoplifting is a market force. It IS, you know. Has to do with demand. It affects supply. Changes price. and now you can't analyze ANYTHING, even in the sterile world of economics. Oh - so only simple models are possible. I suppose analysis grows more valuable, and more reliable, the less it's connected to the real world? Laws are specifically not addressed in beginning models, more so in more complex ones. So - you are saying that laws are addressed in more complex models, or are you saying that they are addressed 'less than not' in more complex models? If they are addressed more, then it seems that laws shape the market after all. Things that increase cost or decrease the price, they can be mapped. "Antitrust" cannot. But MONOPOLY can... So laws that 'prevent' abusive monopolies cannot? Sorry - don't 'buy' it. Suddenly tossing that in is wrong - yes, wrong - and makes discussion impossible. Insist all you like - but making a subject more complex does not make it 'impossible to discuss'. Try and draw up a simple supply demand curve. Now show me where you're doing the "antitrust" representation. So 'simple' is the sticking-point. Fine. Considering laws passed by the consumers that make up a market makes things more complex. So what? Contracts are distortions of the model. Just like ceilings, and floors. The whole concept of the "free market", which doesn't totally exist, is that there's open transactions. The more elasticity you have, the better. So - without the 'contract' that is implicit in having a unit of exchange, your simple model is back to barter as a means of exchange. Talk about disconnected from reality! The more elasticity the 'better'? The better for what? Modelling a so-called 'free market'? The less elastic, the more complex the modelling gets. Laws are represented as constraints on price, and contracts would be the same way. How do you propose, in the common supply/demand curve, to show the law for "monopoly" as part of the market? So - you are saying that a monopoly condition can't be represented in an economic model? That constraints or limits on that condition in said model are impossible to represent? Oh. Fine. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #7,340 by addison 8/31/01 1:12:21 PM Reply	Re: Sure. Whatever. And this because I think the rules of a game are part of the game? How have I 'redefined' anything? You redefined "market". It has a definition. It IS, you know. Has to do with demand. It affects supply. Changes price. Right. And so everything is a market force. Shoplifting does raise the cost - but its the cost that is the "market force", not the shoplifting, itself. Its the cost that is actually mapped. The delta in that can be measured, and attributed to shoplifting, but the shoplifting itself isn't a force, or a condition. Because in the "free market" its totally dependant on supply and demand. So - you are saying that laws are addressed in more complex models, As shoplifting above, yes, as a function of higher cost. Not by themselves. But MONOPOLY can... So laws that 'prevent' abusive monopolies cannot? Sorry - don't 'buy' it. Sorry, you didn't answer the question. Monopolies certainly can be mapped. So show how you map antitrust. That's the challenge presented - you say its possible. Fine. Prove it. Try and draw up a simple supply demand curve. Now show me where you're doing the "antitrust" representation. So 'simple' is the sticking-point. Fine. Considering laws passed by the consumers that make up a market makes things more complex. So what? Um. You left out the representation. The more elasticity the 'better'? The better for what? Modelling a so-called 'free market'? If you've had econ 101, then either you've forgotten, or you're being dense on purpose. I don't know which. But that question is answered there. So - you are saying that a monopoly condition can't be represented in an economic model? That constraints or limits on that condition in said model are impossible to represent? Nope. Quite easy. Covered in ECON 101. Of course, you STILL didn't bother to prove your point. I can demonstrate a monopoly condition on a S/D graph. Show me your antitrust representation. Addison
Post #7,353 by imric 8/31/01 3:09:58 PM Reply	? So - you are saying that a monopoly condition can't be represented in an economic model? That constraints or limits on that condition in said model are impossible to represent? Nope. Quite easy. Covered in ECON 101. Excellent! Then since constraints on monopoly are easy to represent, and you can "demonstrate a monopoly condition on a S/D graph", then constraints on monopoly conditions (antitrust legislation) should be (easily?) representable. Of course, I am obviously not the devotee of the hard science of economics, as you are. Of course, you STILL didn't bother to prove your point. Oh. Sorry. I guess I lack the command of econ-speak to make my point. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #7,362 by addison 8/31/01 4:19:13 PM Reply	You've gotten confused. then constraints on monopoly conditions (antitrust legislation) should be (easily?) representa Well, that's up to you to do that (and what I've been asking for). Oh. Sorry. I guess I lack the command of econ-speak to make my point You're lacking the above - show that its easily represented, first, because that's how you show "market forces". So you're wanting me to prove your point, and insisting its easy, but you're not doing it. :) Excellent! Then since constraints on monopoly are easy to repre And that's not constraints on a monopoly, its monopoly conditions. That's showable. But the entire crux here is back the first part -that's YOUR job to produce that to prove me wrong. Addison
Post #7,327 by Andrew Grygus 8/31/01 12:02:23 PM Reply	Shoplifting is a market force . . . . and so is the weather. Shoplifting affects pricing, packaging, display methods and retail employment - and creates markets for anti-shoplifting devices and consultants. The weather is why we have "seasonal markets". How can you say that isn't a market force? Everything in human experience is part of "the market". Marketeers that understand that are the ones who make the big bucks. Those who try to intellectualize "the market" into a separate playing field will be forever bewildered. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,339 by jbrabeck 8/31/01 1:08:52 PM Reply	WOT What's with the new icon Andrew? I should be using that one!! (See Disaster Recovery thread ;)) [link\|mailto:jbrabeck@mn.mediaone.net\|Joe]
Post #7,342 by addison 8/31/01 1:24:39 PM Reply	Not really. They affect the market. They aren't part of it. Shoplifting might count, but insofar as much as its a CHANGE in the "cost". The whole definition of "market" is inclusive. It certainly is influenced by outside effects. And laws are passed in response to markets, and they may have an effect, but that doesn't mean that they are market forces. (by definition) Weather, doesn't respond (at least on a easily figured scale) of supply and demand - the supply is completely divorced from the demand. (Hense irrigation, desaliniation plants, where supply/demand are interactive. And that's the problem with Imric's assertation. Antitrust law isn't a part of the market, its an outside influence on it. Having said that, some laws (such as price ceilings or floors) can be modelled seperately, since they don't just put a delta to supply or demand. They create an artificial boundary for the demand/supply meeting. I'm eagerly awaiting Imric's representation of antitrust law on a classic graph. Addison
Post #7,378 by CRConrad 8/31/01 7:12:14 PM Reply	Huh??? Addison writes: The more elasticity you have, the better. Elasticity just is a neutral measurement, not something normative that's "better" at one end of the scale and "worse" at the other. I do wish you wouldn't pontificate with such absolute self-confidence on economics -- it really doesn't seem to be justified. Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #7,389 by addison 8/31/01 9:43:06 PM Reply	Context, CRC, context. Elasticity just is a neutral measurement, not something normative that's "better" at one end of the scale and "worse" at the other. We're talking about markets, and economic modelling.Classically, the "free market" has infinite buyers, sellers, 0 elasticity, and perfect knowledge. A true "free market" really doesn't exist. (which has 0 elasticity, everything's interchangeable). But the closer you are to the "free" market, the better. (Or, why is it not better?) The more elastic things are, the more interchangable, the closer to said "simple model". The less elastic, the less interchangeable, the less you're able to negotiate, and the more you're tied to monopolies. I do wish you wouldn't pontificate with such absolute self-confidence on economics -- it really doesn't seem to be justified. When BP tells me shut up, I'll hush. In the meantime, I'll keep on being self-confident. :) Unless you'd like to cite differing theories, that is. Addison
Post #7,513 by CRConrad 9/2/01 7:09:18 PM Reply	What, you think BeeP is the only economist in here??? Addison writes: [Quoting me:] I do wish you wouldn't pontificate with such absolute self-confidence on economics -- it really doesn't seem to be justified. When BP tells me shut up, I'll hush. In the meantime, I'll keep on being self-confident. :) So what's he got that's so much better, in your opinion, than my B.Sc in Econ and BA -- with specialization in econometrics -- from Uppsala University, 1992? A Master's, perhaps? I wasn't too far off from that myself either, what with the extra courses I took, beyond the requirements for a Bachelor's, if that's any help... (What economics exam did you take, BeeP, and where and when?) Why should you doubt my word on shit like this in the first place, Addison, considering it's exactly this kind of shit that I've studied full-time (before you say it: from mostly American textbooks, so I'm not indoctrinated in some weird special kind of pseudo-Soviet Swedish Economics...) for far too many years -- which, AFAICT, you haven't? Oh, and either I'm reading you wrong, or your "0 elasticity, everything's interchangeable" and "The more elastic things are, the more interchangable ... The less elastic, the less interchangeable" seem to imply you think elasticity is somehow synonymous with interchangeability. That's a new one to me... Any input, BeeP? (ObPrescientLRPD: "(It's only a model...) SHHHH!") Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything (Yes, When It Comes To Economics, He Really Fucking DOES Know!)
Post #7,523 by addison 9/2/01 10:45:15 PM Reply	No idea how many there are in here. But I'll say that your initial forays certainly didn't seem to indicate that level of education. Whether that's a mark on the learning, or the individual I won't comment on. :) Why should you doubt my word on shit like this in the first place, Addison, considering it's exactly this kind of shit that I've studied full-time Because I made a statement that should have been very easily understood by someone with econ background, and you jump and ridicule it, and say something that I consider to be at odds with that education you boast? Even with that knowledge now, I'd have to go back and edit and say "you should certainly know better". If you've had that much econ, then you know what I'm talking about. So to make the comment you did, that's at the time all I've got to measure your knowledge by. I'm not indoctrinated in some weird special kind of pseudo-Soviet Swedish Economics...) for far too many years -- which, AFAICT, you haven't? You're right. I've never studied any pseudo-Soviet Swedish Economics. Oh, and either I'm reading you wrong, or your "0 elasticity, everything's interchangeable" and "The more elastic things are, the more interchangable ... The less elastic, the less interchangeable" seem to imply you think elasticity is somehow synonymous with interchangeability. D'oh. You're right. There are seperate conditions, and they are in some cases related/linked, (which is what I was thinking about). They should be considered seperately, sorry about that. Mea Culpa. Addison
Post #7,531 by bepatient 9/2/01 11:34:12 PM Reply	Econometrics...cool I hated that ;) Even though it was probably one of the more interesting aspect of economics ...it was also not easy....until the teacher finally broke down and let us solve a model or 2 using an actual computer (the bastard)....we spend nearly 6 weeks solving a model by hand that we ran through the computer in about an hour.... the teachers explanation...(and unfortunately he was right)..."Now you understand the output...don't you?" Want a word that still makes me break into a cold sweat...multicollinearity. Your's is a BS also...most schools only offer BA in Econ anymore...seems like the new crop of kids don't feel that differential equations should be required study... Several exams...42 hours of economics.(that would be 14 college classes)....and an academic award. So figure at least a midterm and final in each...would be 28 exams...and say 2 more in at least half...so ...conservative estimate...42 exams. I still have the term papers (30 pages or more, each)...there were 6 of those. Add to that the other basic biz courses...Accounting, Marketing, Management, Finance...plus the basic psych, sociology, French, German (don't quiz me there...ich everything forgotten ;))(but I still have the book) Then grad school... No biggie. Econ was fun...the speciality really is antitrust. Main paper in graduate school was a full comparison of US and EU antitrust. And the current job requires yearly updates in antitrust...got to stay current so's to not get my employer into any trouble. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #7,447 by hnick 9/1/01 10:54:07 AM Reply	Good point... I suspect you were being sarcastic, but you made an excellent point. >>"Because with your definition - shoplifting is a market force. >> >>Firebombing a store that irritated you - is a market force. Corrupt cops are market forces." Shoplifting is a market force. Look at grocery stores in 'bad' neighborhoods. The prices are higher because of theft and the higher insurance premiums that result. The only people who shop there are those who lack transportation to 'better' stores. They (obviously) have less money and the same caloric needs, thus theft... Can you say positive feedback? Vandalism and corruption work toward the same ends. My point is of a more local nature than global economies but the analogy is useful. On a global scale, replace shoplifting with nationalizing, vandalism with insurrection, and I don't think corruption needs a conversion. Just a minor point.. Hugh
Post #7,455 by Andrew Grygus 9/1/01 12:37:56 PM Reply	Two approaches to "the market" Addison subscribes to a narrow academic model where the problem is simplified to the point where calculations can be made. Everything is eliminated but supply, demand and pricing. Anything else is by definition "external" to "the market". Now all you have to do is determine the supply and the demand to predict pricing, or supply and pricing to determine demand. I subscribe to a marketing model where anything and everything that affects selling the product is a "market force", including weather, shoplifting and the shifting sands of "fashion". Should I write a textbook on "market forces", Addison and associates would can it as the ravings of a demented crank. Should any business try to market in accordance with Addison's definition, it would be reading Chapter 7 pretty damned fast. For a view of both approaches in action, have a look at this fall's "back to school" clothing market for young men. There is a great deal of supply and no demand at all, and pricing is sure to follow theory. This is due to a fashion misjudgement by the clothing industry. Young men are haunting "closeout" stores in hope of finding some of last years stuff. Addison would consider fashion an "external force disrupting the market", and I would consider fashion the primary "market force" because it has totally distorted the supply / demand ballance. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,457 by addison 9/1/01 1:14:28 PM Reply	Re: Two approaches to "the market" Addison subscribes to a narrow academic model where the problem is simplified to the point where calculations can be made. Not at all. Everything is eliminated but supply, demand and pricing. Anything else is by definition "external" to "the market". Pretty much, yes. That's the basic market. LOTS of things AFFECT those, but those are what its about. Should any business try to market in accordance with Addison's definition, it would be reading Chapter 7 pretty damned fast. Hrm. Last I checked, there were lots. Doing exactly what you say they can't. There is a great deal of supply and no demand at all, and pricing is sure to follow theory. This is due to a fashion misjudgement by the clothing industry. Young men are haunting "closeout" stores in hope of finding some of last years stuff. Let me get this straight. So since there's no demand, price is going down (just as would be predicted), and since there's demand for the (older stuff), the price is going up, and I'm the one talking out my ass? That's exactly what these idiots you're sneering at would have predicted. Addison would consider fashion an "external force disrupting the market", and I would consider fashion the primary "market force" because it has totally distorted the supply / demand ballance. How about you ask, rather than state authorititatively what I would think? I'd suggest taking an econ class, but since you're still insisting that you had NO part in making the Microsoft monopoly, I'm not expecting you'd learn much. :) (for anybody else) Fashion and other things affect supply and demand. As do elasticity, switching costs, and many other things. Some things can be modeled. "Fashion" is about impossble, since its subjective. But the effect of "Fashion" is to change the DEMAND curve - as Andrew noted correctly, in his incorrect assesment, thus changing the price where it crosses the Demand curve. Addison
Post #7,458 by addison 9/1/01 1:15:40 PM Reply	BTW: Anybody who would like to DISPROVE what I just said - do me a favor. Show me. Show me the graphs where you're talking about something else. I won't say you're wrong, ahead of time, but I want you to SHOW me what you're saying. Don't just insist that something exists. Show me. Personally, I expect you'll find that you're drawing supply/demand curves.. and that either one, or the other, is being moved. Addison
Post #7,460 by Andrew Grygus 9/1/01 1:55:31 PM Reply	Which is why you adhere . . . . . . to the narrow academic definition - you demand graphs and charts. Anything that can't be charted is by definition an "external influence". Of course any chart presented will be just a supply/demand/price chart, that's the only part that can be charted - how do you chart fashions, for instance, or the antics of legeslators? If your model worked in the real world, companies wouldn't have marketing departments, they'd just have a computer program, but those pesky, unchartable "external influences" can (and often do) have an overwhelming influence on the demand variable (and sometimes the supply variable) of your supply/demand/price calculations. Valid supply/demand/price calculations tend to be "after the fact" - after the "external influences" have already had their way with the market. It's up to the marketeers to try to anticipate those "external influences" - to the marketeer, those are the primary market forces. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't, it's not something you can graph. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,464 by addison 9/1/01 2:56:56 PM Reply	Which is why I asked... You to show something. Of course any chart presented will be just a supply/demand/price chart, that's the only part that can be charted Let me get this straight. You're insulting me because I've said that according to economic definition, you can only chart this, thus its what you measure. Now you're telling me its all you can. - how do you chart fashions, for instance, or the antics of legeslators? The question for you was how do you do that. To answer your question, since you won't, is that those are "shifts in the supply or demand curve". Fashion shifts demand. Doesn't touch supply. Legislation can affect either - or impose a artificial equilibrium out of whack with the "natural" eq. If your model worked in the real world, companies wouldn't have marketing departments, The model does work in the real world. Heard of "economies of scale?" What about "super buys" at your local store? Companies want to maximize their profits. Marketing is an attempt to get you to buy THEIR product, pay their premium, for some reason. You don't need to market when there's not competition. Marketing surely exists - BECAUSE (YET AGAIN FOR THE HARD-OF-READING) THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A TRUELY FREE MARKET. There isn't perfect knowledge. There isn't complete elasticity, there aren't infinite suppliers and buyers. Differing people have differing demands. Personally, I don't give a flying fig about Tommy Pull-my-finger crap. I don't buy it. I buy generic, good clothes. Want me to buy your clothes? They've got to be in my price point. Other people put more of a premium on these things. Does this change the basic point? Nope. Means that there's a shift, and even then, you can even put up a S/D curve on fashion items. I have a cousin who only buys/wears Nike stuff. But there are still things he can't afford, he has a S/D curve for that stuff. Fashion, with a S/D curve. Now, if you want to tell me I'm wrong, get your cerebrum in gear, and SHOW ME. Right now you're telling me I'm wrong, because I'm right. You can chart fashion - people make quite a lot of money doing exactly that - because it shifts the Demand curve up, without increasing the costs more than the increased profits. Or sometimes not, witness the dot-com failures, where they didn't have the S/D curves right - no matter how fashionable. In short, you don't understand the econ theory.... If you'd start to, you'd stop telling me I'm wrong. :) Addison
Post #7,465 by Andrew Grygus 9/1/01 4:10:50 PM 9/1/01 4:25:28 PM Reply	How "Super Buys" work . . 1. Superstore A negotiates huge lot toilet paper deal at the best price and terms they can get from manufacturer B. 2. Superstore A does a "special", bombs the toilet paper at cost or less, and moves the whole buy in one week. 3. Superstore A invests the money they owe to manufacturer B in money market, Eurodollars, or whatever investment is hot at the moment. 4. Superstore A drags payment to manufacturer B for 90 days or more and pockets the money earned. With enough simultaneous deals going, that can be significant income, plus it brings people into the store, and they're likely to buy some of the profitable stuff while they're there. "We lose money on every sale and make it up in volume" is literally true. And a couple of other things: 5. Since superstore A is selling so cheap, retailers C,D,E,F and G have reduced sales and reduce their orders to manufacturer B. 6. Since orders from other retailers have dropped, manufacturer B is desparate to meet their quarterly sales figures, so when superstore A comes back for another round, they're all ready to lube up, bend over and get screwed again - just a little deeper this time because they've become more dependent on superstore A. 7. Finally, manufacturer B files Chapter 11 because of low profit and cost of money to float receivable for 90 to 120 days. 8. Manufacturer F is approached by superstore A. Manufacturer F's sales have been down because all the volume has been going to manufacturer B, so they're all ready to "make that big deal" to meet their quarterly figures. Lube up, bend over, repeat until done. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx] Edited by Andrew Grygus Sept. 1, 2001, 04:25:28 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #7,468 by Ashton 9/1/01 5:12:49 PM Reply	Hey! I think I see a 'graph' in there________:-\ufffd Or maybe just an epitaph.. Blessed are the numerologists, for they shall chart their demise - after the integrated vastly complex Real Market (the world of random homo-saps) makes it happen - to 6-digits of precision. And.. it will look so Kewl! on that Power Point demo to the auction house, of the er 'recoverable assets': the 95.2312% of the Hill-O'Fingers Transistorized Banana Corer, still 'in stock'. Ahhh.. numbers are so sooothing, so like P&G Ivory soap's crooning of, 99 and 44/100ths percent Pure.. It Floats !! (Hey! it sold a lot of soap!) 3.1415928... ah it's almost as satisfying as a Real Pi(e), except in the stomach, of course. Ashton 99.87234% Sure! that Certainty is a chimera - and not only in regular religions.
Post #7,470 by Andrew Grygus 9/1/01 5:56:44 PM Reply	Adventures in marketing #48734655j A century ago in a soap factory, a production mistake was made. A mixing machine was left running for way too long and ruined a batch of soap. The soap had stiffened and a lot of air got worked into it. Production now had a very large and very "odd" batch of soap on their hands. They called in marketing to see if it could still be sold - a full scale new product introduction campaign followed immediately. You see, due to the fscked up processing, the soap floated. Further, due to the air in it, it disolved faster than regular soap, a convenience to the user, but one which would cause them to need to buy soap more often. This is like the much earlier case in France, where the baker's apprentice, after preparing a large batch of dough, realized he had forgotten the butter. Desperately, he folded in the butter, but the dough was lumpy, so he rolled it out and folded it again and again until it finally looked normal. It looked normal, but it didn't bake normal. The boss cornered his apprentice and sternly asked what had happened, and the kid confessed. He was not punished, however, because the baker was a marketeer, and launched the puff pastry industry, making possible the croisant and other popular products. Disclaimer: the puff pastry story may or may not be true in reality (but if it isn't it ought to be). The soap story is true. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,469 by Ashton 9/1/01 5:38:24 PM Reply	Or, for the 'engineering model' Hey! I've got a model for The Car - tells ya everything you need to know about making one: ______......______ \|Box A \| + \|Box B \| = The Car \|_____\| + \|_____\| What's in box B? transmission, clutch, drivetrain, wheels - simple! What's in Box A? The Engine - simple! OK.. I see how the principle of the lever covers gear ratios and, friction reduces power and.. wheels turn - all that B stuff. But what's in Box A? Oh, Laffercurves and Cost/Benefit ratios and extrapolated depreciation on the mean replacement cost and ... ^h^h...etc. I mean! er, gasoline, air, metal, rubber, water, glycol, electrons, sludge, varnish, carcinogens - why ya wanna know all that stuff? But how does The Engine work? Nobody Knows, but we call it: 'Economics' and.. we can graph it to a fare thee well. It's enough. We've got the $; we make the rules. I don't see how the Engine WORKS! Look kid, if you wanna pass this course and get that MBA and start playing Solitaire in that corner office, in yer Regimental-striped tie - before Wednesday golf with the Doctors? Shut up and mark those boxes [T][F]. Oh, sorry - guess I don't need to know Everything! Open Book quiz at 11:00:12.72 Bring your calculators; no essay questions allowed - and NO PENCILS. It's Power Point ONLY Class dismissed [click] Class dismissed [click] Class dismissed [click]
Post #7,471 by Andrew Grygus 9/1/01 6:52:49 PM Reply	No problem - it's "Faith Based" [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,582 by wharris2 9/3/01 7:11:36 PM Reply	Missed item Cost leaders. Superstore A has a great deal on toilet paper, but gets revenue on whatever else teh buyer may buy at the store. French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #7,598 by boxley 9/3/01 9:23:43 PM Reply	dollar stores also things you would never consider going to the store for but they are only a buck. thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #7,601 by Andrew Grygus 9/3/01 9:41:16 PM Reply	No, I got that . . . . . paragraph under item 4. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,499 by bepatient 9/2/01 1:24:22 PM Reply	Boys boys boys.... There are ALOT more factors than Supply and Demand...(pricing falls from these 2...and is thus derived...in >theory< :-)_) BUT...I feel inclined to poke my head in here... Weather, shoplifting and fashion ARE market forces...because they relate to how product cost or material supply is derived. Bad weather does indeed affect the supply of citrus fruit...for example. Shifting fashion sense has certainly reduced demand for double-knit polyester leisure suits...has it not? HOWEVER...this thread, IIRC, began by someone trying to call government intervention a "market force". THIS...is not correct. While government intervention does indeed affect the market...by economic definition it is NOT a "market" force....but an external influence to the "market"...needed to ensure an adequate supply of "public" goods that would NOT be produced by the market itself (national defense...pollution control...etc...) AND...just to make another point...I can graph a shitload more stuff than just supply and demand...there's resource allocation, indifference, marginal outputs, interest rate and fx affects on money, money multipliers... Only Father Guido Sarducci can get away with all of econ being supply and demand based. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #7,508 by Ashton 9/2/01 4:30:42 PM Reply	Now don't spoil it, BP By introducing rational qualifiers. My guess is that the visceral antipathy to all the boffins is - that they tend to perpetuate the idiotic ideas that (say) A) The Market is... anything other than a highly idealized er 'massless rod of length h'. B) That its entire dynamic may be expressed in mathematical model, displayed in 2D or nD 'graphs' -- which 'explain' it all. (Though unlike the scientific ideal: rarely predict events with more than owl-entrail accuracy) Agreed that we 'want' Some methodology a bit better than owl-entrails; it's our nature to seek explanations (some folk even imagine there's an ontological 'proof' of er God!). I suggest that the concept 'market forces' is simply an open-ended labelled container into which, with perfect 20/20 hindsight: are tossed each new factor as was seen to have affected That particular run-up or run-down; factors as varied as The Weather and - Imagine an idea, sufficiently sophisticatedly noised about that: The phosphorous in Coke (the liquid kind) + the accumulated random DNA from the millions of steer carcasses intermixed into any one Big Mac: are asymptotically approaching a certain date (elapsed time) ~ a la Code Red algorithm - at which time flaming kidney stones shall appear in millions of fast-diners, all within a likely window of just 'weeks' = excruciating pain! (How many $B support, feed-off UFO sightings overall?) Economists thus purport that their algorithms work, yet that 'market forces' container is as malleable as gold leaf hammered between leather sheets. It's no nearer a science (however unarguably it is Dismal) than is 'socio'logy; but it must pay well, and soothe lots of CIEIOs - and after all they Are the most important ones to buy the snake oil: they own most of the stuff (even the patented ideas!) [/Aummmm]: Dollllarrrrzzzzz Unite against the Dismal Doctors of Deception D\ufffd ? Don't be a Rube !!
Post #7,661 by drewk 9/4/01 4:35:31 PM Reply	How much is this a semantic argument? While government intervention does indeed affect the market...by economic definition it is NOT a "market" force. Someone (Ashton?) recently brought up the concept that professions are just the way to keep non-professionals from playing your game through the use of technical jargon. I'm not an economist, but a layperson ... one who pays attention. It seems there is some disagreement even from the people with formal training in the field as to whether government intervention should be classified as a "market force." To the extent that anything that affects the market is a market force, it is. To the extent that the "idealized market" only consists of supply, demand and price, it isn't. The "truth" must lie somewhere in between. My understanding, as I said in my other post, is the simple Supply/Demand graph, and that everything else is just inputs into determining these curves. The simple chart, by itself, is not predictive or useful. But even at this level of understanding, I see government intervention -- in the form of patents, anti-trust regulation, price fixing, nationalized industry, etc. -- as fundamentally different from buyer/seller inputs. In this sense, supply is the idealized end-point of all inputs involving the seller, and demand is the end-point of all inputs involving the buyer. IMO government input is still orthoganal to these forces. I suspect that Addison's viewpoint is farily close to this. FWIW I believe that's the "proper" way to view government input since "the government" is theoretically a representative of "the people," which should include the buyers and the sellers. Slightly OT: A gas station franchise owner in Alabama (he only has one station) has sued OPEC under anti-trust legislation for price fixing. At the first hearing, OPEC didn't appear and the judge entered summary judgement on behalf of the plaintiff. Another judge has set aside the verdict, and a second round is under way with OPEC taking the matter somewhat more seriously. The US Attorney isn't weighing in, claiming they don't have a mechanism to pursue the case. OPEC's position is that the plaintiff has no standing to pursue a multinational, due to sovreign immunity. They are explicitly holding themselves up as equivalent to the U.N., as deserving of immunity to local prosecution. This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Post #7,668 by bepatient 9/4/01 5:03:41 PM Reply	Definition... I can understand why the confusion exists. Public finance (government intervention in the economy) is a couple of full time courses in economics. The basic principle is that "market" forces are those inherent in the interaction between the "suppliers and demanders"...where government intervention is "enforced" on the market from the outside. Both have influence on the derived outcome of the market...so the net effect is pretty much the same. So... ...I understand both points of view...but to really be true to my school...have to split laws and other government issues away from the naturally occuring "market". You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #7,476 by boxley 9/1/01 9:46:19 PM Reply	hate to let a perfectly degenerating thread go to waste. A man taking a dump in california in 1849 picked up some gravel to wipe his ass and the gold rush was on. Everything is a market force, even the fact that a couple of guys went surfing a few years ago and now we have Microsoft Corp instead of CPM corp. Shoplifting indeed is a market force as it defined the need and market for anti shoplifting devices. Go into a Home Depot and go the the power tool section and tell me shoplifting isnt a market force. :) Cant help arguing with you some times because you dissed my fav chinese Ginger House just because they like to use ginger:) thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #7,491 by Ashton 9/2/01 6:41:26 AM Reply	Ah.. but the Biggest 'marketing force' has to be Suggestibility (I Need This) Gullibility (I Really Need this - that ad is so Pretty) Insatiability (I Really need All of Those) All lumped together under the root cause of the symptoms (Gee I'm maxed out on 4 cards, but.. I Just Gotta HAVE This NOW) [all verified by the US er 'savings rate' and growing % of those with 0 net worth] summarized as: Dumbth. I assert that every mercantile economy counts on Dumbth at its very core, fosters it, and via its now omnipresent ads: makes every effort to counter any tendency towards Smarts. Consumer as Patsy, by definition of the system. Watched any UAV, truck ads lately? - noticed the fantasyland depicted as reason for running out to get one? (Hmmm tattoo Caveat Emptor on every newborn's right hand? Would make a lot more sense than circumcision, for females OR males.) "'Market forces' on some nice neat graph" - indeed. Snake oil for the academics and MBAs and by the same -- no reps for the consumption-besotted on any of Those committees -- formed solely to get the marks to go into hock more, and for longer. No matter what. THERE's the Real Market Force\ufffd So.. does Dumbth belong on the ordinate or the abscissa - or is it a Constant offset, with an annual CODA rise? A. Innumeracy leads to consumerism. We have both in spades.

Welcome to IWETHEY!