IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New 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]
New 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
New 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]
Expand Edited by Andrew Grygus Sept. 1, 2001, 04:25:28 PM EDT
New 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.
New 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]
New 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]
New No problem - it's "Faith Based"
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New 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!
New 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
New No, I got that . . .
. . paragraph under item 4.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
     Bill Gates's way, or no way - (addison) - (105)
         A lesson - - (imric) - (104)
             At last I see, the only viable solution next: - (Ashton)
             Wrong lesson. - (addison) - (102)
                 This faith may not be entirely misplaced but.. - (Ashton)
                 And the Thousand Year Reich would have corrected itself . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (7)
                     Touch\ufffd____cackle___cackle_____Market Forces for Dummies\ufffd - (Ashton)
                     Markets, Andrew, not Governments. - (addison) - (5)
                         False Godwin. - (inthane-chan) - (1)
                             False False godwin. - (addison)
                         I fail to see the difference. - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                             The one sentence version - (Andrew Grygus)
                             I agree, its a failing. :) - (addison)
                 I disagree. - (Another Scott) - (15)
                     Re: I disagree. - (addison) - (14)
                         The infrastructure would still be there . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (4)
                             That's a "presume" not a "simply". - (addison) - (3)
                                 What's Microsoft's ratio of "plants, trucks, etc"... - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                     Erm. I think you got mixed up. - (addison)
                                 Counterexample. - (a6l6e6x)
                         SOAP - (Decco Dave) - (8)
                             Needs more washing - (addison) - (3)
                                 Re: Needs more washing - (Decco Dave) - (2)
                                     Needs a LOT more washing. - (addison) - (1)
                                         Interoperation? - (Decco Dave)
                             Re: SOAP - MS 'invented' SOAP ? - (dmarker2) - (1)
                                 Pleasing MS - (Decco Dave)
                             Microsoft did not invent SOAP. - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                                 Dave Winer. - (static)
                 Antitrust law IS a 'market correction' -NT - (imric) - (76)
                     No, its an artificial outside influence, like ceiling/floors -NT - (addison) - (43)
                         Wrong. - (imric) - (42)
                             If you insist on perverting the language, fine. - (addison) - (41)
                                 noting previous antitrust vs. Microsoft - (wharris2) - (1)
                                     Absolute faith in a simplistic concept, 'free market' - (Ashton)
                                 So hostile... - (imric) - (38)
                                     Because its a "concept" that disallows agreement. - (addison) - (37)
                                         Now we know - (Silverlock) - (4)
                                             Re: Now we know - (addison) - (3)
                                                 Just going by history - (Silverlock) - (2)
                                                     I suggest you repeat History, you've forgotten it. - (addison) - (1)
                                                         Sorry dude, you just rub me the wrong way - (Silverlock)
                                         Sure. Whatever. - (imric) - (3)
                                             Re: Sure. Whatever. - (addison) - (2)
                                                 ? - (imric) - (1)
                                                     You've gotten confused. - (addison)
                                         Shoplifting is a market force . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                                             WOT - (jbrabeck)
                                             Not really. - (addison)
                                         Huh??? - (CRConrad) - (4)
                                             Context, CRC, context. - (addison) - (3)
                                                 What, you think BeeP is the only economist in here??? - (CRConrad) - (2)
                                                     No idea how many there are in here. - (addison)
                                                     Econometrics...cool - (bepatient)
                                         Good point... - (hnick) - (17)
                                             Two approaches to "the market" - (Andrew Grygus) - (16)
                                                 Re: Two approaches to "the market" - (addison) - (11)
                                                     BTW: - (addison) - (10)
                                                         Which is why you adhere . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (9)
                                                             Which is why I asked... - (addison) - (8)
                                                                 How "Super Buys" work . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (7)
                                                                     Hey! I think I see a 'graph' in there________:-\ufffd - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                                         Adventures in marketing #48734655j - (Andrew Grygus)
                                                                     Or, for the 'engineering model' - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                                         No problem - it's "Faith Based" -NT - (Andrew Grygus)
                                                                     Missed item - (wharris2) - (2)
                                                                         dollar stores also - (boxley)
                                                                         No, I got that . . . - (Andrew Grygus)
                                                 Boys boys boys.... - (bepatient) - (3)
                                                     Now don't spoil it, BP - (Ashton)
                                                     How much is this a semantic argument? - (drewk) - (1)
                                                         Definition... - (bepatient)
                                         hate to let a perfectly degenerating thread go to waste. - (boxley) - (1)
                                             Ah.. but the *Biggest* 'marketing force' has to be - (Ashton)
                     I think there is a definition issue here - (ben_tilly) - (31)
                         Exactly. Thanks. - (addison) - (30)
                             Fine! - (imric) - (7)
                                 Market theory assumes idealized conditions. - (drewk) - (2)
                                     Oh, shut the (*#@$ up. - (addison) - (1)
                                         *chuckle* -NT - (imric)
                                 Re: Fine! - (addison) - (3)
                                     Thanks for an illuminating thread, all. - (Ashton)
                                     Aieee! - (imric)
                                     In support of your position - (boxley)
                             Where do you get this stuff from??? - (CRConrad) - (21)
                                 Many years of econ classes. - (addison) - (17)
                                     How many? And of *what* -- Econ 101, over and over again...? - (CRConrad) - (6)
                                         3. - (addison)
                                         Apologies to Mr. Smith, for having blamed him for - (Ashton)
                                         Natural monopoly - (bepatient) - (3)
                                             yeah right Auburn :-) - (boxley)
                                             yeah right Auburn :-) - (boxley) - (1)
                                                 Just had to give the credit.... - (bepatient)
                                     Not just time but method - (mhuber) - (9)
                                         Yep...sometimes what is substituted... - (bepatient) - (8)
                                             How so? - (Silverlock) - (7)
                                                 Issues... - (bepatient) - (6)
                                                     Good! the nitty-gritty.. finally. - (Ashton)
                                                     I figured Billy needs a personal punishment. - (Andrew Grygus) - (3)
                                                         Well... - (bepatient)
                                                         Then why didn't you describe one? :-) - (static) - (1)
                                                             Nope. Then he'd go into politics directly, 'stead of buying' -NT - (Ashton)
                                                     Re: Issues... - (addison)
                                 Oh it will... - (bepatient) - (1)
                                     Well... we are still waiting on that last supposition - (Ashton)
                                 AT&T - (wharris2)

The natural enemy of the tightrope walker is the common bee.
130 ms