3 ms·
Under limited circumstances, depending heavily on what is causing the loss, sometimes this can be effective for very few companies. Of course, many people unrea
by pwinnski 7y ago
Under limited circumstances, depending heavily on what is causing the loss, sometimes this can be effective for very few companies. Of course, many people unrealistically believe that their circumstances apply, that the cause of the loss is irrelevant, and that it will be effective for them. Most are wrong.
Losing money per transaction is dangerous. Making money per transaction but plowing the profits into expansion is less dangerous. The latter is what Amazon did. The former is what too many companies are doing, not seeing the difference.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- privateprofile 7y ago>> Losing money per transaction is dangerous. Is that not just a form of dumping, and should therefore be illegal/regulated? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
- pwinnski 7y agoThere is theoretically a scenario in which a company might temporarily lose money on each transaction due to scale, but over the long term manage to lower costs so that each transaction is profitable. Even that, I'd say it's dangerous to count on that, but it's not completely impossible. I think that's different from dumping, which I consider to be a more deliberate attempt to outlast a competitor.
- eru 7y agoDepends on what 'should' you mean? From a moral point of view, anti-dumping laws are counterproductive. Their prime use is to sue companies that have lower cost than you.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]