3 ms·

This can happen already to you when products go out of stock, because the company doesn’t have enough capacity to produce, or they underestimate the demand, but

This can happen already to you when products go out of stock, because the company doesn’t have enough capacity to produce, or they underestimate the demand, but after the company makes profit and reinvest in the next batch, they can adjust the price to balance the demand. It’s not like you are already free to buy whatever you want, there are production limitations, and your budget limitation. Right now big companies are allowed to give 100x better solutions at fraction of the cost, that makes imposible to other companies to compete and your freedom to buy is just not real, as many times you’ll be obligated to buy from the big fish, being the only alternative. In the other hand limiting them, they will have to raise the prices and then it would make sense that something 100x more convenient is also more expensive. Right now we have convenience and low cost, but it’s at the expense of killing smaller business and creating virtual monopolies.

rualca 5y ago
> This can happen already to you when products go out of stock (...) No, it can't. Your case involves a scenario where no transaction is possible because there is no product to buy or sell. It has zero to do with my very simple and very straight-forward example of a customer wanting to buy a product indeed sold and available and on the store of a seller who already reached its 10% market share. My example is very clear, and for some reason all proponents of this virtuous 10% market share are either unable or unwilling to step up and either think their idea through or explain how they expect to implement their virtuous idea. And this is a very simple and straight-forward example: a seller has a product I want to buy, I shopped around and that seller has the absolute best offer, I want to buy the product from that seller, the seller has the product on the counter and I have the cash at hand, but the seller already hit the 10% market share. What then? Is the next step so mysterious that no one can even come close to dare explain what they believe should happen?
- alfonsodev 5y ago
  You keep asking the same, What then? which leads me to think we are parting from very different scenarios. Perhaps the difference comes from you thinking in a limit that applies as per number of products sold, and you could find yourself on that situation of "what then?" the product being on the shelve but you are unable to buy it. I'm thinking in a scenario where the limit is on the production, similar to what I mention before, the EU controlling vegetable productions. So you don't get to find the product on the shelve if it's already gone but you'll find some other brand, the ones that are better will be more scarce and more pricy as a consequence. Now, do I want as a consumer that the best things are also cheap and available?, yes! of course! But the question is, is that sustainable? and what happens to the market when we have this huge player that outcompete everyone else, and dictate the rules, and they are in a position to set the quality standards, long term we might be free to buy just from them under their own rules. Is that freedom? I'm really not familiar with those proponents of the 10% market, I was just talking from my common sense, I don't think is crazy to put some limits, and we already have some in some industries, for better or worse. I'm dropping it here, but thanks for sharing your point of view, I'll read you if you reply, always learning and open to change my opinion. Cheers!

rualca 5y ago

> This can happen already to you when products go out of stock (...) No, it can't. Your case involves a scenario where no transaction is possible because there is no product to buy or sell. It has zero to do with my very simple and very straight-forward example of a customer wanting to buy a product indeed sold and available and on the store of a seller who already reached its 10% market share. My example is very clear, and for some reason all proponents of this virtuous 10% market share are either unable or unwilling to step up and either think their idea through or explain how they expect to implement their virtuous idea. And this is a very simple and straight-forward example: a seller has a product I want to buy, I shopped around and that seller has the absolute best offer, I want to buy the product from that seller, the seller has the product on the counter and I have the cash at hand, but the seller already hit the 10% market share. What then? Is the next step so mysterious that no one can even come close to dare explain what they believe should happen?

alfonsodev 5y ago
You keep asking the same, What then? which leads me to think we are parting from very different scenarios. Perhaps the difference comes from you thinking in a limit that applies as per number of products sold, and you could find yourself on that situation of "what then?" the product being on the shelve but you are unable to buy it. I'm thinking in a scenario where the limit is on the production, similar to what I mention before, the EU controlling vegetable productions. So you don't get to find the product on the shelve if it's already gone but you'll find some other brand, the ones that are better will be more scarce and more pricy as a consequence. Now, do I want as a consumer that the best things are also cheap and available?, yes! of course! But the question is, is that sustainable? and what happens to the market when we have this huge player that outcompete everyone else, and dictate the rules, and they are in a position to set the quality standards, long term we might be free to buy just from them under their own rules. Is that freedom? I'm really not familiar with those proponents of the 10% market, I was just talking from my common sense, I don't think is crazy to put some limits, and we already have some in some industries, for better or worse. I'm dropping it here, but thanks for sharing your point of view, I'll read you if you reply, always learning and open to change my opinion. Cheers!