3 ms·
z = ( ‖ Wi, t-1 ‖ ÷ Wt0 + ‖ Wr, t-1 ‖ ÷ Wt0 ) ÷ 2 The weird thing about defining the amount of money given this way is that as people go further into debt, t
by posix_compliant 4y ago
z = ( ‖ Wi, t-1 ‖ ÷ Wt0 + ‖ Wr, t-1 ‖ ÷ Wt0 ) ÷ 2
The weird thing about defining the amount of money given this way is that as people go further into debt, they give more and more money.
- masswerk 4y agoThe principal idea is that a stronger market position will provide better options to dictate prices and to choose favorable investments, which will pay off at scale. If this is a viable assumption on the one side, it must be reflected on the other side. E.g., if you are in urgent need for money, you can't just decline an unfavorable offer and wait for a more advantageous one. You'll probably need to undercut average prices by your own offerings. And there will be whole industries taking advantage of this, by this weakening your opportunities again, as your liminal costs are rising (the two-months supply value pack is not for you, as you struggle to earn this week's expenses), while your market position declines.