5 ms·

"Consumer surplus" is the term you're looking for. Minimizing consumer surplus leaves you vulnerable to undercutting by competitors. There are plenty of compet

by coryrc 4y ago

"Consumer surplus" is the term you're looking for. Minimizing consumer surplus leaves you vulnerable to undercutting by competitors. There are plenty of competitors to See's candies. Just buy from them.

azinman2 4y ago
You’re missing the forest for the tree.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  Can you elaborate?
  - some_random 4y ago
    All their competitors realize they can do this and begin raising their prices too
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      Which would be price-fixing and illegal? I understand there's no way to 100% guarantee such actions will be punished, if it does occur, but clearly it's already not accepted by society.
      - wahnfrieden 4y ago
        [flagged]
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        > the biggest grocers in canada were guilty of price fixing Can you link to the court case?
        wahnfrieden 4y ago
        [flagged]
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        By 'cut it out' do you want me to stop asking my previous question? If so, you are free to ignore it. You also surreptitiously edited your previous comment without informing readers. FYI For small changes due to grammatical errors that may be acceptable, but a substantial change should always be indicated. (And now that I'm looking at the user profile the about description is just "go away" which makes this action seem suspicious.)
      - coryrc 4y ago
        It's not price-fixing if they don't communicate. AWS is fully allowed to publicly publish their planned price increases for the next 3 years and Azure is allowed to react to that information by doing the same thing -- or announce they won't or whatever.
  - azinman2 4y ago
    Saying just buy from a competitor to See’s is completely missing the point. The point isn’t See’s candies specifically (which I’m so surprised everyone really held onto), but rather the mindset of the MBA type (doesn’t matter if they actually have an MBA) that says let’s just keep increasing prices on this commodity forever until we’ve squeezed all the juice, and once we have, we’ll do it some more. When you apply this to every sector, over time you disproportionally hurt those at the bottom and make them poorer. You also cause inflation, which dwindles the power of savings. This software in the article is doing it for housing, and worse, it seems that it does it more than a human would. You especially see it in entertainment, where now a basketball game is something well beyond the capacity of most. It’s very unfair to me as a society that we say only rich kids can go to Disneyland, and NBA game, or a concert. Or if they do, it’s far less often and they’ve had to save for a long time for it. But you also see it with eating out, car insurance, almost every good except fast fashion, TVs (which are largely subsidized by monetizing your viewing), and some other consumer electronics. The percent of people’s average income spent on most sectors has gone up over time. I’ll leave you with this: https://youtu.be/X29p13cAT1g?t=17 https://youtu.be/X29p13cAT1g?t=17
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      'MBA types' have been punished for illegal activity, such as price-fixing, in the past. No one has granted them immunity from all future prosecution. So then what's your point? That currently legal actions such as raising prices because a brand wants to move up-market should be made illegal?
      - azinman2 4y ago
        I don’t know what I said that made you jump to the conclusion about legality. I never suggested it was illegal. I’m suggesting despite legality, society suffers and wealth inequality grows.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        The implications of your previous comment suggests so? > Saying just buy from a competitor to See’s is completely missing the point. The point isn’t See’s candies specifically (which I’m so surprised everyone really held onto), but rather the mindset of the MBA type (doesn’t matter if they actually have an MBA) that says let’s just keep increasing prices on this commodity forever until we’ve squeezed all the juice, and once we have, we’ll do it some more. When you apply this to every sector, over time you disproportionally hurt those at the bottom and make them poorer. You also cause inflation, which dwindles the power of savings. This software in the article is doing it for housing, and worse, it seems that it does it more than a human would. You especially see it in entertainment, where now a basketball game is something well beyond the capacity of most. It’s very unfair to me as a society that we say only rich kids can go to Disneyland, and NBA game, or a concert. Or if they do, it’s far less often and they’ve had to save for a long time for it. But you also see it with eating out, car insurance, almost every good except fast fashion, TVs (which are largely subsidized by monetizing your viewing), and some other consumer electronics. The percent of people’s average income spent on most sectors has gone up over time. I’ll leave you with this: https://youtu.be/X29p13cAT1g?t=17 https://youtu.be/X29p13cAT1g?t=17 It appears to be trying to argue some point, advance some claim, advocate for some cause, etc., relating to organizations increasing their pricing for their goods and services.

by coryrc 4y ago

azinman2 4y ago

You’re missing the forest for the tree.

MichaelZuo 4y ago
Can you elaborate?
- some_random 4y ago
  All their competitors realize they can do this and begin raising their prices too
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    Which would be price-fixing and illegal? I understand there's no way to 100% guarantee such actions will be punished, if it does occur, but clearly it's already not accepted by society.
    - wahnfrieden 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        > the biggest grocers in canada were guilty of price fixing Can you link to the court case?
        wahnfrieden 4y ago
        [flagged]
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        By 'cut it out' do you want me to stop asking my previous question? If so, you are free to ignore it. You also surreptitiously edited your previous comment without informing readers. FYI For small changes due to grammatical errors that may be acceptable, but a substantial change should always be indicated. (And now that I'm looking at the user profile the about description is just "go away" which makes this action seem suspicious.)
    - coryrc 4y ago
      It's not price-fixing if they don't communicate. AWS is fully allowed to publicly publish their planned price increases for the next 3 years and Azure is allowed to react to that information by doing the same thing -- or announce they won't or whatever.
- azinman2 4y ago
  Saying just buy from a competitor to See’s is completely missing the point. The point isn’t See’s candies specifically (which I’m so surprised everyone really held onto), but rather the mindset of the MBA type (doesn’t matter if they actually have an MBA) that says let’s just keep increasing prices on this commodity forever until we’ve squeezed all the juice, and once we have, we’ll do it some more. When you apply this to every sector, over time you disproportionally hurt those at the bottom and make them poorer. You also cause inflation, which dwindles the power of savings. This software in the article is doing it for housing, and worse, it seems that it does it more than a human would. You especially see it in entertainment, where now a basketball game is something well beyond the capacity of most. It’s very unfair to me as a society that we say only rich kids can go to Disneyland, and NBA game, or a concert. Or if they do, it’s far less often and they’ve had to save for a long time for it. But you also see it with eating out, car insurance, almost every good except fast fashion, TVs (which are largely subsidized by monetizing your viewing), and some other consumer electronics. The percent of people’s average income spent on most sectors has gone up over time. I’ll leave you with this: https://youtu.be/X29p13cAT1g?t=17 https://youtu.be/X29p13cAT1g?t=17
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    'MBA types' have been punished for illegal activity, such as price-fixing, in the past. No one has granted them immunity from all future prosecution. So then what's your point? That currently legal actions such as raising prices because a brand wants to move up-market should be made illegal?
    - azinman2 4y ago
      I don’t know what I said that made you jump to the conclusion about legality. I never suggested it was illegal. I’m suggesting despite legality, society suffers and wealth inequality grows.
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        The implications of your previous comment suggests so? > Saying just buy from a competitor to See’s is completely missing the point. The point isn’t See’s candies specifically (which I’m so surprised everyone really held onto), but rather the mindset of the MBA type (doesn’t matter if they actually have an MBA) that says let’s just keep increasing prices on this commodity forever until we’ve squeezed all the juice, and once we have, we’ll do it some more. When you apply this to every sector, over time you disproportionally hurt those at the bottom and make them poorer. You also cause inflation, which dwindles the power of savings. This software in the article is doing it for housing, and worse, it seems that it does it more than a human would. You especially see it in entertainment, where now a basketball game is something well beyond the capacity of most. It’s very unfair to me as a society that we say only rich kids can go to Disneyland, and NBA game, or a concert. Or if they do, it’s far less often and they’ve had to save for a long time for it. But you also see it with eating out, car insurance, almost every good except fast fashion, TVs (which are largely subsidized by monetizing your viewing), and some other consumer electronics. The percent of people’s average income spent on most sectors has gone up over time. I’ll leave you with this: https://youtu.be/X29p13cAT1g?t=17 https://youtu.be/X29p13cAT1g?t=17 It appears to be trying to argue some point, advance some claim, advocate for some cause, etc., relating to organizations increasing their pricing for their goods and services.