From: Randall Randall (randall@randallsquared.com)
Date: Thu Jun 06 2002 - 00:14:25 MDT
Gecko/20020507
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: extropians@extropy.org
Subject: Re: Bitter Pills
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.49.5.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-extropians@extropy.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 11:52 PM 6/5/02 -0500, Barbara Lamar wrote:
>
>>Surely, Mr. Randall, in a business context, the dollar figure is a
function
>>of the value of the item you're offering in trade rather than a constant.
>
>>Suppose you offer to sell me a widget, together with attachments A,B, and
C,
>>for $400.
>>We both agree that the value of the attachments is $50 each.
>>I give you $400.
>>You deliver to me a widget with only attachment B.
>
> Yes, but to probe the concept of `greedy is good' (especially in the
> context of cancer treatments where life is the stake) I suspect a more
> ruthless example should be examined. What you describe looks like fraud to
> me, not cupidity (although it might be driven by cupidity). Isn't greed
> better exemplified by your wanting a widget that costs Mr. Randall $50 to
> make and bring to market, plus a moderate mark-up, but he insists that he
> won't sell it to you for less than $100, or $1000.
Good scenario so far...
> Moreover, he has the
> power of the state behind him to prevent anyone else making an equivalent
> widget (it's *his* design, after all).
Actually, this reduces it to Ms. Lamar's scenario, since theft is
re-introduced.
> At what point does his mark-up
> become `greedy'? Is it, as Mr. Crocker asserts, *good* that he should be
> greedy in this deal? Why not be fair, instead? (What percentage gain would
> be deemed `fair', though? 10%, say?)
>
> But if the widget can save your otherwise doomed life, greed has a chance
> of cleaning you out. You *have* to agree to extortion. "What are you
> complaining about, loser? You're alive aren't you? Greed is good, right?"
>
> Surely that can't be what's meant. So why use provocative terminology,
> gentlemen, that makes it sound as if it is?
Well, first off, I was questioning someone *else's* "provocative
terminology": "excessive". :)
However, a rational greedy agent would note that any market transaction is
only a small part of an effectively infinitely iterative game, and behave
accordingly. So unless the manufacturer somehow has perfect knowledge that
no one will ever find out how much the product cost to make, it should price
the product at a level which balances the desire to make a profit and
generate good public relations (by saving lives). This might indicate a
price below cost, if it can be made up in future sales brought on by
increased goodwill in the market.
In a market without institutionalized theft (patents, copyrights, and other
state-granted monopolies), manufacturers which fail to properly balance
profit and PR will find that their competitors have eaten their lunch.
-- Randall Randall <randall@randallsquared.com> Crypto key: randall.freedomspace.net/crypto.text ...what a strange, strange freedom: only free to choose my chains... -- Johnny Clegg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:38 MST