21–30 of 93 posts
I like the screenshotted (shat?) conversation. Customer> I can buy this watch for $2 elsewhere. Retailer> Then why are you here? On some level, yes they're selling overpriced rubbish, but then everyone else is, especially in fashion. Their sin seems to be making it explicit. How long before people are buying these watches to make post modern 'statements'?
I'm sure that's already a thing, sadly.
TANSTAAFL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as... Also, people will pay more for a good story. --- > "25. Maybe this explains what’s so galling to people about the Folsom & Co. not-really-scam: It simply lays bare the categorical deception at the heart of all branding and retail. The different watch values are, in the strictest sense, speech acts: the watch is $29.99 because someone said it’s…
"If Capitalism isn't buying shit and lying about it to sell it for higher, I don't know what Capitalism is. This is only a difference in degree, not kind." I'm neutral on the question in this case, but really, any discussion of "capitalism" that goes beyond chapter one, page one of an undegrad economics textbook covers the point that efficient markets are not deceptive markets. Participants are assumed to share equal…
So every discussion of "capitalism" that goes beyond chapter one is based on fairy tales?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, and advertisement is meant to be "information". Textbook capitalism is just not a good model of real world capitalism.
It is irksome that people lay all of the horrors of the world at the door of “Capitalism” when people have been scamming, exploiting, and generally screwing each other over since the beginning of time. Capitalism is something that emerged in the Eighteen Century. The word means something and to ascribe every immoral or amoral act that aggrandizes someone to Capitalism is an act of intellectual vandalism. And to forst…
More like 15th century, is the widely accepted chronology. And it did bring with it a totally different kind of horror, including colonialism...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If Capitalism isn't buying shit and lying about it to sell it for higher, I don't know what Capitalism is. This is only a difference in degree, not kind." I'm neutral on the question in this case, but really, any discussion of "capitalism" that goes beyond chapter one, page one of an undegrad economics textbook covers the point that efficient markets are not deceptive markets. Participants are assumed to share equal…
> I'm neutral on the question in this case, but really, any discussion of "capitalism" that goes beyond chapter one, page one of an undegrad economics textbook covers the point that efficient markets are not deceptive markets. Participants are assumed to share equal information. So every discussion of "capitalism" that goes beyond chapter one is based on fairy tales?
TANSTAAFL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as... Also, people will pay more for a good story. --- > "25. Maybe this explains what’s so galling to people about the Folsom & Co. not-really-scam: It simply lays bare the categorical deception at the heart of all branding and retail. The different watch values are, in the strictest sense, speech acts: the watch is $29.99 because someone said it’s…
"If Capitalism isn't buying shit and lying about it to sell it for higher, I don't know what Capitalism is. This is only a difference in degree, not kind." I'm neutral on the question in this case, but really, any discussion of "capitalism" that goes beyond chapter one, page one of an undegrad economics textbook covers the point that efficient markets are not deceptive markets. Participants are assumed to share equal…
Unfortunately this does not exist outside the textbook; there's an entire field devoted to information economics (Akerloff, Stiglitz et al). And then there's the brilliant "markets are efficient iff P=NP" paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.2284.pdf
TANSTAAFL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as... Also, people will pay more for a good story. --- > "25. Maybe this explains what’s so galling to people about the Folsom & Co. not-really-scam: It simply lays bare the categorical deception at the heart of all branding and retail. The different watch values are, in the strictest sense, speech acts: the watch is $29.99 because someone said it’s…
"If Capitalism isn't buying shit and lying about it to sell it for higher, I don't know what Capitalism is. This is only a difference in degree, not kind." I'm neutral on the question in this case, but really, any discussion of "capitalism" that goes beyond chapter one, page one of an undegrad economics textbook covers the point that efficient markets are not deceptive markets. Participants are assumed to share equal…
That is not a requirement for efficiency. Unknowns are factored into the price as "risk".
For example, if I am selling you my car, I know its condition a lot better than you do. But, the more you are suspicious about its condition, the less you are willing to pay for it.
If you're a crackerjack programmer, my interview process is inexact, so I'm going to discount the salary offer based on how risky it is that you're not a crackerjack.
Sellers offer guarantees in order to reduce the customer's risk, and hence be able to sell at a higher price. Investment returns are based on the riskiness of it. I pay more at the post office for less risk of non-delivery. Insurance companies, of course, are an entire industry based on managing risk.
Risk is a perfectly normal characteristic of efficient markets, perfect or equal information is not required at all.
I chatted briefly with the author of this piece, who said that apparently the only people making money on these watches are online "marketing gurus" who will teach you how to get rich selling free watches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm neutral on the question in this case, but really, any discussion of "capitalism" that goes beyond chapter one, page one of an undegrad economics textbook covers the point that efficient markets are not deceptive markets. Participants are assumed to share equal information. So every discussion of "capitalism" that goes beyond chapter one is based on fairy tales?
No, it's just that markets where deception is common are not "efficient". A deceptive market can only result in complete unraveling, or exploitation of the honest, non-deceptive players (which is per say inefficient). There's no other possibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm neutral on the question in this case, but really, any discussion of "capitalism" that goes beyond chapter one, page one of an undegrad economics textbook covers the point that efficient markets are not deceptive markets. Participants are assumed to share equal information. So every discussion of "capitalism" that goes beyond chapter one is based on fairy tales?
No, it's just that markets where deception is common are not "efficient". A deceptive market can only result in complete unraveling, or exploitation of the honest, non-deceptive players (which is per say inefficient). There's no other possibility.