51–55 of 55 posts
I don't buy this. Doesn't supply and demand fix this unless of course you are dealing with a monopoly and have no choice. Don't customers find the most affordable goods in the market place and aren't goods priced competitively? What am I missing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No need for this kind of attitude here. If you can extract more value out of a customer using more data points, wouldn't you? Or will you simply leave money on the table for someone else to take.
I agree, if you can take advantage of a situation in some way, it's your duty as an American to do it. Why should the race always be to the swift, or the jumble to the quick-witted? Should they be allowed to win merely because of the gifts God gave them? Well I say, cheating is the gift man gives himself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If all the airlines (or whatever business) are doing something like this, how would you know what the prices are and what the alternatives are? Custom prices per user based on willingness to pay shifts market value around a lot.
> If all the airlines (or whatever business) are doing something like this Then that would be the main issue and far worse then the algorithms, that's a monopoly or cartel and not a free market. Because in a competitive market prices will be competitive with very little arbitrage.
Why would you try to one-down on price if an “objective statistical AI algorithm” tells you you’d be leaving money on the table without gaining market share to compensate? All it takes is for the market to be sufficiently concentrated at that point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the price increase can incentivize more drivers thus increasing supply. conversely driving the price to zero would certain increase demand and eliminate supply. i mean, if you posit inelastic demand, you dont get you pretend you derived it as a conclusion right?
> the price increase can incentivize more drivers thus increasing supply But never high enough to meaningfully dilute or really in any way change demand, and by raising the number of drivers, the parent company ultimately still makes more profit. This seems self reinforcing. > i mean, if you posit inelastic demand, you dont get you pretend you derived it as a conclusion right? I'm not pretending anything, I'm conside…
literally you restating inelastic demand assumption
> I'm considering the reality on the ground
oh, reality is on your side. whoops i didn't realize i was arguing with reality. so you are definitionally correct?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also it decrease demand. Someone who is feeling ”eh maybe I’ll take an uber or the train” will be more likely to take the train.
Not an option in much of the US. I'd argue it's mostly a Bay Area and DC corridor thing.