=0ACc: improvetheworld Æ umich.e= du=0ASent: Sunday, September 9, 2007 4:13:56 PM=0ASubject: Re: mind the gap= =0A=0A=0A> James, I think you're empirically wrong that wealth creation is = anything like =0A> a zero-sum game and I'm working on my response!=0A=0AI t= hink that the basic laws of economics are against you here. Trixie's =0Aexa= mple of market share is a good one. Given a finite number of people =0Awill= ing to pay for a service, the wealth acquisition of one service =0Aprovider= is often in direct opposition to that of another. Even if the =0Acustomer = base is growing, there's no guarantee that there's enough demand =0Afor mul= tiple businesses to run at their full profit capacity at a given =0Amoment.= There's certainly not enough room for multiple businesses to =0Aexpand at = arbitrarily large rates forever. Once the customer base for =0Awidgets reac= hes its saturation size, consumers will buy widgets from =0Asomeone who is = you, or someone who is not you. If they buy from you, this =0Aincreases you= r wealth while decreasing that of your competitors, and vice =0Aversa. I do= n't think that this is a radical idea. CEOs talk about stealing =0Amarket s= hare from other businesses all the time. Are they fundamentally =0Aconfused= about how businesses work?=0A=0A~j --0-755831675-1189385566=:55984 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0A

>Given a finite number of people
&= gt;willing to pay for a service, the wealth acquisition of one service
= >provider is often in direct opposition to that of another.

=0A

Even though there is technically a finite number of p= eople out there, when we're talking about # of people willing to pay for a = service, it may as well be infinite. Computers were once something ve= ry few could afford... that's not the case anymore. They've become mo= re affordable and the "number of people willing to pay for" them has e= ssentially become infinite. So, the "wealth acquisition of one servic= e provider is often in direct opposition to that of another" is quite true = and should be ... keeps products improving and some products improve to the= point that it takes way less to make them, allowing their price to come do= wn and increase the number of people willing to pay for them. That op= position is not caused by the finite number of people willing to = pay for the service. It's just the way the system works.

= =0A

=0A

>Even if the
>customer base is growin= g, there's no guarantee that there's enough demand
>for multiple bus= inesses to run at their full profit capacity at a given
>moment. The= re's certainly not enough room for multiple businesses to
>expand at= arbitrarily large rates forever. Once the customer base for
>widget= s reaches its saturation size, consumers will buy widgets from
>some= one who is you, or someone who is not you. If they buy from you, this
&= gt;increases your wealth while decreasing that of your competitors, and vic= e
>versa. I don't think that this is a radical idea. CEOs talk about= stealing
>market share from other businesses all the time. Are they= fundamentally
>confused about how businesses work?

=0AAre you saying that it's bad when my widget business does better than some= one else's and therefor increases wealth while theirs declines? Appar= ently they weren't as cut out for the widget business and need to provide s= omething else they are better at to create their wealth. If that happ= ens, that's a win win for the people involved. Obviously, we can't al= l try to do the same favors for people to acquire wealth ... someone h= as to be the best or one of the best at each one and without allo= wing the market share to be stolen, we wouldn't have as good of produc= ts out there... there'd be no incentive.

=0A

&= gt;It seems to me that the very notion of getting a "market share" is based=
>precisely on creating wealth with the prupose of taking it away fr= om someone
>else. It's also interesting in the context of this debat= e and what you,
>Danny, consider the fallacious "pie" of the Daddy m= odel, that one uses
>precisely a pie chart when companies analyze ho= w to create more wealth. How
>does that add up with wealth creation = not infringing upon others?
>Trixie

=0A

= To respond to you, Trixie ... the notion of a "market share" seems to me&nb= sp;like the needed competition to drive the economy. Of course you're= trying to create wealth with your business to the point that others can't = ... that's what drives you to do your best. Whoever does it best= in all ways is gonna get more wealthy. Without that incentive, = no one would care to better their product or their customer experience= or whatever it is that's bringing the sales their way.

=0A

Melanie

=0A

&n= bsp;

=0A

Melanie Reeves-Wicklow

=0A

Project Support/Personal Trainer

=0A
Main: 707-745-8547
=0A<= P>Cell: 925-212-0968
=0A
----- Original Message ----
From: James W Mickens= <jmickens Æ eecs.umich.edu>
To: Daniel Reeves <dreeves Æ umich.edu= >
Cc: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu
Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2007 4:= 13:56 PM
Subject: Re: mind the gap

=0A
> James, I think yo= u're empirically wrong that wealth creation is anything like
> a zer= o-sum game and I'm working on my response!

I think that the basic la= ws of economics are against you here. Trixie's
example of market share = is a good one. Given a finite number of people
willing to pay for a ser= vice, the wealth acquisition of one service
provider is often in direct= opposition to that of another. Even if the
customer base is growing, t= here's no guarantee that there's enough demand
for multiple businesses = to run at their full profit capacity at a given
moment. There's certain= ly not enough room for multiple businesses to
expand at arbitrarily lar= ge rates forever. Once the customer base for
widgets reaches its satura= tion size, consumers will buy widgets from
someone who is you, or someo= ne who is not you. If they buy from you, this
increases your wealth whi= le decreasing that of your competitors, and vice
versa. I don't think that this is a radical idea. CEOs talk a= bout stealing
market share from other businesses all the time. Are they= fundamentally
confused about how businesses work?

~j

--0-755831675-1189385566=:55984--