--0-755831675-1189385566=:55984
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>Given a finite number of people =0A>willing to pay for a service, the wealth
acquisition of one service =0A>provider is often in direct opposition to that
of another. =0A =0AEven though there is technically a finite number of people
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 very few could
afford... that's not the case anymore. They've become more affordable and the
"number of people willing to pay for" them has essentially become infinite.
So, the "wealth acquisition of one service 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 down and increase the number of people
willing to pay for them. That opposition 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 =0A>customer base is growing, there 's no guarantee
that there's enough demand =0A>for multiple businesses to run at their full
profit capacity at a given =0A>moment. There's certainly not enough room for
multiple businesses to =0A>expand at arbitrarily large rates forever. Once the
customer base for =0A>widgets reaches its saturation size, consumers will buy
widgets from =0A>someone who is you, or someone who is not you. If they buy
from you, this =0A>increases your wealth while decreasing that of your
competitors, and vice =0A>versa. I don't think that this is a radical idea.
CEOs talk about stealing =0A>market share from other businesses all the time.
Are they fundamentally =0A>confused about how businesses work?=0A=0AAre you
saying that it's bad when my widget business does better than someone else's
and therefor increases wealth while theirs declines? Apparently they weren't
as cut out for the widget business and need to provide something else they are
better at to create their wealth. If that happens, that's a win win for the
people involved. Obviously, we can't all try to do the same favors for people
to acquire wealth ... someone has to be the best or one of the best at each
one and without allowing the market share to be stolen, we wouldn't have as
good of products out there ... there'd be no incentive.=0A =0A>It seems to me
that the very notion of getting a "market share" is based =0A>precisely on
creating wealth with the prupose of taking it away from someone =0A>else. It's
also interesting in the context of this debate and what you, =0A>Danny,
consider the fallacious "pie" of the Daddy model, that one uses =0A>precisely
a pie chart when companies analyze how to create more wealth. How =0A>does
that add up with wealth creation not infringing upon others?=0A>Trixie=0A
=0ATo respond to you , Trixie ... the notion of a "market share" seems to me
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 =0AMelanie=0A =0AMelanie Reeves-Wicklow=0AProject
Support/Personal Trainer =0AClub One, Inc.=0AMain: 707-745-8547=0ACell:
925-212-0968=0A=0A=0A =0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: James W Mickens
=0ATo: Daniel Reeves =0ACc: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu =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 think that the basic laws
of economics are against you here. Trixie's =0Aexample of market share is a
good one. Given a finite number of people =0Awilling 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 multiple 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 reaches 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 your wealth while decreasing that of your
competitors, and vice =0Aversa. I don 't think that this is a radical idea.
CEOs talk about stealing =0Amarket share 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 > ;willing to pay for a
service, the wealth acquisition of one service >provider is often in
direct opposition to that of another. =0A =0A Even though there is
technically a finite number of people 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 very few could afford... that's not the case anymore.
They've become more affordable and the "number of people willing to pay for"
them has essentially become infinite. So, the "wealth acquisition of one
service 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
down and increase the number of people willing to pay for them. That
opposition 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 growing , there's no guarantee that there's enough demand
>for multiple businesses to run at their full profit capacity at a given
>moment. There 's certainly not enough room for multiple businesses to
>expand at arbitrarily large rates forever. Once the customer base for
>widgets reaches its saturation size, consumers will buy widgets from
>someone who is you, or someone who is not you. If they buy from you, this
> ;increases your wealth while decreasing that of your competitors, and vice
>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? =0A Are you saying that
it's bad when my widget business does better than someone else's and therefor
increases wealth while theirs declines? Apparently they weren't as cut out
for the widget business and need to provide something else they are better at
to create their wealth. If that happens , that's a win win for the people
involved. Obviously, we can't all try to do the same favors for people to
acquire wealth ... someone has to be the best or one of the best at each one
and without allowing the market share to be stolen, we wouldn't have as good
of products out there... there'd be no incentive. =0A =0A > ;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 from someone >else.
It's also interesting in the context of this debate and what you, >Danny,
consider the fallacious "pie" of the Daddy model , that one uses >precisely
a pie chart when companies analyze how to create more wealth. How >does
that add up with wealth creation not infringing upon others? >Trixie =0A
=0A To respond to you, Trixie ... the notion of a "market share" seems to
me ;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 =0A Melanie =0A ; =0A Melanie
Reeves-Wicklow =0A Project Support/Personal Trainer =0A Club One,
Inc. =0A Main: 707-745-8547 =0A Cell: 925-212-0968 =0A =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: :56 PM
Subject: Re: mind the gap =0A > James, I think you 're empirically wrong
that wealth creation is anything like > a zero -sum game and I'm working on
my response! I think that the basic laws 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 service , the wealth acquisition of one service
provider is often in direct opposition to that of another. Even if the
customer base is growing, there 's no guarantee that there's enough demand for
multiple businesses to run at their full profit capacity at a given moment.
There's certainly not enough room for multiple businesses to expand at
arbitrarily large rates forever. Once the customer base for widgets reaches
its saturation size, consumers will buy widgets from someone who is you, or
someone who is not you. If they buy from you, this increases your wealth
while decreasing that of your competitors,
and vice 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? ~j
--0-755831675-1189385566=:55984--
|
