1 – Markets, like ‘property rights’ require insurers, and production on speculation of demand under inflexible prices.
2 – Trade requires only normative property, and production to satisfy estimated demand under flexible prices.
3 – Exchange requires only possession, and neither prices or anticipated demand.
Demand always exists, whether under exchange, trade, or market.
We tend to use the word market to refer to demand. But demand exists under exchange, trade, and market. The question is scale, investment risk, and institutions (insurance (law), contract, money, prices) that mitigate investment risk.
We trade low volume and high prices for high volume and low prices. To achieve high volume and low prices requires an ever expanding division of capital(risk), knowledge, and labor, under ever greater insurance regimes.
Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy
-
1 – Markets, like ‘property rights’ require insurers, and production on speculat
1 – Markets, like ‘property rights’ require insurers, and production on speculation of demand under inflexible prices. 2 – Trade requires only normative property, and production to satisfy estimated demand under flexible prices. 3 – Exchange requires only possession, and neither prices or anticipated demand. Demand always exists, whether under exchange, trade, or market. We tend to use the word market to refer to demand. But demand exists under exchange, trade, and market. The question is scale, investment risk, and institutions (insurance (law), contract, money, prices) that mitigate investment risk. We trade low volume and high prices for high volume and low prices. To achieve high volume and low prices requires an ever expanding division of capital(risk), knowledge, and labor, under ever greater insurance regimes. -
1 – Markets, like ‘property rights’ require insurers, and production on speculat
1 – Markets, like ‘property rights’ require insurers, and production on speculation of demand under inflexible prices.
2 – Trade requires only normative property, and production to satisfy estimated demand under flexible prices.
3 – Exchange requires only possession, and neither prices or anticipated demand.
Demand always exists, whether under exchange, trade, or market.
We tend to use the word market to refer to demand. But demand exists under exchange, trade, and market. The question is scale, investment risk, and institutions (insurance (law), contract, money, prices) that mitigate investment risk.
We trade low volume and high prices for high volume and low prices. To achieve high volume and low prices requires an ever expanding division of capital(risk), knowledge, and labor, under ever greater insurance regimes.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-25 13:21:00 UTC
-
Fixed pie thinking is parasitic, just as pastoralists are parasitic thinkers and
Fixed pie thinking is parasitic, just as pastoralists are parasitic thinkers and agrarians are productive thinkers. -
Fixed pie thinking is parasitic, just as pastoralists are parasitic thinkers and
Fixed pie thinking is parasitic, just as pastoralists are parasitic thinkers and agrarians are productive thinkers. -
Fixed pie thinking is parasitic, just as pastoralists are parasitic thinkers and
Fixed pie thinking is parasitic, just as pastoralists are parasitic thinkers and agrarians are productive thinkers.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-25 10:43:00 UTC
-
by Michael Churchill NFLX and TSLA look insane to me. Not at all clear to me tha
by Michael Churchill NFLX and TSLA look insane to me. Not at all clear to me that there is any sort of calc that has TSLA with normal gross margins. NFLX capitalizes content costs, which is like Caterpillar capitalizing the cost of making tractors. Buying/making content is cost of goods sold — not capex! GOOG, FB and MSFT make a lot of money and valuations are not crazy. AMZN is insane in the same way that NFLX and TSLA are. The operating margins on selling books are WILDLY negative — and only offset by the cloud-services business. Now … that doesn’t seem right from an anti-trust standpoint. Amazon is using cloud money to wipe out the entire country’s retail infrastructure. How about a Sherman anti-trust case against them? -
by Michael Churchill NFLX and TSLA look insane to me. Not at all clear to me tha
by Michael Churchill NFLX and TSLA look insane to me. Not at all clear to me that there is any sort of calc that has TSLA with normal gross margins. NFLX capitalizes content costs, which is like Caterpillar capitalizing the cost of making tractors. Buying/making content is cost of goods sold — not capex! GOOG, FB and MSFT make a lot of money and valuations are not crazy. AMZN is insane in the same way that NFLX and TSLA are. The operating margins on selling books are WILDLY negative — and only offset by the cloud-services business. Now … that doesn’t seem right from an anti-trust standpoint. Amazon is using cloud money to wipe out the entire country’s retail infrastructure. How about a Sherman anti-trust case against them? -
by Michael Churchill NFLX and TSLA look insane to me. Not at all clear to me tha
by Michael Churchill
NFLX and TSLA look insane to me. Not at all clear to me that there is any sort of calc that has TSLA with normal gross margins. NFLX capitalizes content costs, which is like Caterpillar capitalizing the cost of making tractors. Buying/making content is cost of goods sold — not capex!
GOOG, FB and MSFT make a lot of money and valuations are not crazy.
AMZN is insane in the same way that NFLX and TSLA are. The operating margins on selling books are WILDLY negative — and only offset by the cloud-services business. Now … that doesn’t seem right from an anti-trust standpoint. Amazon is using cloud money to wipe out the entire country’s retail infrastructure. How about a Sherman anti-trust case against them?
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-24 23:34:00 UTC
-
In the studies I have seen, the average man experiences 20% decline in the stand
In the studies I have seen, the average man experiences 20% decline in the standard of living by trading income for sex, companionship, and residency with a woman. This amounts to the average free capital generated by all men (about 1/5). It requires about 20% free capital for humans to change ‘routines’. Men are a bit more expensive to feed, but otherwise cheaper to maintain than women. Men have a shorter working life (We accumulate the species’ cellular damage on behalf of women and children). We mature intellectually and emotionally fairly slowly in exchange for specialization. But that specialization, which can lead to superior incomes, but also leads to limited adaptability in the work force where regimentation is lacking and social fitness is required (the modern white collar work force). So for men, the problem with late maturity, specialization, and limited work life means that failures to capture higher earnings means old age poverty. Now, if the woman is working, and the couple save that 20% in equity for seven years on a 15 year mortgage they can somewhat offset the loss. Friends, good work, and an anti-depressant will offset the demand for sex, and increase a man’s ability to build a business or portfolio. Girlfriends are the most inexpensive sex you can obtain, and if rotated every 9-12 months the cost of marriage can be avoided. A woman trades her fertile years for increased income. A man trades his productive years for later term care. A working woman externalizes the cost of raising her children to the state, and by proxy to others. This is the trade that no longer exists. And it’s rather obvious what must be done about it: convert men’s short term productivity to long term savings, and permanently isolate it from attachment or taxation, as the most important investment. In other words, restore the order that has existed since the dawn of time. Common property requires common productivity, risk, and reward. Statistically speaking women are an extraordinarily privileged class.