Stuff you just can't make up

gcomeau wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:
Uh, actually that's a very common and often HIGHLY successful way of doing business nowadays.

It's practically standard procedure in the consumer electronics industry.

Umm... no. No it is not.

Wow, you actually believe that.

A strong pre-existing demand for a better phone people could upgrade to... obviously.

Uh, no. The iPhone is a classic example of artificially creating a demand for something. It's pretty much what Apple lives by ever since they stopped being the best for desktop publishing and photo software.

The iPhone, in almost every variant has been overpriced, technically "meh" and usefulness have ranged everywhere in between pathetic and better than competitors. But most of the time it has NOT been clearly better than the competitors.

The last 2 decades of TV upgrades is another sad story. Seriously, we're already seeing 4k TVs for sale, despite the little issue that we need 60+" screens for that to even begin to be relevant, depending on who you ask, you need 90" screens for it to be truly useful.
Not to mention that current connections can barely manage those at all.

Most people upgrade computers twice as often as they actually need to, because yeah, artificially created demand from overhyping how AMAZING all those next generation parts are.

Demand drives supply, not the other way around.

Economic novice you are indeed.

And if coal companies suddenly increase their coal output a bunch of coal plants aren't magically going to appear to create increased demand for the newly increased supply.

Coal is an EXISTING bulk resource, not something suitable for comparison.

HOWEVER, IF you DID do that, the pricetag on coal would plummet, and more buyers would be likely to choose to use it, as long as they can expect the same low prices for a long enough time.

Demand drives supply, not the other way around.

If that was actually true, our current technology would look VERY different.

Also, if it was true, there would never be any brand new things sold, because there was commonly zero demand for them at the point that they were developed and produced.

How many absolute crap computer games do we see launched every year, that are hyped up to make sure they sell enough anyway?
Well, there's nearly always several, sometimes many.

Same thing with movies and TV. So much outright crap nowadays, yet people watch them anyway, because it is provided, it is supplied.


The big point you're missing is that people can only buy what is available.
It doesn't matter if they DEMAND something very different, when what's SUPPLIED is what they CAN get.

And it's even worse today, when instant gratification is the desire, it doesn't matter if the perfect purchase for you will come in a few years, because you want it NOW, so you buy what you can now.

dscott8 wrote:
It certainly is not, I say this as an MBA, Certified Production & Inventory Manager, and former US Army Quartermaster Officer.

I don't think that latter part is actually a good reference here...
Considering how infamous the US army is for being insanely wasteful and "pricy".

Anyway, doesn't matter what your references are as this is something you can prove just by looking at reality.

It shouldn't even be a surprise when you have that kind of education, because it's also not a new thing, it has just become more and more blatant due to being so heavily exploited by the tech industry.

My meager official education in economics in the 90s certainly included this kind of shenanigans as a study subject.

dscott8 wrote:The principle of supply and demand defines an influence on market prices. Not the only influence, obviously, because humans will often make illogical decisions on how to spend their money. Supply alone, however, does not create demand. A company could produce millions of saddles and bridles, but that supply would not create demand because we have moved on from horses as a common mode of transportation. Horses are now a specialist hobby; go price a good saddle & bridle, they're expensive. Mass production could bring the price down, but there's no reason because demand will not follow.

The same is true of coal. Cleaner sources of energy have pushed it out of the mass market, and it's not coming back.

Well duh. Who said it was a universal guarantee?

And really?
You might want to check these statistics:
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?product=coal

Use of coal has more than doubled in the last 30 years.

Looking at the US, coal used for power plants have mostly been reduced at the same rate as use of natural gas has increased, yet is still used for almost 40% of energy production.

Also, coal mining in USA is still well above 1980s levels, after the highly unsustainable peak in 2008 that was in large part created by president shrubbery.


And i'm reasonably well aware of the costs of bridles and saddles, as my niece now owns 5 horses by herself(was 3 a few weeks ago), 2 of which she competes with.

And while i'm sure it would be possible to sell more, it's not really a category of items suitable for "supply first" strategy.

Tenshinai wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Umm... no. No it is not.

Wow, you actually believe that.

Yes, I do have a tendency to believe... reality.

A strong pre-existing demand for a better phone people could upgrade to... obviously.

Uh, no. The iPhone is a classic example of artificially creating a demand for something. It's pretty much what Apple lives by ever since they stopped being the best for desktop publishing and photo software.

Wow. You're clueless. And apparently also lacking much in the long term memory department.

There was MASSIVE demand for improved phone tech before the iPhone came along. Of course the hype and marketing and the fact that it was a pretty distinct leap in phone functionality juiced the sales massively but if people hadn't already wanted improved devices Apple wouldn't have been able to do any of that. And marketing isn't supply, to argue supply created demand you would have to argue that people wanted iPhones in proportion to how many iPhones Apple manufactured. Which is pure idiocy.

If you honestly think Apple put years of R&D and massive piles of money into the development of a product nobody wanted betting they could talk them into wanting it when everything was done you have zero idea how these companies operate. They saw a market opportunity with an insufficiently fulfilled consumer demand and they acted to fill it.

The iPhone, in almost every variant has been overpriced, technically "meh" and usefulness have ranged everywhere in between pathetic and better than competitors. But most of the time it has NOT been clearly better than the competitors.

The last 2 decades of TV upgrades is another sad story. Seriously, we're already seeing 4k TVs for sale, despite the little issue that we need 60+" screens for that to even begin to be relevant, depending on who you ask, you need 90" screens for it to be truly useful.
Not to mention that current connections can barely manage those at all.

Most people upgrade computers twice as often as they actually need to, because yeah, artificially created demand from overhyping how AMAZING all those next generation parts are.

A rambling commentary that has no relationship whatsoever to any argument for supply creating demand...

Demand drives supply, not the other way around.

Economic novice you are indeed.

From the guy who has a history of claiming expertise he clearly doesn't have. Can we hear more about how you know cyber security better than the CIA and NSA next? I miss that one.

And if coal companies suddenly increase their coal output a bunch of coal plants aren't magically going to appear to create increased demand for the newly increased supply.

Coal is an EXISTING bulk resource, not something suitable for comparison.[/quote]

It's The Topic Of This Discussion And The Original Quote.

HOWEVER, IF you DID do that, the pricetag on coal would plummet, and more buyers would be likely to choose to use it

For *what* exactly?

To put in their car fuel tanks?

To toss into their hydro dam turbines?

To power their solar and wind farms?

You need EXISTING COAL BURNING INFRASTRUCTURE to have the price of coal impact your purchasing decisions and almost NOBODY is building it because it's idiotic to do so. And if you drive the market price of your own product into the ground through nothing but flooding the market that's generally not considered a good thing anyway, because you have to still... you know... pay for it's production.



Hey, maybe I should open a 1900s style telephone switchboard factory, flood the market with them, they'll go extra cheap, and everyone will want to buy them! I'll be rich! Rich I say!

gcomeau wrote:
From the guy who has a history of claiming expertise he clearly doesn't have. Can we hear more about how you know cyber security better than the CIA and NSA next? I miss that one.

I, have a history of being interested in a LOT of things in my 40+ years, and then spend the time necessary to read up on a subject. And considering my reading speed is "high" and how much of my total time i have spent on reading, that has provided me a lot of knowledge, mostly useless, but there's always the occasional gem of information even in the most dreary sources.

And then i have by both chance and intent ended up with some interesting jobs, friends and family.

If you want a comparison, in school i almost never studied. I read everything once, very rarely twice if it was something very complex, and then aced most tests and exams.

I have read through 3 entire, separate encyclopedias, because i wanted to see if i could find something interesting.
5 books, 21 books and 12 or something.

My logic skill and generalised knowledge means that if a test uses multiple choice questions, i can generally get at least 80% correct even on subjects i have absolutely zero specific knowledge in.

I spent most of my free time for two years investigating theoretically whether time is fixed or a dimension. I proved to myself that it is fixed, and while that proof will probably never be good enough to any official physicist(because i think theoretically and my advanced math sucks), i couldn't care less, because it was my question, my interest, and i solved to a level that i have no doubt about my answer.


But more annoyingly, i've forgotten more than most people ever learn.
No, i'm not bragging, it's a statement of fact. I can give you the other side of the coin as well if you want, the reason why i've had so damn much time to learn is because i've been chronically sick since i was 10, gradually getting worse.
You really need something to do when you can't do what you would prefer.


About supply-based economics, seriously, that is old news, i literally had that included as a subject when i studied in the 90s. You denying does not change anything. It exists, end of story.

Tenshinai wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
From the guy who has a history of claiming expertise he clearly doesn't have. Can we hear more about how you know cyber security better than the CIA and NSA next? I miss that one.

I, have a history of being interested in a LOT of things in my 40+ years, and then spend the time necessary to read up on a subject. And considering my reading speed is "high" and how much of my total time i have spent on reading, that has provided me a lot of knowledge, mostly useless, but there's always the occasional gem of information even in the most dreary sources.

And then i have by both chance and intent ended up with some interesting jobs, friends and family.

If you want a comparison, in school i almost never studied. I read everything once, very rarely twice if it was something very complex, and then aced most tests and exams.

I have read through 3 entire, separate encyclopedias, because i wanted to see if i could find something interesting.
5 books, 21 books and 12 or something.

My logic skill and generalised knowledge means that if a test uses multiple choice questions, i can generally get at least 80% correct even on subjects i have absolutely zero specific knowledge in.

I spent most of my free time for two years investigating theoretically whether time is fixed or a dimension. I proved to myself that it is fixed, and while that proof will probably never be good enough to any official physicist(because i think theoretically and my advanced math sucks), i couldn't care less, because it was my question, my interest, and i solved to a level that i have no doubt about my answer.


But more annoyingly, i've forgotten more than most people ever learn.
No, i'm not bragging, it's a statement of fact. I can give you the other side of the coin as well if you want, the reason why i've had so damn much time to learn is because i've been chronically sick since i was 10, gradually getting worse.
You really need something to do when you can't do what you would prefer.


About supply-based economics, seriously, that is old news, i literally had that included as a subject when i studied in the 90s. You denying does not change anything. It exists, end of story.

This entire post should become its own entry in the Dunning Kruger effect Wikipedia page.


"Yes I DO know more about cyber security than the entire professional cyber intelligence arm of the world's greatest superpower and all the career professionals they have recruited expressly for their supremacy in this field! I read some books! Fast!"


"Yes I do know more about physics than those stuffy "official" physicists, I spent some time thinking about it once upon a time and *I* was totally satisfied about my conclusions!"


"Yes I do know tons about economics and can dismiss the opinions of the overwhelming consensus of professional economists, I took some classes once and I have lots of free time!"



It's like comic gold reading your posts. Really it is.

The thing with the iPhone was that Jobs wanted more functionality and was betting that the general market did too. (Actually they probably knew what with customer feedback and research)
Then they advertised it to buggery. (Tech shows, tech magazines etc)

Spotted the demand, advertised to increase the demand, supplied the product.

Or in pure advertising terms, created a problem (I have too many electronic devices) and created the soloution (one device to replace all the others)


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Tenshinai wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
From the guy who has a history of claiming expertise he clearly doesn't have. Can we hear more about how you know cyber security better than the CIA and NSA next? I miss that one.

I, have a history of being interested in a LOT of things in my 40+ years, and then spend the time necessary to read up on a subject. And considering my reading speed is "high" and how much of my total time i have spent on reading, that has provided me a lot of knowledge, mostly useless, but there's always the occasional gem of information even in the most dreary sources.

And then i have by both chance and intent ended up with some interesting jobs, friends and family.

If you want a comparison, in school i almost never studied. I read everything once, very rarely twice if it was something very complex, and then aced most tests and exams.

I have read through 3 entire, separate encyclopedias, because i wanted to see if i could find something interesting.
5 books, 21 books and 12 or something.

My logic skill and generalised knowledge means that if a test uses multiple choice questions, i can generally get at least 80% correct even on subjects i have absolutely zero specific knowledge in.

I spent most of my free time for two years investigating theoretically whether time is fixed or a dimension. I proved to myself that it is fixed, and while that proof will probably never be good enough to any official physicist(because i think theoretically and my advanced math sucks), i couldn't care less, because it was my question, my interest, and i solved to a level that i have no doubt about my answer.


But more annoyingly, i've forgotten more than most people ever learn.
No, i'm not bragging, it's a statement of fact. I can give you the other side of the coin as well if you want, the reason why i've had so damn much time to learn is because i've been chronically sick since i was 10, gradually getting worse.
You really need something to do when you can't do what you would prefer.


About supply-based economics, seriously, that is old news, i literally had that included as a subject when i studied in the 90s. You denying does not change anything. It exists, end of story.

We are on a forum which discusses books which are contain significant technical detail, complex plots and are several hundred pages long. I think you can assume that we are ALL well above average intelligence.

I'll answer Relax without the page of text.
Fully agree, the winnowing process starts with the general types of book, then by Weber's genius, then we stumble into here, then those that aren't bored and stay are the result.
Intelligence is a complex field with IQ, EQ, and many trendier new tests testing different aspects.
A simple anecdotal example is comparing my wife and I, she is the artist and I'm the scientist/engineer. She can play numerous musical instruments, paint, sculpt and lots more, while I'm hopeless at all of these. Meanwhile I have several computer languages, science degrees, engineering quals, and also have headed up several large organisations. At core she is still the only person who has an equal scrolling reading speed comprehension to me that I have come across.
I do remember a laugh once during an advanced university course at the doctorate level only available to high achieving directors, when a lecturer proudly told us that he was a Mensa member. We quietly explained that all of us exceeded Mensa significantly, but were too smart to play games and join.
That's why I like these forums, even when I disagree with someone I respect their intellect.

Indeed, the only hinderence to IQ that you are likely to find in this group is lazy thinking.
Or dare I say, delusional? ;p


Recently, our Prime Minister, the head of our ruling liberal party (for our American friends that refers to clasical liberalism, not left wing) said in a speach that the party was never intended to be the bastion of conservatism that it currently is, but a centrist right party hence the name.

You could probably hear the right wing power brokers within the party (some of whom are really far or alt right) bitching about it.
Meanwhile the party continues to bleed members/followers to the far right.

Similar to how the GOP bled to the tea party except in our system they formed their own party.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

So the White House just responded to a bunch of citizens concerned their personal data would be leaked thanks to the new joke of an "election integrity" commission by... publicly posting the personal information of the concerned parties.


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... grity-doxx