ForumsWEPRWhat do you think of the world around us?

128 11191
shock457
offline
shock457
710 posts
1,405

I think that many things changed over the years. People nowadays doesn't read books as much. People doesn't even like the classical games (hopscotch, Heads Up 7 Up, etc.). Technology was a huge reason for this change. Ever since our modern technology was introduced, people began to rely on those gadgets instead of the old sources. Technology has helped us a lot, but brought everyone down in some way.

  • 128 Replies
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,831 posts
1,120

Your logic stops at Apple. Mass-produced, worldwide, but expensive.

Before the battle between small companies and large companies, it was just a battle of basic prices between similar trades. This was much more beneficial to the consumer, as most of the items were of the same quality, but the producer was lowering the price to compete with the "smith across the street".

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,377 posts
24,445

Your logic stops at Apple. Mass-produced, worldwide, but expensive.


Expensive yes, BUT it could have been much higher. A few years ago, phones cost a bomb, now they're expensive, but they're much cheaper. Ignoring basic economics in favor of relative arguments is also, a poor reasoning.

Before the battle between small companies and large companies, it was just a battle of basic prices between similar trades. This was much more beneficial to the consumer, as most of the items were of the same quality, but the producer was lowering the price to compete with the "smith across the street".


Yet in such "hacylon days" one did not have the vast range of choices we had today. One did not get to enjoy products that required piecing together all over the world. One could not purchase, say something as complex as a mouse, since a mouse is made up of so many components that is only made possible by a large corporation.

No, quality was not the same. Arrows, swords, etc, there was no way to guarantee a reliable quality check. Corporations with their scale production methods made this a possibility.

Small firms are still ideal in service industries, or niche markets; but larger companies do much more good than bad.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,377 posts
24,445

Lets also tackle your "Apple is expensive" argument. A small firm will never be able to negotiate cheap prices with raw materials owners. This leads to increased costs. A small firm will also never be able to undertake the scale of R & D required to go into the making of such a product. A small firm will find it expensive to purchase equipment that is meant to churn out large amounts of phones due to the problems of indivisibilities. Some resources are not divisible and can not be purchased or operated under certain thresholds. Research facilities and advertising campaigns, for instance, require a minimum size.

Large companies are able to breakdown the production into smaller and separated tasks, employing the resources more efficiently. This efficiency comes both from the specialized workforce and from the specialized equipment and manufacturing processes. In a small firm, to assemble, make, research, market, design, pack the phone, it would likely take overlapping of labour which leads to increased inefficiency and hence increased cost of production.

A small firm also would likely to be viewed as less credit worthy than Apple; banks don't loan willingly, business fails.

Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,831 posts
1,120

Yet in such "hacylon days" one did not have the vast range of choices we had today.

Especially since in those days there were no brands, ergo no uniformity in clothing.
One did not get to enjoy products that required piecing together all over the world.

Like IKEA, the hated Scandinavian furniture store?
One could not purchase, say something as complex as a mouse, since a mouse is made up of so many components that is only made possible by a large corporation.

I don't know about you, but I buy my pets from breeders.
No, quality was not the same. Arrows, swords, etc, there was no way to guarantee a reliable quality check. Corporations with their scale production methods made this a possibility.

But back then you could kill the false dealer. What better incentive to work hard then death?
Small firms are still ideal in service industries, or niche markets; but larger companies do much more good than bad.

Agreed. What happens when they take the niches, though?
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,377 posts
24,445

Especially since in those days there were no brands, ergo no uniformity in clothing.


Since when has uniformity been good for consumers?


Like IKEA, the hated Scandinavian furniture store?


Meaning for the factory to piece together, not you. IKEA is so large because of EOS again. IKEA's designers and engineers strive to reduce the amount of material used and wasted in production.  Additionally, many waste products are then used to make new products, further reducing overall costs both to the pocketbook as well as to the environment. This technology on such a large scale is possible only in such a large firm.

IKEA utilizes it's massive economies of scale to secure long-term contracts with manufacturers and to reduce costs of raw materials through bulk-buying. Because of their sheer size, they can demand lower prices for materials which suppliers can afford to give if they have a steady income. This means much cheaper prices.

I don't know about you, but I buy my pets from breeders.


Not sure if trolling, but I hope you know why a compute mouse is, especially since we're talking about Apple.

But back then you could kill the false dealer. What better incentive to work hard then death?


You can't be serious when you put forth such ludicrous claims. Companies and firms start up to profit. SMEs do it, large firms do it. I'll like to see you kill a false dealer today and contend with the law.

Agreed. What happens when they take the niches, though?


There will always be niches. KFC is around yet there are no shortages of local fried chicken restaurants. My dad runs a perfume shop in the same place as department stores; yet he's been there for years next to them.
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,831 posts
1,120

Since when has uniformity been good for consumers?

Read again. My post said there was no uniformity. Nowadays, there is.
Not sure if trolling, but I hope you know why a compute mouse is, especially since we're talking about Apple.

Oh, you meant computer mice. My bad.
You can't be serious when you put forth such ludicrous claims. Companies and firms start up to profit. SMEs do it, large firms do it. I'll like to see you kill a false dealer today and contend with the law.

Come come. Let us read the part where I said "Back then". Makes sense, does it not?
There will always be niches. KFC is around yet there are no shortages of local fried chicken restaurants. My dad runs a perfume shop in the same place as department stores; yet he's been there for years next to them.

Goody good. Glad to see he hasn't followed his fragrant counterparts. Because, although your father has not fallen, how many perfumers have?
Meaning for the factory to piece together, not you. IKEA is so large because of EOS again. IKEA's designers and engineers strive to reduce the amount of material used and wasted in production. Additionally, many waste products are then used to make new products, further reducing overall costs both to the pocketbook as well as to the environment. This technology on such a large scale is possible only in such a large firm.

Oh, glorious technology. I suppose, with such magnificent technology, my desk would have been that much easier to put together? I should be thankful though. Instead of buying one of their desks that I would have to build, I just bought to Vika Arturs (multi purpose supporters, like you'd find holding workbenches in a construction site) and a massive slab of pine on top.
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,831 posts
1,120

Here, a video explaining IKEA. Apart from the fact that it is actually Swedish, this is accurate;
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVgQ34PfikI[/url]

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,377 posts
24,445

Especially since in those days there were no brands, ergo no uniformity in clothing.


Right, but this highlights the contrary point. In the last, people made their own clothes, and this wasn't uniformity, but it was a form of extreme dullness without diversity. Today, we have hundreds and thousands of brands and shops selling clothes; hardly a case for uniformity.

Come come. Let us read the part where I said "Back then". Makes sense, does it not?


Nope. Because even back then there was the law. And even if there wasn't hypothetically, it doesn't contribute to your case; being able to kill the storeowner is hardly an argument against corporations.

Goody good. Glad to see he hasn't followed his fragrant counterparts. Because, although your father has not fallen, how many perfumers have?


And for everyone that has, how many haven't? We're ignoring business cycles here.

Oh, glorious technology. I suppose, with such magnificent technology, my desk would have been that much easier to put together? I should be thankful though. Instead of buying one of their desks that I would have to build, I just bought to Vika Arturs (multi purpose supporters, like you'd find holding workbenches in a construction site) and a massive slab of pine on top.


Not everyone is capable of or even going to be able to make furniture by themselves if that is what you're trying to say. Not everyone has the skills needed, nor the time nor the effort nor the materials.

Small firms do make furniture; but Ikea is able to offer a much larger range, at cheap prices.

Can't watch vids on my phone.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,377 posts
24,445

But the main point for IKEA and corporations is not just technology but EOS. that's the main idea pushing for them. Anyway, post, I'll respond later.

Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,831 posts
1,120

Right, but this highlights the contrary point. In the last, people made their own clothes, and this wasn't uniformity, but it was a form of extreme dullness without diversity. Today, we have hundreds and thousands of brands and shops selling clothes; hardly a case for uniformity

"The man who makes the cloth chooses the dye."
You forget, if you make your own clothing, the possibilities are merely limited to resources. And even for them, leather and other hides were in good supply, thus they could add hundreds of extra pockets, or different patches, or save bits of leather for a belt, etc. Now? You choose a shirt or a pair of jeans and that's that. I am now saying that the olden ages were much better, but we've lost the ability to be self-sufficient.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,377 posts
24,445

"The man who makes the cloth chooses the dye."
You forget, if you make your own clothing, the possibilities are merely limited to resources. And even for them, leather and other hides were in good supply, thus they could add hundreds of extra pockets, or different patches, or save bits of leather for a belt, etc. Now? You choose a shirt or a pair of jeans and that's that. I am now saying that the olden ages were much better, but we've lost the ability to be self-sufficient.


Is that a bad thing? Why does being self sufficient, the individual "ruggedness" feature so highly in the pecking order? If anything, it shows that we now have no need to do everything ourselves, we have more free time to ourselves, we are not constrained by the needs to grow our own food, make our own clothes, build our own houses. That is progress; we have developed such that we specialize in what we are good at.

And those "shirts and jeans" are very different; patterns, colors, materials, design, texture. Or you could just choose a "tunic and coat" in the last, and that's that.
HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,737 posts
20,765

Now? You choose a shirt or a pair of jeans and that's that.

Are you stupid? The shops are full of clothing tissues, thread etc; in school we learn early how to sew manually and with machines and use other techniques. We have even more possibilities than before to make our own clothes, we just choose to leave that to professionals now to make better quality clothes. But if you dislike the ready-made and are skilled in the craft of clothes-making (and even if you're not), what hinders you to make your own clothes instead?
goumas13
offline
goumas13
4,780 posts
24,075

Fashion markets are characterized by rapid change, hence commercial success or failure is mainly determined by the firm's flexibility and responsiveness. So, the business is less concerned with the efficient production of goods than with anticipating the changing preferences of customers.
That leads to non-price rather than price competition. (Exceptions are obviously inferior goods)
{Non-price completion is a situation in which competitors would not lower prices for fear of a price war}

That means that the apparel industry is characterized by monopolistic competition. Monopolistic competition is quite similar to perfect competition in that the number of sellers is so large that the actions of any one seller has little impact on his competitors.

Anyway, due to the idiosyncratic nature of this particular market and the built-in-obsolesce of the products that are manufactured, small scale units are preferred.
The reason is that small scale units are more agile, they have a relatively short planning period and they can adjust more rapidly to changes in consumer demand, so the risk of failure is lower. (Game theory is extremely important in non-price competition]
Ergo: Large scale production does not have the competitive advantage it has in other industries.

Bottom line: Fashion markets are a strange beast, so they're not really a good example to prove whatever point you're trying to prove.

I am now saying that the olden ages were much better, but we've lost the ability to be self-sufficient.

Economic self-sufficiency means that no trade takes place between the individual or group and others. We've lost the ability -as a society- to be self-sufficient since the early middle ages.
goumas13
offline
goumas13
4,780 posts
24,075

Oh, I almost forgot.

Every company wants to increase its market share, which requires a continuing stream of new and improved products,
that's due to the fact that non-price competition if successful results in more monopoly power. The firm's product becomes more differentiated from less-similar competitors in industry. This increase in monopoly power allows the firm to raise its price with less fear of losing customers.

Product differentiation is the very thing that leads to monopolistic competition. There is no variety with perfect competition.

Long story short: although certain inefficiencies are associated with monopolistic competition, society receives a benefit from monopolistic competition in the form of differentiated goods and services. (i.e. More Product Differentiation)

shock457
offline
shock457
710 posts
1,405

Since when did this topic go to a sudden halt?

Who thinks of the New York Soda Ban?

Is it the right thing to do?

Showing 106-120 of 128