0
|
Gnarly   United States. Sep 18 2014 17:26. Posts 1723 | | |
>what is opportunity cost
I'm guessing you forgot there is no such thing as a free lunch.
/facepalm |
|
|
| 0
|
dogmeat   Czech Republic. Sep 18 2014 18:22. Posts 6374 | | |
yeah tell us, what is opportunity cost of giving away $1000 |
|
|
| 0
|
Gnarly   United States. Sep 18 2014 18:26. Posts 1723 | | |
wow...
the costs incurred by the customer affects the companies. very simple here, guys. |
|
Diversify or fossilize! | Last edit: 18/09/2014 18:27 |
|
| 0
|
dogmeat   Czech Republic. Sep 18 2014 18:30. Posts 6374 | | |
|
|
| 0
|
Gnarly   United States. Sep 18 2014 21:42. Posts 1723 | | |
Instead of spending $1,000 at Company A, everyone spends their $1,000 at Company B. This opportunity cost, not shopping at Company A, drains Company A of money, while flooding Company B with money. Company A wouldn't be able to give any more money away, because they can't afford to, which means they can't sell anymore products, because they can't afford to, which means they are out of business. See how capitalism and the free market persist? |
|
|
| 1
|
traxamillion   United States. Sep 19 2014 02:49. Posts 10468 | | |
|
| 0
|
dogmeat   Czech Republic. Sep 19 2014 08:43. Posts 6374 | | |
$1000 - $1000 = 0
this is math |
|
|
| 0
|
Gnarly   United States. Sep 19 2014 08:52. Posts 1723 | | |
Let's say there were four companies in the world. A, B, C, and D. Each of them gives each person $250, and there's only ten people on the planet. So, that means there is $10,000 in circulation. That means each company is giving out $2,500. Now, when the consumers go to shop, they have free choice where to shop. Because of this, there is a thing called opportunity cost, which means that when one shops at A, they missed out on shopping at B, C, and D. This means that A gets the money, while B, C, and D doesn't. If this cost is incurred by all ten people, then that means only A gets any money back, and that they even get extra money, which is a result from the other companies losing their share of the pool.
If you think that somehow, because someone shopped at A, instead of B, C, and D, that this means that all companies get the same amount of money, you're absolutely fucking retarded and should jump off of a cliff.
|
|
|
| 1
|
Santafairy   Korea (South). Sep 19 2014 09:34. Posts 2226 | | |
they understood earlier buddy they're just trolling you. company D should donate money to its customers who aren't really its customers because they're busy shopping at company A giving company A more money so company D goes out of business, it makes perfect sense, you must be timothy geithner |
|
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen | |
|
| 1
|
SugoGosu   Korea (South). Sep 19 2014 11:12. Posts 1793 | | |
ok cool you understand simple opportunity cost, but your ideas are wtf rofl
You do realize though...
Why the hell would a company give money away for free? I'll make a simple example for you.
Company A, B, C, D are in the market. There are 10 people in the world, each company gives each person $250. $10,000 is thus in circulation.
The 10 people prefer company A, and spend all their money there.
Companies B, C, D go out of business.
Company A is left. This means there is 1 company left in the world.
Why the fuck would company A give out money to the people when they are just going to buy their stuff? Company A is now a charity. They can't make money, they go out of business.
Also why the fuck would all 4 companies gamble just to see who lasts longest and then dies out? Why doesn't company B say "shit, let's not give any money and just sell our stuff, and keep the $2500 for ourselves?" |
|
Say this outloud! Why was six afraid of seven?......Because Seven Eight Nine | Last edit: 19/09/2014 11:17 |
|
| 1
|
Spitfiree   Bulgaria. Sep 19 2014 11:53. Posts 9634 | | |
| On September 19 2014 08:34 Santafairy wrote:
they understood earlier buddy they're just trolling you. company D should donate money to its customers who aren't really its customers because they're busy shopping at company A giving company A more money so company D goes out of business, it makes perfect sense, you must be timothy geithner |
i laughed so hard i started crying :D
sounds like gnarly s describing socialism where companies ABCD are the government and opportunity costs are the concentration camps |
|
| Last edit: 19/09/2014 11:56 |
|
| 0
|
dogmeat   Czech Republic. Sep 19 2014 12:13. Posts 6374 | | |
look at all the money stalin could have made if he hadnt slaughtered 20M ppl |
|
|
| 0
|
Gnarly   United States. Sep 19 2014 14:00. Posts 1723 | | |
| On September 19 2014 10:12 SugoGosu wrote:
ok cool you understand simple opportunity cost, but your ideas are wtf rofl
You do realize though...
Why the hell would a company give money away for free? I'll make a simple example for you.
Company A, B, C, D are in the market. There are 10 people in the world, each company gives each person $250. $10,000 is thus in circulation.
The 10 people prefer company A, and spend all their money there.
Companies B, C, D go out of business.
Company A is left. This means there is 1 company left in the world.
Why the fuck would company A give out money to the people when they are just going to buy their stuff? Company A is now a charity. They can't make money, they go out of business.
Also why the fuck would all 4 companies gamble just to see who lasts longest and then dies out? Why doesn't company B say "shit, let's not give any money and just sell our stuff, and keep the $2500 for ourselves?" |
With the ever-decreasing active participation labor rate, less and less people are working, yet those people working are providing for more and more people. People already complain about this very aspect of welfare, mostly from people that have stable careers. (usually the older people, which is also a problem because there is less mobility for the youth to move up) So, eventually, when no one is working, the segment that was providing for welfare no longer is able to.
So, instead of taxing the people who trade labor for money, one could tax the companies, instead. The "labor" part of the equation is actually getting up out of your house, traveling to said location, and physically buying the thing you want. (or online shopping, which still requires labor)
If you don't think America has very large socialistic aspects, you're dead wrong. |
|
|
| 0
|
Gnarly   United States. Sep 19 2014 14:07. Posts 1723 | | |
Also, whenever a company opens up, they are already gambling, as new businesses have a very high failure rate. Secondly, you are discounting entrepreneurship, meaning that there will be companies E, F, and G in the future. If a company doesn't pay it's taxes, it gets the IRS up it's ass. |
|
|
| 1
|
Spitfiree   Bulgaria. Sep 19 2014 16:05. Posts 9634 | | |
| On September 19 2014 13:00 Gnarly wrote:
So, eventually, when no one is working, the segment that was providing for welfare no longer is able to.
. |
but we ll have cool chairs which will be nice |
|
| 0
|
dogmeat   Czech Republic. Sep 19 2014 16:08. Posts 6374 | | |
| On September 19 2014 13:00 Gnarly wrote:
So, eventually, when no one is working, the segment that was providing for welfare no longer is able to.
. |
why? you can always print more money |
|
|
| 0
|
Gnarly   United States. Sep 19 2014 18:02. Posts 1723 | | |
ooooorrrrrr you could control money velocity...
>print more money
|
|
|
| 0
|
dogmeat   Czech Republic. Sep 19 2014 18:10. Posts 6374 | | |
by not printing money you are missing on opportunity costs of ppl spending them
duuuuuh |
|
|
| 0
|
Gnarly   United States. Sep 19 2014 19:34. Posts 1723 | | |
but money is already printed every day...
>america's next top lel |
|
|
| 0
|
dogmeat   Czech Republic. Sep 19 2014 20:17. Posts 6374 | | |
|
|
| |
|