 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure how many people with history, economics or business experience read this LJ, but, I've got an economics question for people. I'm involved in a discussion with somebody online, and I realized I was making a potentially bad assumption: Is it true that Max profit occurs if and only if your company works at max efficiency? And if you provide services with max efficiency, you automatically get (or are close to) max profit?
After thinking about it, I don't think the assumption is valid. I can think of a whole bunch of specific scenarios where that's not true. But, from what I remember of basic microeconomic theory, if you produce or serve at maximum efficiency, you should generate maximum profit. And I remember the warning about the difference between specific
cases and the general case. Yet, on the gripping hand, I also know somebody who did an IR degree who told me once that I was one economics course short from seeing the really good stuff, (I picked up three -- intro Micro, intro Macro, and International Trade), and that basic microeconomic theory was, for intents and purposes beyond the most basic, crap. (Equivalent to how they teach valence bonding in High School Into Chemistry, then they whip out electron shells and quantum mechanics and you feel your head explode...Damn you h. Planck time... hurts. But that's a different rant...)
So, anybody with more economics or business experience here have a pointer to more defined/realistic theory? Or should I just go and start looking for any advanced microeconomic stuff on the web? (8-) Hell, I'm wondering if this really is worth looking into, because the last thing I need to do know is bash my head on some microeconomics -- but I do find myself curious. If nothing else, maybe some reassurance that CFOs and such of today's corporations are using more advanced planning tools than the classic 2-D supply/demand graph.
Edited to correct: Apparently, I've forgotten enough quantum mechanics that I can now drop down another category on the geek test. Mixing up h and h-bar. Yes, I do care about getting this stuff straight. (8-) Tags: business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was re-reading an LJ entry, when I made a comment about how economics is the ultimate dominant factor in sport, eventually trumping everything, and I used the MLB as my prime example.
That led me to some thinking, and so, I sat down and with the help of Excel and USA Today, quickly compiled this little chart. It compares all the major league teams, their 2007 payroll, and the number of games they've won as of yesterday. This is quick and dirty analysis -- for example, all the teams have played a different number of games (some between 98-101). However, I think the trends are still pretty obvious.
Dollars Per Game is the amount of payroll paid per baseball game. Total Price Paid and Cost Per Win reflects the total amount of money spent to reach the win total, and the amount of money per win that entails.
I don't really have much to say other than, with the exception of some outliers (the Cleveland Indians are doing remarkably well with a payroll in the bottom third of the league), the trend holds. You pay more, you win more, but, the more you pay, the less efficient each additional dollar becomes. And, if you're in that middle band of teams, since everybody's about your level, you can end up anywhere.
( Charts! Charts! Charts! ) Tags: business, sports
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damn. I mean.... well, DAMN.
http://catrinella.livejournal.com/151812.html
Obviously, I don't support incest or pedophilia, and anybody who interprets this post as evidence as such needs to have their head examined. But, there's a right way of doing this, and a wrong way of doing this.
The right way involves checking each accused LJ / community, do a basic common sense check versus freedom of speech, and then warn people that they're in violation to clean up their act, and posting a general message to the world at large that such a purge was underway. The wrong way involves just assuming accusation is the same as proof, and blowing things away willy-nilly, and being completely silent and hoping this whole thing will blow over.
It looks Live Journal / Six Apart picked the wrong way. At least, it looks like this happened sometime within the last 24 hours, and nobody at LJ with any authority has said anything of any substance on the issue.
Sadly, I suppose I'm not surprised, upon hearing about this. I am disappointed, because, it means Live Journal / Six Apart is just now another web company. I think it happens to every site that sells to a corp at some point, because, when it stops about being the best at what you can be, but, rather, how much money you can make doing it, eventually, quality is compromised in favour of profitability. (It is a sad truth that, it doesn't matter what the quality of a product is -- only that people will buy it.) And then some body figures out that if you cut corners short term, it makes even more money, even if there's long term cost. I'm sure there are lawyers involved who forgot that there is a difference between law and justice, and that the law is more important.
I feel sorry for those people who bought permanent accounts recently, probably thinking it was still the old LiveJournal that they were buying into. And I guess it's now time to think of moving to either a different blog site, or hosting my own. I don't think I say anything that LJ would shut me down over, but, how would I know? From the sounds of things, these people were given no warning before the boom came down. The first key to just governance is predictability, and LiveJournal just broke that rule in a massively huge way.
I've got two months until my paid account expires -- time for me to think of what I want to do next. I'm kind of wondering how many paid people are going to leave as well in the mean time.
Edited to add: Here's another take on it: http://lizzie9208.livejournal.com/578175.html Tags: business, misc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Final Daze: More on IBM's global restructuring
One of the things that makes capitalism so fascinating to watch is that each company represents a society in microcosm. Each company has its own morality, its own ethical structure, its own leaders, and its own goals. And every day, at companies around the world, exposed (for the most part) to reality, have to adjust themselves to meet that reality -- or fail miserably.
Unfortunately, just like societies, it always seems that the people who cause the disaster manage to get away reasonably intact, while it's the people at the bottom of the totem pole that get squashed. Authority and responsibility aren't in balance, and that's where things go bad. Tags: business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
hanrow's journal
Previous
