RE: Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...) L3
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, One of the basic precepts of free market economics is competition between suppliers. ... Many of these companies (eg Walmart) are growing so huge and powerful that they are endangering that. Here in Australia we have basically two large food etc supermarket chains. ... They have massive power over their suppliers, driving many out of business, are vertically integrating, so they own the suppliers, wholesalers, shippers etc, and use legal but unethical means to undercut their competition till they go bust then raise their prices. ... Yes, indeed. So what should be done? Years ago, I posted an earlier version of the following fable on the Brin list. Now it is incorporated into http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/Choice-and-Constraint.html The fictional economy preserves competition, at least for the time I talk about, but in the segment on "Economic and Political Implications", I suggest what to do in Australia. What (if anything) is wrong with this fable? Tentacle City = Far away, at a distant time ... You are exploring a strange planet. A hundred tentacled entities live on an island. The other members of the expedition persist on calling these entities `tents'. You came up with a much nicer name, but you have since forgotten it yourself. The `tents' come in all different sizes, from small to very large. As expedition ecologist, you have found that these `tents' eat various resources around them, more during better conditions, less during poorer conditions. They also eat each other; indeed, some find others delicious. (This is endocannibalism, a fairly rare phenomenon on account of the risk of picking up pre-adapted diseases from the eaten entity.) `Tents' can grow bigger or smaller. Like many bacteria or cancer cells, they are potentially immortal. They die by starvation or when they are eaten by another. Unlike humans, they do not have any `natural' age of death. Conditions on the island vary in a quasi-predictable way. There is little to eat during bad seasons and much to eat during good seasons. (You complain about the way language is used since a `good season' is defined as one with lots of food, but no one else pays attention.) Seasons come and go, with considerable but not utter regularity. Seasons vary in their severity; some bad seasons are worse than others. Also, some parts of the island almost always provide lots of food, but other parts are barren even during the best seasons. In some respects, the landscape is not unlike Scotland. You observe that larger `tents' can survive longer without eating than smaller `tents'. And some `tents', regardless of their size, are better at finding food than others. But none can turn bare rock into a feast. New `tents' appear every so often. These `new births' appear in various sizes although most are small. None appear as large as some of the old `tents'. Now for the economics, which in this analog is modelled by ecology. Will large `tents' will always do better than small `tents'? Let us presume that the `tents' possess a minimum viable metabolic rate plus a metabolic rate based on mass. For a business, a minimum metabolic rate makes sense. To survive, a business must produce a good or service, find customers, and sell to them. Even if the business does not sell any goods or services, perhaps because of a depression -- the equivalent of our tentacled entities' starving during a bad season -- the business must support at least a few people to hold it together. Or else it will vanish. In your studies, you find that a tentacled creature has a minimum viable mass is one kilogram and loses one kilogram per week if it does not eat anything. (Mostly, when starving, a tent hibernates. But it does wake up every so often to see whether conditions have grown better.) In addition, a tent needs one-half kilogram per week for every kilogram it masses at the beginning of that week. If it does not eat this one-half kilogram per week, it loses weight. Met_Rate = 1 + 0.5 * Mass Thus, at the end of one week, a starving tent that starts out at 100 kilograms consumes (1 + 0.5 * 100) = 51kg: the one kilogram that is its minimum metabolic rate plus the one-half kilogram per week for every kilogram is masses initially. Consequently, when it does not eat anything during the week, it ends up weighing 49kg. Does Size Matter? - You find a colony of 50 `tents' of 100kg each and 50 of 10kg each. They all follow the metabolism rate described above. Bad times occur. This is what happens to the individuals in your colony: mass of each little `tent' mass of each big `tent' --- Week one: 10 100 Week two: 4
Re: Cocoa additives
On 12/18/05, Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gary Nunn wrote: > > 2005/12/12, Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >>I like having something minty in my cocoa. :) > > One of my favorite winter drinks is a mug of hot chocolate, made with milk, > > that has marshmallow peeps floating in it instead of standard marshmallows. > > I find that the Christmas tree peeps work best... Or for the politically > > correct on the list, I mean the Holiday Tree peeps work the best. :-) > > On a pagan-centric list I'm on (long story), someone posted about > finding a really cool artificial "Yule tree". (At Dollar General, no > less) > >Julia I went to a couple Solstice parties a few years ago that had a yule log with natural decorations. I see now yule logs are more often cake desserts. -- Gary Denton http://www.apollocon.org June 23-25, 2006 "Intelligunt Desine Rulez!" Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest - http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Weekly Chat Reminder
As Steve said, "The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over six years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat technologies, and even casts of regulars over the years, but the chat goes on... and we want more recruits! Whether you're an active poster or a lurker, whether you've been a member of the list from the beginning or just joined today, we would really like for you to join us. We have less politics, more Uplift talk, and more light-hearted discussion. We're non-fattening and 100% environmentally friendly... -(_() Though sometimes marshmallows do get thrown. The Weekly Brin-L chat is scheduled for Wednesday 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time. There's usually somebody there to talk to for at least eight hours after the start time. If you want to attend, it's really easy now. All you have to do is send your web browser to: http://wtgab.demon.co.uk/~brinl/mud/ ..And you can connect directly from William's new web interface! My instruction page tells you how to log on, and how to talk when you get in: http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html It also gives a list of commands to use when you're in there. In addition, it tells you how to connect through a MUD client, which is more complicated to set up initially, but easier and more reliable than the web interface once you do get it set up." -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "This message was sent automatically using cron. But even if WTG is away on holiday, at least it shows the server is still up." ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...)
On 12/24/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > ... ignoring the impact on people who are > marginalized > >by the changes brought about by Wal-Mart's tactics is bad, in my opinion. > > > But, isn't the fact that Wal-Mart cut prices by innovation good? Isn't > making the nation, as a whole, wealthier, a good? The question is meaningless -- one cannot calculate goodness by economics alone. Otherwise, we could justify any sort of behavior as long as it was economically profitable. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...)
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Stores are ecconomic entities. Forcing people to buy from less efficent > stores is an ecconomic decision. What other factors, that are not tied to > jobs, prices, income, etc. are you thinking of? I know when I have/had > less money, I was less interested in spending money on aestetics, taste, > etc. than when I have/had more money. How can we be sure that keeping > discount stores out of an area isn't simply a matter of forcing one's own > value system on others? > Sure, insuring equal access to opportunity is a crucial part of capitalism/free market etc, it's a valid issue you raise, but that's part of the problem. By allowing discount stores into an area are we forcing on them the markets version of a value system? > Finally, are you arguing that improved productivity is not inherently > valuable? > I think the issue is more about the definition of productivity. One can draw lots of graphs and diagrams about the apparent short term economic benefits, but is that really productivity, in the broader sense. Ok, things get delivered cheaper, quicker etc, but is that the be all and end all? There is an argument that our current business systems are essentially unsustainable in the longer term, in a whole lot of ways. I am pretty much a pro-market thinker, free trade etc, but the way is set up now does often not make much sense. It's a simple example, but I still can't quite grasp how it makes sense to pay farmers in one country not to grow a crop, and then import it from half way around the world. One aspect that does trouble me is that of competition. One of the basic precepts of free market economics is competition between suppliers. If you don't like one places good or services or prices, you go elsewhere. Without that competition aspect the whole system will turn into economic tyranny. Many of these companies (eg Walmart) are growing so huge and powerful that they are endangering that. Here in Australia we have basically two large food etc supermarket chains. They are now in the business of growing by organic means (having taken the rest over), and there is no law to stop them doing that. They have massive power over their suppliers, driving many out of business, are vertically integrating, so they own the suppliers, wholesalers, shippers etc, and use legal but unethical means to undercut their competition till they go bust then raise their prices. Then, a few quiet words over lunch between the bosses of the two companies and the price of cranberries has gone up 5%. Was it Marx who warned that Capitalism would end in one big corporation? That's what scares me about these mega-corporates. Not that they are being Capitalist's, but that they are in the process of destroying it from within. Ice Pick Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Merry Chrismakwanzahanayule!
> On Behalf Of Deborah Harrell > > > kerri miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > To celebrate the season, I made this. Dig in, > > there's plenty to share! > > > > > http://www.livejournal.com/users/kerrizor/374310.html > > You made me snort-laugh in the library! Gonna have to > pass this on to some dieting friends... > > Debbi > Twisted Sister Maru ;) > Is it really sad that those pictures made me hungry? Dagwood Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
