At SEA airport. Going to SF for work purposes. After that I'm going to Tucson for game jame purposes. Woo.
|Time (PDT)||Intention||Revision 1||Revision 2|
|0630||Walk to Light Rail|
|0700||Light rail to airport||and reading|
|1230||Transit to airbnb||and reading|
|1300||Transit to airbnb||and reading|
Basic Economics reading.
The book has made a statement I find hard to believe, and in fact I believe I know of some contradictions. It states there are no real examples of "predatory pricing" wherein a business under priced a competitor to the point of losses to maintain a monopoly by which to avoid proper competition.
Now, let me be clear, the book's definition is slight different than what I just said, and perhaps the real definition is different than what I just said. The book states predatory pricing as taking losses to kill competition to then gouge customers via artificially high prices. This narrow view is one reason to kill competition via shaddy tactics, yes, but another reason is to kill competitive innovation before it becomes a real problem.
And I am once-again surprised that Rockerfeller is not brought up. Rockerfeller is an example often used when explaining predatory pricing. It is how I learned of the concept at the very least. I belive the author probably disagrees that he is such an example, but he should be aware of the argument and be dispelling it here. That he is not is very surprising to me.
Further, I feel that predatory businesses go far beyond the pricing variety, and amazingly the book mentions one such variety, but in a positive light. University of Phoenix is, as far as I'm aware (I'll need to find my sources) barely better than a diploma mill, enticing people to go into debt for an education worth way less than the cost of its classes. It is far from the only school that is doing this, either. The author lists it as a power of for-profit institutions, noting that it has far more students than the vast majority of public colleges.
He also paints the "Walmart is evil" meme as unfair or even ridiculous. His argument basically being that the company has plenty of competition, isn't a monopoly, and its lower prices have improved the standard of living for many. Now, this has led me to realize a new problem I have with this book, the ignoring of employees as members of the economy, and the effect that monopolies have on such people with limited skillsets.
However, the very next chapter (Chapter 10: Productivity and Pay), may well begin discussing the employee, so I will wait before writing on this thinking further.