wouldn't a device like this with a fitting attachment solve some of the issues involved with this equipment?
You are talking about super regulated markets, markets where governments are heavily involved and declaring that the way they are regulated and corrupted by the governments is something that would prevent a bakery from changing prices on the fly should their market conditions change, for example a giant influx of consumers wouldn't change the market conditions for bakery enough to change prices. I showed that as market conditions change the producers quickly modify their behaviour. I don't know what you are even trying to say, however comparing stable and predictable market conditions to changing market conditions and declaring that changing market conditions do not cause producers to changing prices is too silly.
You are either a full or a liar, Henry Ford's model was not to pay workers so that they would 'buy' anything, his model was to pay more to his employees to reduce turn over of highly specialised professionals, who were becoming very efficient but leaving the company once they achieved proficiency to go work somewhere with less stress. So he doubled people's salary and reduced turnover, keeping the trained employees and doubling his productive output in a very short time after that.
He was NOT paying his people to buy anything, he was paying his people so that they would have hard time quitting the jobs.
The reality is that globalisation requires a real free market environment and that is something people really hate - competing and allowing the best competitors to become much wealthier while raising the overall standard of living in the economy.
You are growing statism, fascism and nazism and you are destroying individual freedoms with every new regulation, law, tax, barrier to entry, license, newly printed paper dollar and you think you can create a prosperous economy based on any of that, well you cannot and the time is proving that you cannot. No amount of natzism (national socialism) will help you because you are asking the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter.
The real question is what is virtue and not how to divide a shrinking pie. The virtue is in non-initiation of force and in allowing true free market economy based on capitalist principles to destroy the old guard, the fascism, the nazism, the socialism, those are self-destructing, corrupt principles that arise from position of desire to dictate to others. What is virtue is the only real question. Virtue is non-initiation of force and it leads to voluntary exchange and freedom, which is the only way to have a cooperative environment, where each works for himself, for his own profits, but the result is a robust wealthy economy.
Your example is false because it does not address real situations that a bakery can face that are caused by changing market conditions, you are looking at stable market environment and deduce that because bakeries in stable market environments can operate without changing prices that it means that those very bakeries would not change prices quickly if market environments changed quickly.
First of all there is no 'hyper inflation' in Russia. Hyper inflation is not just 50% or 100% inflation, hyperinflation is thousands percent and more. This is just kids play, compared to hyperinflation.
Secondly there are markets in Russia, people buy and sell products and commodities and labour and while there are regulations, actually they are much lower than regulations in countries like the USA. So store owners who paid their money for their stock respond to the market conditions by raising prices, that's market dictated behaviour and not government regulated behaviour (though this behaviour is a response to a government created problem).
The point is your example with a bakery is absolutely false, a bakery will change prices if the market forces dictate it so.
Perhaps you should go to a bakery in Russia over the last months, every day prices change more than once specifically because of increase of demand with the same supply. This increase of demand is caused by the falling currency value, but the result is the same.
First of all baker can absolutely change prices at any moment in time. If currency fluctuates during the day, if any kind of an unusual event happens that lowers supply or hikes demand any store will change prices quickly. As a matter of fact I build and sell software and services for retail, shipping, handling, logistics that lets chain operators change prices on groups of products, on individual products, on all products by a fixed amount or by percentages and the centralized control allows immediate change across the entire chain to take effect in 15 minutes, which is used all the time. I didn't sell to a bakery yet, but it is the same idea. Not only an individual baker but a chain can implement price changes during the day any number of times they want.
When currency fluctuates, for example, it presents a real opportunity for arbitrage and can kill profitability of a store or a chain in a blink of an eye. Currency fluctuation corresponds to demand very easily. Case in point: Russia last week.
Stores were changing prices many times in one day. 10 and even more times a day in some cases! And what happened to those who were not paying attention? They paid with their wallets. Falling currency created huge extra demand, people were spending all of their money, buying anything they could get their hands on before currency fell further in price.
So you have 0 understanding not only of theory but actually of the reality that happens even as we speak.
Modern "labor saving" inventions do no such things. They eliminate jobs and replace them with nothing.
Labour saving means exactly that: eliminate as much work as possible, that's why it's called 'labour saving' and not 'labour creating'.
That was my point and you are not even aware that you are making my point while you are making it, are you? Labour saving device means labour reducing device.
As an employer, if I can buy/build a machine that will reduce necessity for a job or fully eliminate a job I just acquired/built a machine that does what I am talking about: saving labour.
Saving labour is exactly what our civilisation does, the very first thing we did (fire, wheel, spear...) was already labour saving and everything we do today (computers, robots, cars, planes, tall buildings, factories, food processing...) it's all also labour saving.
It all saves labour, as in it reduces the labour needed or even eliminates labour altogether and it is all a good thing, that's what we want and need, otherwise we wouldn't be able to make more money by doing it, we would be making less money by doing it if it wasn't what we wanted and needed.
Ha ha, the law exists and you fail to understand it. To make your example appropriate for the situation you have to set a condition that the bakery only has a limited supply of ingredients and/or energy and/or time to bake the cookies, so does Uber, they have a limited supply of drivers at any moment in time.
So a bakery cannot just rump up the supply on a moment notice if, for example, ten buses with tourists stopped by the bakery and all of them wanted some biscuits. However the baker can raise the prices if he sees an increased demand, thus making sure to reduce the secondary market for his product, which would be created (an opportunity for arbitrage) if a few tourists discovered the bakery first and decided to buy all the product in it, because they could then insert themselves between the baker and the rest of the tourists, making a nice profit for themselves.
The baker could raise the prices, but he would have to react quickly to the changing market demands.
What Uber is doing is they are looking at all of the information at once and deciding that the market conditions are such that raising prices will in fact allow them to make more money by finding the new equilibrium price for their service. If there is much more demand than there is supply, raising prices is a very legitimate (and used) method of ensuring efficiency, which otherwise would be much lower.
I am not Peter Thiel and I think welfare is horrendous and should not exist, nor should any form of welfare like system. Welfare is what keeps people down, lulls them into the sense of entitlement, that somebody else must work to keep them living.
Why should anybody be forced by the (very visible and well armed) hand of government to pay for other people's consumption? Actually my argument is based not only around economics, but most importantly around immorality of slavery, which is what welfare recipients get in the system that they vote for: slaves.
Anybody who is forced by the well armed hand of government to pay any taxes (or when money is borrowed, so future taxes, or when money is printed, so the inflation tax) to support consumption of anybody is a slave of the system and I am completely and 100% against slavery.
Slavery is when your property and/or labour is forcibly taken away from you and given to anybody else. If you charitably provide somebody with money they need to survive, that is great, your life and your choice. Income based taxes, borrowing that causes future growth of taxes, inflation (money printing) is all a form of slavery, which is why I am against any government maintained welfare state.
I am completely and consistently against any form of slavery and basically initiation of force by any government organisation. Of-course I am against slavery and initiation of force by anybody, however it is the government initiation of force that is the most immoral of all, since it is the 'law of the land', so to speak, so you can be born into a system that prearranged your slavery within it.
So did Uber just rediscover supply / demand curve and the fact that increased demand with stagnant supply pushes prices up?
I mean that's like the FIRST law of supply and demand, if demand increases and supply stays the same clearing prices go up.
Well, let's see if the patent office knows anything at all about basic economics or if this will be accepted as an 'innovation because of
yes, that is what the parent post said and was specific to use sarcasm tag for people who he knew wouldn't get it to accent the point that ignorant luddits should in principle be against every labour saving innovation that people come up with, not just the most obvious (machines, computers, robots), but everything we do. Everything we invent and innovate is a labour saving device somehow. To stop that would be to give up on the idea of humans changing environment to improve our circumstances. Luddits want to stop progress, be it computers and robots or pesticides and pallets. The parent comment was pointing it out, not complaining about it.
No, not exaggerating, she codes, she sketches, she does a ton of stuff that should be done by people who specialise in it.
How about I prove you wrong in such an embarrassing way that you will have to eat your words? I have that account because at some point I bought Rogers Internet service, and email was part of what I was buying in the package. Eventually Rogers outsourced their email to Yahoo!, so I have an email account that is paid for and that I never imagined would be handled by Yahoo! I am actually a paying customer, you dumb shit.
Marissa Mayer is not a good CEO, she maybe was a useful engineer at Google, but she is a horrendous CEO at Yahoo! When Yahoo! outbid FB by a few hundred million to buy Tumblr it was clear, there is no plan. But there was no plan from the beginning.
I'll explain. You come to a new company as a CEO, WHAT DO YOU DO? What do you do first? What would YOU do? You know what I would do (as a CEO)? I would immediately run an inventory of what I have in the company, what do I have to work with, who makes money in the company, who does not make money, what investments are out there, what products, services, people, holdings, cash is out there.
I would want a recount and fast.
Then, as a new CEO I would definitely concentrate on those parts of the company that actually make money because those parts have already done the HARD work of figuring out how this company makes money right now.
Mayer didn't pay attention to the content generating part of Yahoo!, which is the part that actually earns them revenues at all, she didn't give a shit that there is a part of the company that brings in over a billion dollars a year. A BILLION dollars a year and she didn't care to figure out how that's done and how to boost it before doing anything else that TAKES money, any new investments can only be done once you understand your cashflow and you know that you can actually withstand the spending that goes into the investment.
Marissa Mayer was not hired as an engineer to build products, she was hired as a CEO, as a director to direct, to create strategy for the company. Yes, that means coming up with product ideas as well, no, it does not mean coding (which is what she ended up doing herself in many cases), that's a waste of time for her. She should be looking at markets and clients and making sure that her current accounts don't fall off the face of the earth, instead she didn't pay any attention to her advertising income (she stood up her largest clients), her content generating income (didn't even notice them apparently).
The only saving grace for Yahoo! was their Alibaba 1Billion USD investment that brought them money and investors, who used Yahoo! to invest into Alibaba indirectly.
As to products, what products? The fucking piece of shit Yahoo! account that I have (from old days) is horrible on Firefox under Ubuntu 11.04 that I still run on my laptop.