|
Seymour, IL | Badger
thanks for the comments....
You are mixing a few concepts, so I will parse them a bit. We are all greedy, and that's okay - but some are ruthless and illogical.
Does that make them bad in and of themselves, or is it the fact that they act so differently than many of us that disturb us so? I personally try to be guided by the questions, "is it legal? is it moral? is it ethical?" Two people can have different answers to these seemingly simple questions.
Some have no other goal than to "grow" there operation - even though the production base is near zero sum over decades.
Not sure what you are driving at here? Profit can be at or below zero, but if operating costs exceed operating expenses, growth is still attainable, even though it may not appear rational (farming for nothing)
Maximizing net present value (extending your personal career and/or the career of those who follow) falls within the domain of microeconomics. There are a lot of assumptions that go into discounted cash flow analysis, most of the wrong, but all of them useful. These decision go into our annual planning, and factor into capital and debt management.
This is a part of the planning, along with determining what annual cash flows can support, evaluating change and risk, and trying to determine if 'the juice is worth the squeeze' on investments. Not all investments are worthwhile, nor do they generate a pay back
The second portion lies in game theory: which 'set' of strategies is most likely to produce a winning cash flow (either just yours or the entire world economies). Playing the "traditionalist" hand may work well in some parts, not so well in others. In my opinion, we should be more open to talking about the rules of the game. Given we don't live forever, and there are multi-year improvements that must be made - the game is ACTUALLY cooperative, non-zero sum, asymmetric, and infinitely long.
Maybe....but profitable strategies may simply be unaffordable. Something that is profitable over 20 years but must be paid for in 7 (such as a tiling project) is a good example of this, as is the investment of an annual sum for an uncertain return over an unknown time frame (even though the investment is believed to be a good one)
I will leave by saying - no player ever survives if they are fail to adopt and progress. Historically, changes of behaviors in a population are by attrition or death - but it doesn't have to be that way.
again, maybe.....someone can make the right move, but have it be at the wrong time where the commitment of capital adversely effects some other part of the operation. Innovators may have the right idea, but it may be an idea ahead of its time, or they may be chasing an unproven concept. Too often, we don't know until after the fact.
thanks for the comments
bryon | |
|
- Of economics, profits, and science - farmerbk : 11/29/2016 20:28
- RE: Of economics, profits, and science - badger@uw : 11/29/2016 21:07
- RE: Of economics, profits, and science - ajblair : 11/30/2016 06:03
- RE: Of economics, profits, and science - ocfarms : 11/30/2016 07:25
- RE: Of economics, profits, and science - tntfarm : 11/30/2016 09:46
- RE: Of economics, profits, and science - Jackrabbit : 11/30/2016 12:42
|
Of economics, profits, and science
