A LART is needed (was: VCF 4.0)

From: Bill Dawson <whdawson_at_mlynk.com>
Date: Wed Oct 18 20:16:58 2000

-> On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Hans Franke wrote:
-> > > Aaron Nabil <nabil_at_SpiritOne.com>
-> > > I scrap (well, actually throw away) a HUGE amount of stuff rather
than
-> > > "sell it for less than I think it's worth". No, I'm not in the
-> > > business, I'm just a hobbiest, but if I can have valid reasons
for
-> > > throwing things away instead of selling them at a lower price (or
giving
-> > > them away), I can certainly imagine that they do too. It's
uncalled for
-> > > ascribing "poor character" to people unless you also happen to be
a mind
-> > > reader, they might have perfectly valid reasons for doing what
they do.
-> >
-> > A perfectly healthy state of mind of one person may be total
-> > insanity to another, and your expression may need some additional
-> > backup to be considered by most people. Throwing away goods
-> > istead of selling is more damaging to the vendor than selling
-> > at a lower price (even when lower than the cost to produce) .
-> > This is valid for most economic situations, eventualy except
-> > communist systems and EU buerocracy.
->
-> Again, ascribing "state of mind" to people just because they don't
-> volunteer their rationale to you is silly. You aren't the one making
-> the decision, they don't have an obligation to you to "explain
-> themselves" to you.

Especially when the explanation would only reveal that the basis of the
decision is greed and/or selfishness.

-> As a general rule, you can expect people to act in their own best
-> interest. If someone thinks that reducing the price is in their
interest,
-> that's what they will do. If they think throwing it in the dumpster
is in
-> their best interest, that's what they will do.
->
-> I'm not sure which of my expressions needs backup, but first and
foremost,
-> it's my stuff, I don't need to "explain" my actions,

While this is very true, those that refuse to explain the rationale of
what to others are inexplicable behaviors usually are just hiding their
true motivations, knowing that the revelation of those motivations to
others will open their beliefs and themselves to scrutiny.

-> you can trust that
-> being a reasonable person I'm going to act in my best interests. As
for
-> throwing away things being "less damaging" than selling them, I'll
-> include a couple illustrations from "real life" to show how that it
may
-> not be the case. But what is important is that this isn't intended
as an
-> exautive list, I'm simply pointing out that people can have valid
reasons
-> for what they do even if they don't share them with you.
->
-> Local high-tech company T has a surplus sales store, but instead of
-> selling their own equipment at the store, they scrap it and only get
-> a tiny fraction of the value back. They do this to avoid
-> competing with their own new products.

Explanation: Greed.

->
-> Hobbiest A has acquired most of the remaining sets of a particular
test
-> set that is in high demand on the surplus market. He has a large
number
-> of junk units that he could sell on Ebay or to other users for a few
-> hundred dollars, but they would get fixed up and sold in competition
with
-> his really nice units (worth $1000), so he throws them away
instead.0)

Explanation: Greed as motivation again. Selfishness also.

I can imagine that it never enters into the thought process of a greed
driven seller like this that a buyer who just can't afford the "really
nice units (worth $1000)" would gladly buy a "junk" unit, invest the
time and effort to repair/restore it and then use it, having no thoughts
of re-selling it on eBay.

The seller in this instance is so fearful of competition that he will
relinquish maximum profits to control an imagined future competitive
situation. Is the fear of competition in this instance so strong as to
cause an irrational action? I think so. Would this seller likely hide
his true motivation with a statement such as "It's my stuff, I don't
need to "explain" my actions."? Probably.

->
->
-> And I'll make one up...
->
-> Vendor X hauls a bunch of stuff down to VCF n, some of which he
sells.
-> People are interested in what he has, but aren't willing to pay what
he
-> thinks are reasonable prices. He has a warehouse of the stuff,
realizes
-> that there is going to be a VCF n+1 and that the same people will be
there
-> and the value of his warehouse of stuff will only go up. If he gives
his
-> stuff away, those will simply be sales he won't make next year, and
he may
-> be creating the impression that if you wait long enough everything
will be
-> "free" or "any offer accepted" at the end, thus driving down sales
and
-> prices even further. So he throws things in the dumpster, taking
care to
-> smash them extra hard on the way in.
->
-> That's a prefectly reasonable rationale, and the Vendor X doesn't
become
-> any more "unreasonable" or less "sane" or "logical" becuase he didn't
-> hand out a leaflet explaining what he was doing.

This isn't a reasonable rationale at all. Again, with greed as the
prime motivation here, what appears to others as irrational actions
occurs. Just because the seller has a reason for his actions doesn't
make it reasonable, rational or sane. The fact that he refuses to
explain his actions is a clue that he also knows his rationale for his
actions is unacceptable. His actions are no more justified than the
other seller who claims he heard a voice inside his head telling him to
blow up the VCF because every is plotting against him to ensure that he
doesn't sell anything.

Bill

->
-> --
-> Aaron Nabil
->
Received on Wed Oct 18 2000 - 20:16:58 BST