Re: Rene Herse "New type of tire"

On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 04:23:05 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 21:03:11 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 1/9/2025 8:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/9/2025 7:11 PM, sms wrote:

On 1/9/2025 11:07 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
<snip>
>

A library full of economics theses have been written on the various
theories, practices, successes, failures and (because they are
economists) formulae of pricing (for products and for services)

>
Pricing is indeed an art.
>
"Why Popcorn Costs So Much at the Movies: And Other Pricing Puzzles"
<https://www.amazon.com/dp/0387769994>
>
The semiconductor company I worked for sent a bunch of the engineers
to a two week crash course in business at a university in Canada, a
course which concentrated a lot on pricing.
>
Outcomes:
>
1. We would not introduce any product where the margin at introduction
was less than 60%. Margins could fall as the product aged.
>
2. We would not subsidize new low-margin products with expected
revenue from higher-margin products.
>
3. We would not let customers bully us on price. In the past, one
customer wanted to pay a price based on the number of transistors on
the die, and kept asking us "how many transistors are in the part.
Another customer wanted a guarantee that we would not sell the same
part to any other customer for a lower price. Nope and nope.

 
+1
The ancillary aspects (beyond design, tooling, production and delivery
costs) are often, in fact usually, critical.
 
Price something too high and volume drops while competitors emerge.
Price it too low and your business folds.

>
And again,
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/payless-sold-discount-shoes-at-luxury-prices-and-it-worked/

>
An example of people not thinking for themselves and believing what
they're told to believe.
>
Some people are very gullible...
>
It reminds me of when somebody was told and then believed that having
a gun makes it more likely to get shot because some people who got
shot had a gun.

Well, it is true that if there is a gun in the house and some member
of the household decides to  "get rid" of another me4mber of the
household it is likely that they will use a gun to do so.

BUT... That is not proof that merely having a gun in the house means
that someone in the house is likely to leap up ands start shooting..

As I've said a number of times my family had guns in the house for
three generations. I researched it and that is from 1883 to present,
some 140 years with so firearm deaths..

The thing that the gun haters can't seem to understand if the fact
that gun don't shoot  people, people shoot people.

The data is out there and it seem odd that the ante gunners can't look
it up. I would have to say that doing a slipshod study to get an
answer you like is just another form of lying that they justify by
saying, "OH, BUT GUNS ARE DANGERIOUS!"

Bad little boys in the school used to shout "Liar, Liar, Pants on
fire!"

Do we have anyone with hot shorts here?

--
Cheers,

John B.