You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Planned Obsolescence?
Regarding Occam's razor, I don't find your dichotomy useful. That isn't to say the way you break it down doesn't have value or is wrong. Don't worry, my agreeing with it or not shouldn't affect the utility of your version for you at all. True things aren't affected by popularity in the slightest.
Expand your intended meaning for 'immutable factors'. So far I disagree, but perhaps if you elaborate it I can understand in what sense it is true in the way you are using it.
When the technology does not advance, neither supply nor demand are variable, governmental regulation will not change, etc. Those critical factors being immutable potentiate persistent monopoly. Where these factors can change, disruption can occur, and monopolies broken.
I rather prefer being proven wrong than not. I get to learn stuff.
Thanks!
I was including capacity to react to perturbations as part of the meaning of competition- with better competitors having more capacity to react. To you point: A highly turbulent market seems to require competitors to spend more resources reacting automatically decreasing the amount of value that a monopoly can just extract directly without endangering its own viability/market position. ..So you are right, 'market volatility' seems to be a factor that opposes some characteristics of monopolies.
I try to translate the problem into information theory so I can access those tools. In doing that, I was using a signal model as an analog of market conditions to represent the sum of the forces acting on the market. You can imagine a signal that moves around quasi-randomly, sometimes with large amplitude changes, sometimes with changes happening quickly with high frequency. An impossibly competitive and efficient player would conform to that signal exactly. The difference between the 'true' market signal and the signal that a competitor generates is a measure of how efficient that competitor is in the market and how much value they can extract. I find thinking of it this way is somewhat generative - despite the obvious difficulty of translating an actual market into this abstract form.
I can see how models of markets would be potentiated at this point by such signal substitution for what are presently ineffable non-random effects. Such models would reveal many interesting things about markets, and I suspect would particularly reveal the far more substantial than expected influence of corruption. My guess is that as various influences were quantized, more and more of the cryptic influences would be shown to be such collusive forces.
I am well heartened to hear of your work in this regard.
Thanks!