Ever so often in business, I come across vendors who will look at maximizing their profits on every transaction. The thinking goes that if I can cadge off an additional 10% from the client on every transaction, I would be making more money.
The basic assumption underlying this theory is that the client will continue to make the same number of transactions for the vendor to make the notional greater money. Inadvertently the client just reduces the number of transactions.
This leaves the vendor with lesser revenues & even lesser profits in total.
On the other hand, there are vendors who would standardize production at a given standard rate. I personally feel these vendors are worth partnering, they understand that profits will be marginal when economies of scale are demanded.
The profits arise from larger raw material buying power, increase inventory turnover, lowering invariable costs per unit with economies of scale.
Another facet of this vendor is he can successfully differentiate between the volume buyer and the base buyer, base prices for base quantities which would compete vis a vis any other vendor and marginal pricing for economics of scale.
I think this is the heart of the business. He differentiates the 2 buyers and thinks long term on how to get his costs down. The vendor makes best of what a particular kind of buyer is willing to pay, as well as gets his costs down with economies of scale. In doing so he is actually cadging off the smaller buyer but does this over the long term rather than early on.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Saturday, March 8, 2008
The distance between continents is the mind
I would have thought that the US and Europe have a lot in common.
But given the run up of election in the US and the recently elected Premier of France tells us that the two sects of people once one now are very different in their thinking.
Americans prefer to elect stable Family Men as President. It has been so till now.
The French wouldn't care two hoots about such things as they don't believe in such frailties.
Quite frankly I think times today are about 'can you deliver the goods'.
You could be anybody or anything, you just need to deliver.
In a poll, 34% of the French believe there is a god in contrast 33% are either atheists or agnostics. In contrast in the US only 14% of the populace identified themselves as atheists or agnostics.
I think the root of holding onto ones family essentially is a religious belief.
But the absence of such a belief perhaps proves that the Americans and French are different in their orientation in electing a President of the State.
Quiet frankly the social background of a nations Premier does in a way reflect to a large extent of what the majority populace believe for themselves. Maybe these are sign of the times.
But given the run up of election in the US and the recently elected Premier of France tells us that the two sects of people once one now are very different in their thinking.
Americans prefer to elect stable Family Men as President. It has been so till now.
The French wouldn't care two hoots about such things as they don't believe in such frailties.
Quite frankly I think times today are about 'can you deliver the goods'.
You could be anybody or anything, you just need to deliver.
In a poll, 34% of the French believe there is a god in contrast 33% are either atheists or agnostics. In contrast in the US only 14% of the populace identified themselves as atheists or agnostics.
I think the root of holding onto ones family essentially is a religious belief.
But the absence of such a belief perhaps proves that the Americans and French are different in their orientation in electing a President of the State.
Quiet frankly the social background of a nations Premier does in a way reflect to a large extent of what the majority populace believe for themselves. Maybe these are sign of the times.
R U A sexist or racist?
Well the US elections will clearly let us know whether we choose to be racist or sexist. Even though it may not really be about racism and sexism, I mean it is about who makes the better candidate.
In a twist of fate we have a first with Hilary and Obama.
We could have the first Woman President of the US or the first African American President of the US.
Which could let us know, what does the average American man want to bear with.
A woman as Boss or an African American as Boss. Which may not necessarily mean that the average American individual is a racist or a sexist, but it could mean so.?
The balance hangs in the hands of the American woman.
Would they vote for Hilary a fellow mate or an African American Man.
I think the American man has made his mind up, I mean you take a look at Bill, and he has definitely had it, Bills eyes say a lot and I think they say, "you think I have had it bad, wait till Hilary becomes President".
For most American men folk this is a scary thought.
Believe me, I am Indian and it is a scary thought.
Which gets us to, Hilary. Actually she would make a great US President in my opinion, I think she knew about Bill all along - maybe Bill has been a philanderer all his life and she lived with it for the simples reason that she knows how to look at the longterm and sacrifice the short term. More than that she has an intuitive ability to know who can deliver, I mean look at Bill, assuming that philandering is not a one off event, I mean you've got to set your mind on doing what you shouldn't be doing, but knowing this and still sticking by Bill. And Bill does make President.
She is in the classic parlance a strategic thinker - a chess player. She is the one who knows how to deliver to the US public.
But to get her through, I think the American woman is the deciding factor.
Would they be in a position to look beyond Bill and see her as the empowered woman.
She certainly qualifies for that position - A corporate woman in a man's world (it still is by the way).
Or is the American woman a romantic/idealist, who think in terms of a stable family & stable man which will get Obama through and he sure plays that 'family' card well.
Here in India most woman are romantics/idealists, and I have nothing against the women and their choices, but believe me they think Shah Rukh Khan is a great actor.
He stutters, bumbles and overplays the character role in most of his films and he plays the same character over and over again for every film, it take a great effort and patience to watch him act and worse still you can see he is putting a lot of effort into it ergo it looks like an act. I mean in acting, not that I know a lot about cinema, either you are a natural or you're not, Shah Rukh is not, but the women simply adore him.
As he epitomizes what a man to be - a stable husband & a stable family man. This is what Hilary does not have and Obama does. Obama if I may take the liberty has just that going for him. Read about the 'Warren Harding' error in Gladwell's Blink. Warren Harding is ranked at the bottom in Historical ranking of US Presidents. I think the US public would make the same error again.
By the way, in a sorry twist of fate, I think Obama is like Shah Rukh Khan, he is an overplay. It all novel now, but after 6 months, you will just switch off.
In a twist of fate we have a first with Hilary and Obama.
We could have the first Woman President of the US or the first African American President of the US.
Which could let us know, what does the average American man want to bear with.
A woman as Boss or an African American as Boss. Which may not necessarily mean that the average American individual is a racist or a sexist, but it could mean so.?
The balance hangs in the hands of the American woman.
Would they vote for Hilary a fellow mate or an African American Man.
I think the American man has made his mind up, I mean you take a look at Bill, and he has definitely had it, Bills eyes say a lot and I think they say, "you think I have had it bad, wait till Hilary becomes President".
For most American men folk this is a scary thought.
Believe me, I am Indian and it is a scary thought.
Which gets us to, Hilary. Actually she would make a great US President in my opinion, I think she knew about Bill all along - maybe Bill has been a philanderer all his life and she lived with it for the simples reason that she knows how to look at the longterm and sacrifice the short term. More than that she has an intuitive ability to know who can deliver, I mean look at Bill, assuming that philandering is not a one off event, I mean you've got to set your mind on doing what you shouldn't be doing, but knowing this and still sticking by Bill. And Bill does make President.
She is in the classic parlance a strategic thinker - a chess player. She is the one who knows how to deliver to the US public.
But to get her through, I think the American woman is the deciding factor.
Would they be in a position to look beyond Bill and see her as the empowered woman.
She certainly qualifies for that position - A corporate woman in a man's world (it still is by the way).
Or is the American woman a romantic/idealist, who think in terms of a stable family & stable man which will get Obama through and he sure plays that 'family' card well.
Here in India most woman are romantics/idealists, and I have nothing against the women and their choices, but believe me they think Shah Rukh Khan is a great actor.
He stutters, bumbles and overplays the character role in most of his films and he plays the same character over and over again for every film, it take a great effort and patience to watch him act and worse still you can see he is putting a lot of effort into it ergo it looks like an act. I mean in acting, not that I know a lot about cinema, either you are a natural or you're not, Shah Rukh is not, but the women simply adore him.
As he epitomizes what a man to be - a stable husband & a stable family man. This is what Hilary does not have and Obama does. Obama if I may take the liberty has just that going for him. Read about the 'Warren Harding' error in Gladwell's Blink. Warren Harding is ranked at the bottom in Historical ranking of US Presidents. I think the US public would make the same error again.
By the way, in a sorry twist of fate, I think Obama is like Shah Rukh Khan, he is an overplay. It all novel now, but after 6 months, you will just switch off.
quantifiers
Came across a sign-age stating: "God is one".
The proposer being one of the many god men.
However what is dropped is the quantifier "All".
'All' considered to be an indefinite pronoun generally when the sum quantity of the subject under consideration is unknown.
'All' can take singular as well as plural depending on the subject.
For starters the statement implies a multiplicity of gods, which makes us wonder the state of mind of the proponent.
'God' is in the singular, the plural but obviously would be 'gods'.
So why state the obvious.
example: An apple is one apple. Stating the obvious.
For the simplest reason of all, if I get your belief then I get you and if I get you then I get what you have.
Which is the oldest rule in the book of con.
Get the people to believe in you, You can get them to believe in you, if you believe what they believe.
In other words these are days and times of convenience, if it is convenient to state God is one, say so, which implies that there are many Gods, but then he/they is/are one. Clearly something is amiss somewhere.
Which gets us to what grammar has to say about indefinite pronouns:
"On the surface, indefinite pronouns seem simple and harmless, but they often cause confusion for writers."
Similarly, the propose is making a harmless statement so to say, but then he is creating confusion too.
Which is so very apt to convenient times as ours.
Hopefully, once we know what they are pulling over our eyes we'll usually make the correct choice.
That is, 'hopefully'.
The proposer being one of the many god men.
However what is dropped is the quantifier "All".
'All' considered to be an indefinite pronoun generally when the sum quantity of the subject under consideration is unknown.
'All' can take singular as well as plural depending on the subject.
For starters the statement implies a multiplicity of gods, which makes us wonder the state of mind of the proponent.
'God' is in the singular, the plural but obviously would be 'gods'.
So why state the obvious.
example: An apple is one apple. Stating the obvious.
For the simplest reason of all, if I get your belief then I get you and if I get you then I get what you have.
Which is the oldest rule in the book of con.
Get the people to believe in you, You can get them to believe in you, if you believe what they believe.
In other words these are days and times of convenience, if it is convenient to state God is one, say so, which implies that there are many Gods, but then he/they is/are one. Clearly something is amiss somewhere.
Which gets us to what grammar has to say about indefinite pronouns:
"On the surface, indefinite pronouns seem simple and harmless, but they often cause confusion for writers."
Similarly, the propose is making a harmless statement so to say, but then he is creating confusion too.
Which is so very apt to convenient times as ours.
Hopefully, once we know what they are pulling over our eyes we'll usually make the correct choice.
That is, 'hopefully'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
