Corpania Ideas

CAVEAT! I'm an amateur philosopher and idea-generator. I am NOT an investment professional. Don't take any of my advice before consulting with an attorney and also a duly licensed authority on finance. Seriously, this my personal blog of random ideas only for entertainment purposes. Don't be an idiot.

Saturday, September 03, 2011

Price Everything Based on "Duration of Utility"- MY NEW ECON THEORY

I've been thinking more and more about my brilliant proposal: "Universal Value and 'Years of Sustenance' System".

If you haven't read it yet please at least skim it before you continue reading this post.
http://corpania.blogspot.com/2010/05/universal-value-price-dollar-to-years.html

When you buy a product you expect it to give you some utility. An apple is supposed to be edible (sate your hunger and give you calories/vitamins). If it falls short of that expected utility (e.g. because it's poisoned) you have the right of redress in the courts (using some sort of fraud statute - again I ain't a lawyer).

When you buy a TV you expect it to work with your DVR & gaming system and function for some period of time. The very concept of a warranty is a direct endorsement of this paradigm.

With that as the foundation, explore this philosophical leap with me...

Instead of buying products for what they are and their implied duration of utility, everything (and I do mean virtually everything) should be priced in terms of "DURATION OF UTILITY".

For reference: Most supermarket shelves helpfully note the price-per-ounce/use so you can better compare prices. The bigger container of cereal may not necessarily have the best price value. Perhaps, that day, buying two 9-ounce boxes is cheaper than buying one 18-ounce box.

Similarly, the "ultra-concentrated detergent" that has enough cleaning power for 20 loads in its tiny 20-ounce container needs to differentiate itself from the competitor in a conspicuously larger 30-ounce container that is substantially more watered-down and thus only can clean 10 loads.

In a somewhat related example, most cable systems rent you their cable box on a monthly basis rather than make you pay up-front to own the box outright.

These companies recognize that the up-front cost & size of the container is virtually moot compared to the amount/duration of utility it's offering the consumer.

All I'm advocating is to advance the entire economic system to its next step in a logical and beneficial evolution. All (almost literally "all") products should be required to offer warranties and price them accordingly.

For example:
Samonite Luggage - instead of selling a $200 piece of luggage it could keep its existing 10-year warranty and consistently price at $20 per year and still demand to sell in 10-year bundles. Consumers would ultimately see the "bottom line price" just before they decide on their transaction but they'd first be presented with the "cost per year". This new paradigm would enable better long-term decision-making.

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE: Yes, I concede that this adds a potentially undesirable level of complexity to the buying process.

RESPONSE TO THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE: Sure but that's a good thing. Life is WAY more complicated than it was just 50 years ago and the "complexification" is only accelerating. It's time we all kept up. We need to propel critical thinking and root-out the malefactors.

Again, you need to know about how I think of currency value to get my argument...
http://corpania.blogspot.com/2010/05/universal-value-price-dollar-to-years.html

I'm eager for your feedback but please don't type anything until you've read and really understand what I'm trying to convey. Thanks and good karma to you.

Why "Sex with Your Mom" Jokes Used to Be More Offensive (NSFW)

Here's one of my more eccentric theories and many of you may have already heard me present it in NSFW conversation.

Why "Sex with Your Mom" Jokes Used to Be More Offensive...

Don't get me wrong. I love a good "your mamma" joke.
Nevertheless, I think we can all agree that, back in the day (especially before 1950s), making reference to having sex with somebody's mother (or sister or daughter) was maximally offensive and virtually "fighting words". Whereas today it's not nearly as big of deal.

One could validly argue that's due to America's "ever decaying morals" and the world's "continual descent into prurient hedonism". But I have a different explanation. It is provocative and, as yet, unsubstantiated. Even so, I think it's worth posting.

Especially back before the 1950s, they didn't even really have the concept of "date rape" or "marital rape". Plus, there wasn't a culture promoting "sexually satisfying a woman". It took the "sexual revolution" and decades of books & TV shows about sex for the culture to advance to the point where unselfishly, sensitively satisfying a woman was a good thing.

With that in perspective, most especially before the 1950s, it is therefore necessary to conclude that sex was normally much less fun for the woman. It is less provable but still my theory that it was culturally acceptable, back then, for guys to often be brutally selfish, even violent (e.g. How many movies had a hero slapping a woman back then compared to today?).

So if you're a man back then (who by modern standards would be validly considered a detestable, violent, date-raper) and someone mocks you by referencing having sex with your mother (or sister or daughter) of course you would feel maximally offended because you would want no such act perpetrated on the women in your family. Similarly, if you were a mother back then, of course you would warn your daughter not to have sex before marriage. Heck, you might even encourage a life as a nun!

Contrast that with 2011, where sex is now supposed to be fun for all involved and selfish behavior is culturally discouraged (not to mention the thankfully widespread, valid public support for comparatively recent laws outlawing violent behavior that would have been tolerated if not encouraged back then). Sure, there are still reasonable taboos that make "sex with your mamma..." jokes dangerous enough to enhance the comedy and increase the NSFW warnings. But generally you want everyone you know to have a full life which normally includes sex. It's still gross and creepy to consider when you're hit with such a joke. But it's no longer a culturally acceptable reason to kill someone.

With that earnest attempt at "gender studies" scholarship established, here are a few of my current favorite "sex with your mamma" bits of comedy:

1) You're mamma is such a whore that when she blows me for free I have to declare it as income. (Yes, that's my slightly rewritten version of the joke I recently wrote as if I was roasting Charlie Sheen).

2) SNL's *NSFW* music video "Mother Lover" (censored link).
Here's the UNCENSORED version:
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/digital-short-motherlover-uncensored/1103443/
http://www.hulu.com/watch/73123/saturday-night-live-snl-digital-short-motherlover-uncensored

3) Ray William Johnson's NSFW music video "Doin' Your Mom":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfYyBp4Ln2s

Comment here if you think I should re-post without those comedy links.

.

Ok, I was wrong on about my "14th" prediction.

Ok, I was trying to bold and interesting with my predictions. But it didn't work out because I was completely wrong when I thought there was some serious chance that Obama would use the "14th Amendment" to resolve the debt ceiling issue in August 20111.

I, yet again, conflated what I thought would happen with what I wanted to happen. To be fair, most prognosticators are inherently vulnerable to this problem. Nevertheless, I'm maintaining my intellectual integrity by keeping up my bad predictions as well as the good. Anyone who indulges in selective deletion is deceptively altering readers' perception of his efficacy.


.

Blog Archive