342
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
342 points (97.8% liked)
News
23296 readers
3383 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Three thirsty people walk out of the desert, one at a time, and walk up to a water salesman. The first has $1, the second has $10, and the third has $100. What should the salesman charge in order to maximize profit while keeping all the customers happy?
$1 sounds reasonable, if their are other water salesmen it would probably be the best price, but it leave a lot of money on the table.
$10 sounds good, since 2/3s of the customers will get water and the saleman gets 600% more money.
$100 is the price that gets the most money, but leaves 2/3s thirsty and is way above what you should charge for water.
The answer, strangely, breaks the notion of "fair". Let us pretend that these three bottles of water are the only sale this salesman will ever make, quitting the business right afterwards. Also, let us say that none of the three will ever see the other two people's transactions. The answer then is to charge the first man $1, the second $10, and the third $100. Everyone gets water and the salesman gets the maximum amount of money. The problem is that we, subconsciously, feel that this is 'unfair' even though everyone got what they wanted. The ethical would set it at $1 while the businessmen would set it at $100 while trying to drive everyone else out of business. But what if the rich could be charged more than the poor? What if sales were based off of what each individual was willing to pay instead of which fixed price would garner the most profit?
Would this be a better world or a worse one?
Would the ethical answer not be $0, on the grounds that all individuals are entitled to basic living needs regardless of their personal wealth?
For whatever reason people are always wandering out of this damn twilight zone desert, so you set up a filtered tap to offer for free, funded by bottle sales to the bougie bastards who'll pay $10 or $100 just to flex.
Yes, that maximizes happiness at the expense profit, the polar opposite of setting it at $100 to maximize profit at the expense of happiness.
Yeah that thought experiment is so capitalist-brained that the person doesn't even seem to understand your issue with the premise as a whole. That it's ridiculous to put so much consideration into thought experiments about maximizing profits while selling water in the desert.
Then they respond to this as if you just gave a legitimate response to their thought experiment, and that you wouldn't be heckled by a room full of MBA students if you said what you just said in the marketing class the original commenter likely heard it.