Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Srexley who wrote (178312)	9/6/2001 7:59:14 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769670

I said "This is my attempt to get you to think about why you don't trust the decisions that other may make" In this particular case the issue was in the context of allowing drilling in a particular place and then other places. I think my use of cautious benefit of the doubt does not suggest trusting completely. What is a metric to measure reasonable and unreasonable trust. To deny someone the ability to do something that if done right is good for producer and customer with some vague you don't trust some thing, which is really people is dumb. I really did not think you thought that way. As to being bothered, I thought I was just pointing out a slip up in your thinking. But in fact now I think you hold some dumb ideas. It does not bother me. You are free to believe whatever. I was attacking(using critical thinking in) what I thought was sloppy writing and I found from your responses that the writing reflected sloppy thinking. Thinking filled with ridiculisms. Of course I would not use the word attacking. I don't consider saying someone is thinking dumb or stupid is attacking. But again this is a perception issue. All your examples of pricing represent some factors of the free market and who knows why whatever is priced whatever. Well someone decided that all things considered this price/feature will make me money. Why do gas station on the highway always cost 10 cents or whatever more per gallon. The price of gas is a function of the local factors of competition and other factors. And maybe following a standard practice of good business the price reflects a price that yeilds the best return on investments. As long as no one is out in the street with a gun forcing folks to buy gas I don't see any trust issue. You believe because a station is near a refinery the price should be lower. Well maybe that stations gas does not come from that refinery and maybe that refinery make special gas for some place far away. Maybe stations farther away can chose from other sources and those sources are more efficient. I consider you gas example as applying simplistic this is that way it is because of whatever and you really don't know the whatever. But belief in your fellow man tells you your truth. As an engineer I have done all kinds of systems analysis and I found shit happen not by intent but because lazy sloppy thinking people only wanted simplicity and no pain and accepted cost over pain and just passed along pain as the cost would bear it. Price feature is pain value. The maximum price for the minimum pain. But one mans pain may be anothers pleasure. Do I think that no price collusion ever occurs. Yes it occurs and it can work as long as the rules are so complicated that the guy wanting to do it better cheaper has to endure so much pain he will not even want to try. And pain is regulation and rules and restriction to prevent stupid people from being stupid. And those restriction cost and the consumer pays that cost. tom watson tosiwmee