Posted by: JavaBeans January 25, 2013
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
That is an interesting article plano80. I cannot say that I agree with its message though. Allow me to explain this with an analogy.
Suppose you went to a supermarket to buy fish. A salmon filet is marked 70% off. But you also notice that it does not have 'today's catch' seal on the package. Pretend you are a big fan of salmon. Would you consider buying it without (at least) asking how long it's been sitting there (if you can't readily smell any bad odor)? The message in the article conveys that because salmons are usually more expensive than other types of fish it's a bargain price at 70% off - therefore, nevermind checking its edibleness - just *blindly* purchase it. But what if the salmon is spoiled? What are the chances of this happening?
The article does not mention the *risks* or the probability of you purchasing a spoiled salmon. But it does give us statistics on the unspoiled salmon, which translates to: this method of buying has fared better because you paid a much lower price than the fully priced salmon with 'today's catch' seal on the package. Now suppose you happen to be throwing a big party - and instead of one salmon you purchase about thirty. The article assumes that because you bought thirty salmons - the chances of you getting stuck with spoiled ones are the same as the ones the grocery store owner would've gotten stuck with (the worst scenario) - but there is a possiblitity that you could have picked all of them as unspoiled (the best scenario). Their statistics (84% for the buyers vs the 63% for the store owner) seem to suggest that buying this way has beat the market.
The question then for the buyers is - are they *really* better off buying their salmon this way? What do you think?
Suppose you went to a supermarket to buy fish. A salmon filet is marked 70% off. But you also notice that it does not have 'today's catch' seal on the package. Pretend you are a big fan of salmon. Would you consider buying it without (at least) asking how long it's been sitting there (if you can't readily smell any bad odor)? The message in the article conveys that because salmons are usually more expensive than other types of fish it's a bargain price at 70% off - therefore, nevermind checking its edibleness - just *blindly* purchase it. But what if the salmon is spoiled? What are the chances of this happening?
The article does not mention the *risks* or the probability of you purchasing a spoiled salmon. But it does give us statistics on the unspoiled salmon, which translates to: this method of buying has fared better because you paid a much lower price than the fully priced salmon with 'today's catch' seal on the package. Now suppose you happen to be throwing a big party - and instead of one salmon you purchase about thirty. The article assumes that because you bought thirty salmons - the chances of you getting stuck with spoiled ones are the same as the ones the grocery store owner would've gotten stuck with (the worst scenario) - but there is a possiblitity that you could have picked all of them as unspoiled (the best scenario). Their statistics (84% for the buyers vs the 63% for the store owner) seem to suggest that buying this way has beat the market.
The question then for the buyers is - are they *really* better off buying their salmon this way? What do you think?