Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
294,598
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 76:
Line 76: − + + + + + + + + + Line 87:
Line 95: − :::Walmart's success (which you cite} is an example of most people believe everyday low prices has its advantages. I didn't say cheaper is better. − − :::<big><big><big>'''Now answer the Question: If China's efforts to [[innovate]] are "Quixotic", why then did the [[US Navy]] ban usage of Deepseek?'''</big></big> − </big> − :::'''Addendum:''' This is typical of [[User:Conservative]]'s [[trolling]] technique: He [[spam]]s the page with so much irrelevant [[claptrap]] he hopes no one will read through it. The man is incapable of a polite, civil exchange of ideas. [[User:RobSmith|Foghorn Leghorn]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Do normal heterosexuals spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?]]</sup> 20:16, October 21, 2026 (EDT)
→Take a look at the false premises User:Conservative inputs in AI
::You wrote: "Most people agree a cheaper product has advantages." This is untrue and violates Management 101, Marketing 101 and Sales 101. "No, competing on price is rarely the best long-term course of action for a company. While it can drive short-term volume, it often triggers a "race to the bottom" that erodes profit margins and damages brand value."[https://www.google.com/search?q=is+competing+on+price+usually+the+best+course+of+action+for+a+company%3F&oq=is+competing+on+price+usually+the+best+course+of+action+for+a+company%3F&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8] Sales managers typically say build value in a prospect's mind and don't compete on price. Compete on value instead. However, this is true: Most companies agree that a cheaper product has advantages '''in some cases'''.
::You wrote: "Most people agree a cheaper product has advantages." This is untrue and violates Management 101, Marketing 101 and Sales 101. "No, competing on price is rarely the best long-term course of action for a company. While it can drive short-term volume, it often triggers a "race to the bottom" that erodes profit margins and damages brand value."[https://www.google.com/search?q=is+competing+on+price+usually+the+best+course+of+action+for+a+company%3F&oq=is+competing+on+price+usually+the+best+course+of+action+for+a+company%3F&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8] Sales managers typically say build value in a prospect's mind and don't compete on price. Compete on value instead. However, this is true: Most companies agree that a cheaper product has advantages '''in some cases'''.
::Next, the Chinese are trying to innovate there way up the income ladder, but ignoring the fact that there economy/society has significant problems: lack of property rights and unsteady regularly regime (Jack Ma imprisoned, tutoring businesses shut down, etc.), demographic crisis, high youth unemployment, inability to substantial raise there productivity rate, private businesses will create a profitable busisness only to see state owned enterprises unfairly compete, etc. will doom their efforts over time. It is simple really. If you want to fill up your bathtub, you donn't ignore big holes in your bathtub and the not plug the drain.
:::Walmart's success (which you cite} is an example of most people believe everyday low prices has its advantages. I didn't say cheaper is better.
:::<big><big><big>'''Now answer the Question: If China's efforts to [[innovate]] are "Quixotic", why then did the [[US Navy]] ban usage of Deepseek?'''</big></big>
</big>
:::'''Addendum:''' This is typical of [[User:Conservative]]'s [[trolling]] technique: He [[spam]]s the page with so much irrelevant [[claptrap]] he hopes no one will read through it. The man is incapable of a polite, civil exchange of ideas. [[User:RobSmith|Foghorn Leghorn]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Do normal heterosexuals spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?]]</sup> 20:16, October 21, 2026 (EDT)
====Irrelevant claptrap===
::Next, the Chinese are trying to innovate there [sic] way up the income ladder, but ignoring the fact that there economy/society has significant problems: lack of property rights and unsteady regularly regime (Jack Ma imprisoned, tutoring businesses shut down, etc.), demographic crisis, high youth unemployment, inability to substantial raise there productivity rate, private businesses will create a profitable busisness only to see state owned enterprises unfairly compete, etc. will doom their efforts over time. It is simple really. If you want to fill up your bathtub, you donn't ignore big holes in your bathtub and the not plug the drain.
::"'''The "Four Ds" problems of China:''' These are referring to China's economic challenges and are: Debt, Demand (China's domestic demand is struggling, with factors like a slowing economy and consumer confidence issues impacting spending), Demographics, and other countries decoupling from China (or De-risking), which are seen as potential drags on the Chinese economy.
::"'''The "Four Ds" problems of China:''' These are referring to China's economic challenges and are: Debt, Demand (China's domestic demand is struggling, with factors like a slowing economy and consumer confidence issues impacting spending), Demographics, and other countries decoupling from China (or De-risking), which are seen as potential drags on the Chinese economy.
::Addendum: Management 101 concept that applies to China's future: "Expected value (EV) in business is the probability-weighted average of all potential outcomes for a decision or project. It multiplies each possible financial result by its likelihood of occurring and sums them up, allowing leaders to compare choices and forecast returns under uncertainty."[https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+expected+value+concept+in+business&oq=what+is+expected+value+concept+in+business&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8] China's EV is currently not good. See: <nowiki>[[Essay: It's time to be very bearish about China's long-term economy]]</nowiki>. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:57, October 21, 2026 (EDT)
::Addendum: Management 101 concept that applies to China's future: "Expected value (EV) in business is the probability-weighted average of all potential outcomes for a decision or project. It multiplies each possible financial result by its likelihood of occurring and sums them up, allowing leaders to compare choices and forecast returns under uncertainty."[https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+expected+value+concept+in+business&oq=what+is+expected+value+concept+in+business&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8] China's EV is currently not good. See: <nowiki>[[Essay: It's time to be very bearish about China's long-term economy]]</nowiki>. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:57, October 21, 2026 (EDT)
:::::'''China's AI Qwen 3.7 judges this debate:''' "User: Conservative is winning because they ["'''they'''" - the [[politically correct]] transgender neutral form of address used by an [[LLM]].] {{Personal remark removed}}
:::::'''China's AI Qwen 3.7 judges this debate:''' "User: Conservative is winning because they ["'''they'''" - the [[politically correct]] transgender neutral form of address used by an [[LLM]].] {{Personal remark removed}}