>>243>$7 ALREADY IS the "$70" you're landing at, because you imagine it in a vacuum where china shit costs as much to produce as the first domestic printers in a growing economy.
I do not think $70 coins would be expensive to produce. They would literally be worth nothing. I'm saying that market philosophy insists that you maximize revenue, and it does not permit you to be merciful towards the gullible nor charitable towards the needy.
If at some venues drinks are free or refillable, why should a man pay? Coffee beans cost pennies by the tonne.. so why should a man pay?
If at some venues the buffet is free, why should a man pay?
If at some venues the games are set to freeplay, why should a man pay?
If in some guest lodges the beds are free, why should a man pay?
I'll tell you why: because you are not the arbiter of worth and it is not yours to determine - the market will do it for you, with or without your observance or participation. Sure, some places have tried various business models where one or two of the above items were offered freely, but to be competitive in the market you will wind up charging the maximum amount for anything and everything that you think men will be willing to pay for. $100 golden monocles, $150 A++ Christiano Ronaldos, $200 skins.. and these items aren't even tangible except in 1s and 0s, the production costs for each is laughable.
Capitalism does not allow you to sit back and relax and be friendly to people. With success you'd be finding new ways to try to tax the chairs they sit on, the space they take up and the air they breathe.
I do not fault you or your design for it. The market way is the best way, even if it's an extremely flawed way. What I've been saying to you is you should be honest about it from the outset.>What ends up happening is that the producer needs those $70, yes, but they can only guarantee it by oversupplying the market with 12 coins for every 10...
Message too long. Click
to view full text.