First, the new auction
A few days ago, I heard a new auction method on the radio: a commodity needs you to bid within 1 ~ 9999 yuan (the smallest digit is the corner), and the price is sent to the radio station by SMS. The radio station will choose the lowest price without repetition from many auction prices, and there is no reserve price.
As we all know, radio stations don't expect to make profits by selling this product, but use the product as bait to make use of people's luck in shooting products at low prices to earn SMS fees. This auction method is different from the existing and widely used British auction, Dutch auction, the first and second sealed auction to encourage people to tell the truth. It's a bit like asking people who hear the radio to "send text messages" without being lazy. Now abstract the essence of this new auction and analyze it.
A commodity allows you to bid at will within a wide price fluctuation range, but the bidder must be an independent individual and send the price to the auctioneer, and no collusion is allowed. In fact, even collusion has no advantage, because the auctioneer chooses the price that does not repeat, not the price that appears most frequently, so there is no need to worry about collusion and collusion between bidders, unless the bidder is "energetic", can get the distribution of quotations in a short time, issue the lowest price that has not been quoted before the deadline, or can restrict all other bidders from bidding with him. Obviously, these two situations are impossible for ordinary radio listeners, what's more, for a rational person, he will also weigh whether it is worthwhile to do this for a commodity, and it is better to buy it directly on the street and save trouble (if really needed). Therefore, in the analysis model, bidders are independent individuals, and collusion between bidders is not considered under this incentive mechanism, but collusion between auctioneers and bidders cannot be ruled out and may exist, especially in the case of expensive items (there are inevitably differences here. When it comes to expensive goods, collusion between auctioneers and bidders is easy to occur. A typical example is the BMW incident in Xi 'an. Rational people will go to extremes if they are too rational.
From the price point of view, first of all, the large floating range gives people great temptation. Rational people always assume that it is good for them. A large floating range means that the lower limit is very low, suggesting that they may get the goods at a price lower than the actual price of the goods. But is this really the case? Maybe we should say that different bids will lead to different results, but this difference will never make a qualitative difference. If the price of this commodity is 100 yuan, then there are 99 1 kinds of prices from one corner to one hundred corners. When the bidder holds the psychology of taking advantage, the number of listeners is less than 99 1 (in reality, which radio station has so few listeners that it should stop broadcasting), and the number of bidders exceeds, the lowest price will inevitably appear. Because the number of 99 1 is too small and the probability of repetition is too high, it depends on who is lucky enough to meet it, or simply repeat all the prices below 100 won. At this time, when any unlucky ghost bids higher than the marked price, and the lowest price is not repeated, he can only be congratulated for winning the prize. Poor him. When he quoted a price higher than the actual marked price in a mischievous manner, he thought, "Anyway, I chose the lowest price. If my bid is higher than the marked price, it won't be me." "I'm sorry, waiting for people like you! Thinking that others will pay a price lower than the actual bid price, why not think about so many people, and the probability of not reporting duplicate prices is almost zero! You shouldn't be unlucky! Who should be unlucky! Knock out your teeth and swallow your blood! " The seller didn't expect to make a difference after quoting the actual price. Now he must laugh at you when he opens champagne. Don't tremble with anger! Secondly, why is it "the lowest price without repetition" instead of "the highest price"? From the seller's point of view, it seems that the highest price should be more favorable. However, as I said before, sellers don't expect much difference. They are concerned about how to make more people fall into this beautiful trap and send text messages willingly, and the saying of "lowest price" can help them achieve this goal. This statement seems to be on the bidder's side, because in the bidder's subconscious, the lucky ones among them finally got the goods at a price lower than the actual price tag, so the lowest price is to make this price lower than the actual price tag and farthest from the actual price tag, which is to maximize the interests of bidders completely; But "unfortunately", goods are often photographed by people who bid higher than the actual price tag. At this time, the so-called lowest price is just to make the price higher than and close to the actual bid price. This transaction is bound to suffer, and there is no essential difference between a big loss and a small loss.
There will be no pie in the sky. If there is, it must not be a pie but a trap!
Second, the warning sign on the lawn.
"No trampling on the lawn" seems to have no deterrent effect in public places. You want to step on the grass, but when it is changed to "anyone caught stepping on the grass will be rewarded with $200", the grass will never be stepped on again. The difference is that the public is regarded as the object of supervision and potential punishment, and people are more or less destructive. The more bound and bound they are, the more they will violate the rules. This kind of warning will subconsciously oppose the interests of managers and people (whether they can trample on the lawn), making them conflict and contradictory; After the warning was revised, the reward of $200 encouraged those who would not trample on the lawn to take the initiative to supervise and restrained those who were prone to trample. This is an effective way to solve the land tragedy.
This reminds me of such a group of very humanized warnings in public places in China, such as "The grass is poor, don't bully her", "The grass is green and leisurely" and "Who are the flowers for?" Advise you not to pick "and so on. In the past, we talked about the compatibility of incentives and constraints, and demanded that the established mechanism can make the interests of the motivator and the constrained party coincide to the maximum extent, and make use of the driving effect of interests on human behavior. These humanized warning words restrain human behavior to a certain extent by inspiring people's morality, compassion and compassion. This is an incentive mechanism full of humanity, and its benefits can be regarded as people's spiritual satisfaction.
The incentive mechanism should also keep pace with the times!
Third, the China stock market.
I remember when the stock market was hot, I vaguely felt from my father's speech and media comments that the stock market was a matter of speculation and luck. Today you pay, tomorrow he will earn, depending on who is lucky, which has little to do with rigorous market wait-and-see, careful company performance analysis and careful choice. In the ups and downs of the stock market, some people get rich overnight, while others lose everything. To sum up, if you want to make money through stock trading, you have to accept it as soon as possible, and every little makes a mickle, plus some good luck.
Now I know that the stock market should be the most concentrated and complete place for company information. Shareholders can determine the dominant company through the choice of information and invest in the shares of the company. After the company operates well, shareholders can get investment income from it. According to this analysis, prudent investment should be a sure bet (because no one is stupid enough to throw money at a precarious company), but in reality, not only many people lose money, but the stock market has also become synonymous with speculation, which is the result of asymmetric information. Information asymmetry causes the deviation between stock price and the operating performance of listed companies, which makes the securities market lose the market mechanism to evaluate performance and restrict the behavior of listed companies, and leads to the decline of the quality of listed companies in the whole market, which has become the main source of excessive speculation in the market. This kind of information asymmetry is not only hidden, but also financial companies make false accounts! It seriously misled investors' investment tendency, and the collapse of Enron Building shattered many families' investment dreams! In China, there is also a saying that the beauty of yin and its moments was originally in name only.
Helpless and disappointed, I can only pray that the bubble and twilight of the stock market will dissipate as soon as possible!
Fourth, the plight of Chongqing hot pot
At the beginning of 2004, the problem of mixing paraffin with fire bottom materials in Chongqing was once heated. Major cities in China, such as Beijing, Shanghai, Nanjing and Guangzhou. The bottom material of hot pot produced in Chongqing has been completely banned, and the shop named "Chongqing Hot Pot" has been ordered to suspend business for rectification, which has caused great harm to the hot pot industry in Chongqing. As we all know, paraffin is a very harmful chemical substance to human body. Some small factories in Chongqing covet immediate interests and use paraffin instead of butter. They are profiteering and destroying the century-old foundation of Chongqing hot pot!
Chongqing hot pot is famous far and near, but which one or several are famous is actually very vague, and our understanding of foreigners only stays in the word "Chongqing hot pot". Manufacturers and shopkeepers who stress quality and credibility use the brand "Chongqing Hotpot", and when they become famous, criminals use this golden signboard when they see that they are profitable and have an opportunity. In the long run, it will lead to a mixed situation. This is probably the "tragedy of the commons" that is often said in economics. Signboards are shared by everyone, while factories and shops belong to different owners; The signboard is public, and no one is responsible. The output of the factory and the sales of the shops are privately owned. The more natural income, the higher the income.
Let's express this problem in the form of game theory: suppose there are two hot pot bottom stores, and they can choose to produce more or less. If both sides choose to produce less and the signboard can be protected, then everyone will benefit the most. If one party chooses to produce more and the other chooses to produce less, the economic benefits of the prolific will be obviously improved. But if everyone produces more, the signboard will be destroyed and everyone's income will be reduced. The manufacturer aims at maximizing profits, and the result of the game is that everyone produces more. As a result, the overall interests cannot be optimized.
We can imagine two ways to change the result: first, outsiders take coercive measures to change the game income. For example, the government sets production quotas. Of course, this method may cause the loss of efficiency, the cost of government supervision is also quite large, and it may also bring some disadvantages such as power rent-seeking. The second is to use the principle of defining property rights to clarify rights and obligations and promote the effective use of public resources ("Chongqing Hotpot"). With clear property rights, manufacturers will consider in the long run, which is conducive to enhancing the efficiency of the use of public resources, thus solving externalities.
In a sense, the problem is not all bad. They help us face up to our shortcomings and help manufacturers and shopkeepers find solutions. This should be the key.