The Great E-Commerce Delusion: Selling Dollar Bills for 80 Cents

My parents were dumbfounded when I bought an air conditioner online without inspecting it physically. They were even more surprised by the white-glove service—on-time delivery and excellent packaging. We were all satisfied. But as Mr. Charlie Munger always said, "Invert, always invert." Instead of just enjoying the cool air, one must ask: Does the arithmetic of this transaction actually make sense?

I felt compelled to write this not out of satisfaction, but out of sheer disbelief at the economic irrationality on display.

The popular media tells us these large e-commerce companies make no profit. For once, the media is understating the madness. Revenue is growing, yes, but so are the losses. In the corporate world, where "audited financials" can sometimes be a work of fiction, you can safely assume the reality is even uglier than the adjusted EBITDA they feed the public.

Consider the data from the recent fiscal year (FY25). Flipkart generated over ₹82,000 Crore in revenue, yet managed to lose over ₹5,000 Crore. Zepto, the new quick-commerce darling, saw losses swell by 177% to over ₹3,300 Crore. They are growing like a weed, but they are burning cash like a drunken sailor. Only a few, like Zomato (finally posting a ₹351 Crore profit) and Delhivery, have begun to respect the laws of gravity. The rest are still practicing "profitless prosperity."

The air conditioner I bought was 25% cheaper than at the brick-and-mortar store. I am supposed to believe this discount comes from "efficiencies" and lacking a physical storefront. Rubbish.

The math is simple. The e-commerce company is not gaining. They are subsidizing my comfort with shareholder capital.

The brick-and-mortar store lost the sale. If this continues, they will have to cut prices to survive, engaging in a race to the bottom where nobody makes any money. This is a classic "tragedy of the commons."

The government is also losing. Lower prices mean lower collected taxes. It is a lollapalooza effect of shrinking returns for everyone involved—except the consumer.. 

Can a business survive when no one gains? Certainly not. You cannot keep selling things for less than they cost and make it up on volume. That is not a business; that is a charity run by venture capitalists.

The only silver lining is Schumpeter’s "creative destruction." These companies have created employment—delivery boys and logistics staff—which puts money in people's pockets. Furthermore, it has rudely awakened the sleepy incumbents who were selling inferior goods and protecting their moats through lobbying rather than competence. That part is good for civilization.

But let us be clear: these gains are temporary anomalies. In the short run, the consumer is eating the investor's lunch. In the long run, basic arithmetic always wins.

women's education in India has actually helped men

 If you have found yourself, no need to proceed further

Else

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/add_user.shtml

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Women's education in India has actually helped men

The claim of this article is - woman's education in India has actually helped men. In technical terms, it has led to a better social atmosphere rather than raise industrial productivity. Lets examine. 

Jump back to our grandparent's era. Women were generally married off at a younger age than at present. Mostly she wasn't allowed to choose her life partner; and many of our grandparents got off with beautiful and caring wives without having ever qualified the basic threshold of education. 

The social planners identified several problems in that state of affairs. 

a. Men never had the need to go for higher education.

b. A mother being the first ever teacher of her child was ill equipped to deliver basic education.

c. Since the choice of life partner was skewed towards men, it lead to domestic violence.

d. Female foeticide thus threatening the continuity of the society.

Such problems still exist in our society but has eased off gradually. 

Another generation ahead (our fathers' one) we find women graduating from colleges. At least this happened in major urbanized places. Hence our fathers couldn't get away with a matriculation degree but had to aim for higher qualifications in order to get that beautiful and caring wife. We also witness a rise in number of marriages where women choose their own life partners. 

In my generation, a man cannot get away just with a higher degree. The society had seen a rise in women employment levels aided by liberalization of the economy, thus more job opportunities. Here an important parameter kicks in - the earning potential of a man. 

As a testimony to this hypothesis one can crawl major matrimonial websites and count the cases of a working woman. Mostly one will find that one of the expectations she looks in her partner is equal or more income compared to her.

In a way, we can clearly see that women's education has led to raising the standards of men's education. 

Now, lets turn to the industrial productivity part. 

Well, India never had any industrial revolution for anyone to participate. 

And this is where we differ from our Western counterparts. 

In that part of the world women's education stemmed from a pressing industrial demand. When the world was torn apart by two world wars, most men were at battlefields. A war of that magnitude required a lot of fighter jets, tanks, vehicles, tonnes of ammunition and a lot other stuff like canned food, medicines, lots of paperwork etc. It was during these times the Western industries heavily relied on women to deliver. 

Hence the conclusion that women's education in India was driven by the goal of a better society rather than the demands of the industry. 

Way to go ladies !!

(the last line definitely means brickbats for the author :-)