Originally Posted by Champ04
Thanks for the lesson in economics, pal. I appreciate it.
But its not actually that simple. Or, rather, it would only be that simple to someone who is ignorant to the entirety of the facets involved. There are varying degrees of "rare" in this world and they absolutely effect the degree of demand.
Something as rare as maybe the hope diamond would raise its value to the level of priceless. But something unique but not singularly so, such as a philippe dufour, will still demand basically whatever the seller asks for. Or, more precisely, whatever a buyer is willing to pay. But no matter how unique something is, if there is more than one of it then there is a controlling factor called timing. If a buyer must have something NOW then the seller controls the price. But that has a lot less to do with the uniqness and a lot more to do with timing. If the buyer knows that there is likely going to be another one of the same thing come up for sale soon and is willing to wait then it is he that influences the final value.
But these things are valued precisely and simply because of their uniqueness.
A dunlavy's greatest value is in its performance and secondarily due to its uniqeness. This means that as long as someone else can duplicate the performance it damn near eliminates any influence that uniqueness has. And this is just such the case. Depending on how imaginative the buyer is willing to be and to what degree he is willing to educate himself, there are a number of ways to duplicate the performance of the HRCC and thus render the asking price of this exact one ridiculous.
So my point stands. The asking price of the HRCC under discussion is ridiculous given even a small degree of increased knowledge about the subject.
I am a true believer in capitalism and thus believe strongly that the actual value of something is most strongly influenced by someone's willingness to pay. But there is too often the case where someone ends up paying a ludicrous sum of money for something NOT because it is actually that valuable but because the buyer is ignorant of any alternative or is so impulsive that he allows himself to get ripped off.
With the vast ability to research information on any subject now essentially free and available via the internet it is my disticnt opinion that the asking price of this HRCC is, as I correctly stated before, ridiculous.
Granted, it may not have been totally appropriate to express myself with the sarcasm that I did. But it was just sarcasm and thus your moral invective was unneccesary. There was no actual ill will intended.
How does one even begin to address some of your points? I guess I'll just reply chronologically.
A) I don't think you really appreciated the lesson. Instead, I think that's just your sarcasm once again coming through as kind of nasty and disrespectful...
B) It actually is that simple, and it doesn't really matter how much anyone tries to over-analyze it. The fair market value for anything
is whatever price point the seller is willing to sell at, and the buyer is willing to buy at. Simple...
C) I'm really not an ignorant person, especially when it comes to the points you've just expressed.
D) I bet that "Hope Diamond" would mean nothing to a person if they were stranded in a desert and someone offered to trade them for a big jug of water! (Supply and Demand at its best!)
E) Do you honestly believe it's that easy to "duplicate the performance" of a Dunlavy speaker? If that's the case, where can I put in my order on a pair of Sigmas?
F) If you were truly a "believer in capitalism" you wouldn't be attempting to dictate what the value of something should or shouldn't be. You would simply watch the well-oiled machine run it's course and let the market decide what it's worth.
G) Once again; do you really think it's that easy to "duplicate the performance" of a Dunlavy speaker?
H) While you had the opportunity to redeem yourself on the previous negative comment, you instead chose to rationalize it by saying that it was "just" sarcasm.
I) And finally, you might want to look up the definition of "invective" (and when to use it) as there was nothing abusive, insulting, venomous, or even harsh about the wording I chose. All I said was that wishing someone harm was "not cool" and that hardly qualifies as being invective
I'm sure you'll want to have the last word, so I'll just let you know ahead of time that I will not be responding on the topic of supply and demand. These forums are supposed to be about Audio and Video equipment and not economics 101. There's really nothing more to say.
I wish you the best!