RockMyAmadeus

There's no need to hurl insults.

Good night, whoever you are!

That was fun, let's do it again sometime!

Are you Joe?

Are you Joe?

.

Who says that was towards you? Oh, are you not aware of how the quote function works...? My apologies, let me explain. When you posted this, you quoted me, here: See...? When you quote someone like that, it means you're replying to what they said. So, of course, obviously that was "to me." Glad to help clear up the confusion!

That is, of course, the usual response from those who have nothing more of value to say. Have a good night!

So you claim. I suspect other views may differ from yours. In fact, I would say the opposite, in this case, is true, both for my propositions and yours. I suspect you won't answer this, but out of sheer curiosity, A. why do you imagine "oh and welcome to 1993" was aimed at you, and B. what, exactly, is insulting about that? Perhaps, before one comes to a hostile conclusion, one might seek clarification first...? Wouldn't that be the rational, reasonable thing to do, rather than presume? And how is an "emoji" the same thing as "hurling insults"...? How could we possibly disagree about a subject..."artificial changes to supply and demand"...upon which the conversation hasn't even touched? But to touch on it now, there is no such thing as "artificial" changes to supply and demand. There is only supply and demand. Supply may be influenced by factors...it always is...but that doesn't mean changes to supply are "artificial." If a book has an announced print run of 100, and I buy and hold 99 of them, that doesn't mean the supply has been artificially changed. It only means the available supply is one. If I burn those 99 copies, the actual supply now becomes 1, but that doesn't mean the available supply of 1 was artificial. Demand may be based on bad information...but that doesn't make the demand any less real, as it stands at that point. I certainly agree, though perhaps not for quite the same reasons. Good. I think it's run it's course. Thank you for the opportunity.

Sorry, thought perhaps you didn't realize how the multiquote function works. Well...to be fair, I am the master of parsed, dissected, over-analyzed quotes, am I not? That was one of the very first things I learned how to do on the new board.

Few things: 1. "False pretense" is a redundancy. Nit pick, sure, but valid. 2. Again: just because the "auction ads" stated it was the "First appearance of Red Goblin" does not therefore mean you know the motives of the buyers. It is a presumption on your part. It may be a relatively accurate presumption...but it is a presumption nonethless. 3. You never answered many of my questions, like, for example, what were the insults you claimed I hurled...? 4. I never claimed you said retailers could not charge whatever price they think they can support. However, you did NOT say "the exact opposite." In fact, you said it was "unethical maybe" to do so. It is not. You also said "It's unethical because the price on the cover let's consumers know they are overpaying. It's price gouging plain and simple. It's not an agreed upon price between the vendor and the consumer. ", which is inaccurate, because that's not what "agreed upon price" means. I'm all for having a rational, reasonable discussion, but that's not really possible using phrases like "wrong again" and "once again you are incorrect" without actually proving how those things are so.

If you highlight nested posts -click and drag- you'll see a pop up that says 'quote this' and you can quote multiple posts. That is correct...which is how I had the nested response to kairos70 above...but kairos70, among many others, isn't using that feature, which made my nested response to him become garbled when the "nests" were taken out. The reply no longer makes any sense.

One of the major problems of this new board is the quote function. If you just hit "quote", the post before that one goes away, and if you responded to each point separately, that goes away too, so you have a "quote" that is mashed together, and makes no sense, because its context has been removed. Sigh.

So you say. That's not a narrative I would characterize the situation with. It is what...? Gouging? If so, who said it wasn't? Certainly not I. I am merely pointing out that using the term indicates an emotional, rather than a rational, response. Where was I incorrect the first time, much less again...? I didn't say anything about a "supply induced price increase." Let me say what I said again: "However, the supply has a direct effect on the selling price; that is, the price sellers are able to get for the item in the free market." That means that supply dictates price increases or decreases. Remember: it is supply AND demand, not supply OR demand. And, just as no one needs to know the actual supply of an item, just the supply relative to where they are at that time, so too does PRESUMED supply...or limitations therein...have an effect on demand. In the case of the pre-sales, those buyers PRESUMED that the book would be A. hard to come by, and B. worth the premium to not have to waste time searching for something they believed was going to be difficult to obtain. So yes, the supply...or PRESUMED supply...absolutely plays a part in the price people are willing to pay. There is much to be said for convenience. It is supply AND demand. That is a presumption on your part. You don't actually know the motivations of the people who paid $20 for a copy. I am not disputing that that likely played a large part in these decisions, but you don't know that...you merely presume it. The market may, indeed, be due for a correction. But that doesn't have anything to do with retailers being able to charge whatever price they think they can support.

By Christmas of 1992, about a month after it came out, Superman #75...with a $2.50 cover price...was selling for $100. It was an instant sellout all over the nation wherever it was released, within hours of stores opening that day. And it had a print run reportedly of about 4 million copies. If you were around, you probably remember the caterwauling that went on, especially among the die-hard Superman fans who had faithfully been buying the book for years.

Perhaps. Only the arrogant consider themselves incapable of learning, no matter from whom. That statement has no meaning. How many boxes of Frosted Flakes are currently for sale right this moment? Is the law of supply and demand suspended because one does not know the amount of the supply? Of course not. Not relevant, for the reason stated above. The supply is not limited? In what way? Once the printers stopped printing that issue, the supply was limited. It's great that there are retailers who honor the cover price...truly...but they are not obligated to, nor should they be forced to by law. Those retailers should be rewarded with future consideration. Correct. Asking price has nothing to do with supply. However, the supply has a direct effect on the selling price; that is, the price sellers are able to get for the item in the free market. If the demand is higher than the available supply, the price goes up. If the available supply is greater than the demand, the price goes down. "Gouging" is an emotional term, used by people in an emotional way. As it relates to pricing, it is never used in a neutral manner; it always indicates anger on the part of the person using it, as an expression of "that's not fair!" It may not be fair. Life, after all, isn't fair. But trying to force "fairness" on the free market is a sure way to centralized, planned economies, and ultimately, immense suffering.

As stated in an earlier post, I have no problem with shops charging whatever the market will bear after they fulfill their pull list obligation. No need to hurl insults or give economic lessons. There is retail and there is the aftermarket. You're argument is incorrect since the Batman #17 was sold for 10 cents retail. It's $381 on the after market so your illustration is bupkiss. What insult was hurled...? Can you say...? And I know some people will claim otherwise, but I am NOT argument. (Ok, yeah, terrible joke at his expense, but I love it.) You've missed the point, as you did previously. The point is supply and demand. So, apparently, there IS need for economic lessons; if not for you, perhaps for others. But let's look at your counterargument rationally: 1. How do you know that in every instance Batman #17 was "sold for 10 cents retail"? You don't know. I daresay no one does, and such information is unknowable now. But the allegation that every copy of Batman #17 was sold for 10 cents doesn't change that fact that newsvendors were not obligated to sell them for that price. They could, in fact, sell them for more. (What they could NOT do is sell them for LESS, which is why cover prices exist in the first place, but that was a function of agreements among distributors in that era, not law.) 2. There is no such thing as "retail" and "the aftermarket", in an economic sense. Those concepts do not exist in a free market in the manner in which you're trying to use them. There is only supply and there is only demand. There is only "I have this product I am willing to sell at this price" and "I desire this product, and I will pay this much for it." That's it. Suggesting that there be such things as "retail time periods", for which a product cannot be sold for more than such and such a price is not a function of the laws of economics. Such agreements, if they exist at all, must be entirely voluntary, or you do not have a free market, by definition. 3. Cover prices today, as for most things, are part of the concept of the "list price" or the "suggested retail price." No one is bound to sell those items at that price. They may sell them higher, or they may sell them lower. If retailers wish to survive economically, they must price them competitively. Nothing else matters, and here's the important part: nor should it. It is merely a matter of convenience that comic books have cover prices these days, both for the publisher and the retailer. After all...do you see a price printed on a razor? A bottle of wine? A pizza? A digital camera? No, these prices are set by the individual retailer. You need to think critically and rationally, not emotionally. It is an emotional response to get upset that someone is charging more for things that they legally obtained than you think they should charge for them. That is not rational. It's not reasonable. It's emotional. The appropriate response is as speedcake and mercury man stated above: vote with your dollars, and do not do business with those shops that behave in manners which you find objectionable. I haven't stepped foot into a comic store to buy comics in 7-8 years, because I don't like the vast majority of their business practices. But I do not attempt to compare them to disaster situations, nor would I suggest by implication that there ought to be laws against it. I can reason, I can persuade, but ultimately, they are free to do what they wish, and I am free to do what I wish, and that is how it works. It's unfortunate, but it's the reality we live in: the new comics market is treated like the Franklin Mint, with everyone trying to cash in on "the latest hot thing." The publishers do it, because that's what the market has told them to do. And the ultimate expression of that freedom is to do it yourself. If you don't like the way others are conducting business, that seems like a ripe opportunity to compete with them and force them, through the realities of the free market, to either adapt or perish. Of course, good luck trying to get addicts to curb their addiction...