Amazing Spiderman #796 shenanigans 1 1

[RockMyAmadeus]

13 minutes ago, Mercury Man said:

I  think Modern Comics have as much economic stability as Gone With The Wind Collector Plates.

Anybody paying above cover price for this issue is a fool at this point.  Unfortunately, I still like to buy Modern Comics to keep up with some of my childhood heroes.   5x Cover price for something that just got released Wednesday, is asinine.  I hope the locals give these shops a piece of their mind. 

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.

 

 

[kairos70]

7 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

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.

You're harping on the word gouging. It is what it is whether you agree or not. The comic sold for $20 on pre-sale so once again you are incorrect about the supply induced price increase. It sold under the pretense that it would be the first appearance of the Red Goblin.  It was not. The market is due for a correction which once again is a moot point to me because I have all the supply I desire.

Edited February 25, 2018 by kairos70

[thehumantorch]

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Oh, and welcome to 1993.

Sure feels like the 90s.  New releases being marked up to $20 or more, stores taking hot books out of customer's files to flip for 'big bucks'.  Most of us remember how that turned out.  And if a comic store shorted me a file book to mark it up they'd lose me as a customer.

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 minutes ago, kairos70 said:

You're harping on the word gouging.

So you say. That's not a narrative I would characterize the situation with.

2 minutes ago, kairos70 said:

It is what it is whether you agree or not.

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. 

4 minutes ago, kairos70 said:

The comic sold for $20 on pre-sale so once again you are incorrect about the supply induced price increase.

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. 

10 minutes ago, kairos70 said:

It sold under the pretense that it would be the first appearance of the Red Goblin.  It was not. The market is due for a correction which once again is a moot point to me because I have all the supply I desire.

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.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

[kairos70]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

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.

Wrong again. The auction ads stated it was the"First appearance of Red Goblin". No way to misinterpret them.  The character hasn't appeared yet so it was false pretense. I never said retailers could not charge whatever price they think they can support I said the exact opposite. Go back and look. 

[thehumantorch]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

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.

If you highlight nested posts -click and drag- you'll see a pop up that says 'quote this' and you can quote multiple posts.

[RockMyAmadeus]

47 minutes ago, thehumantorch said:

50 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

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.

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.

Edited February 25, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[kairos70]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

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 my nested response to him become garbled when the "nests" were taken out. The reply no longer makes any sense.

It never did in the first place. Bazinga! 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, kairos70 said:

Wrong again. The auction ads stated it was the"First appearance of Red Goblin". No way to misinterpret them.  The character hasn't appeared yet so it was false pretense. I never said retailers could not charge whatever price they think they can support I said the exact opposite. Go back and look. 

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.

[thehumantorch]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

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 my nested response to him become garbled when the "nests" were taken out. The reply no longer makes any sense.

Sorry, thought perhaps you didn't realize how the multiquote function works.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, thehumantorch said:

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

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 my nested response to him become garbled when the "nests" were taken out. The reply no longer makes any sense.

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.

[kairos70]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

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.

Wrong once again. You're pedantic and yet you haven't proved any of your economic points. One thing  you and I can agree about is retailers can charge what they want for their comics. What I took as an insult was the  emoji directed towards me and also the  "oh and welcome to 1993." Lastly, The points that we are not going to come into agreement about is price gouging and artificial changes to supply and demand. No need for further discussion. With that I end my discussion. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, kairos70 said:

Wrong once again. You're pedantic and yet you haven't proved any of your economic points.

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.

1 minute ago, kairos70 said:

What I took as an insult was the  emoji directed towards me and also the  "oh and welcome to 1993."

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"...?

3 minutes ago, kairos70 said:

Lastly, The points that we are not going to come into agreement about is price gouging and artificial changes to supply and demand.

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. 

7 minutes ago, kairos70 said:

No need for further discussion. 

I certainly agree, though perhaps not for quite the same reasons.

10 minutes ago, kairos70 said:

With that I end my discussion. 

Good. I think it's run it's course. Thank you for the opportunity.

[kairos70]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

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.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, kairos70 said:

 

That is, of course, the usual response from those who have nothing more of value to say.

Have a good night!

[kairos70]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That is, of course, the usual response from those who have nothing more of value to say.

Have a good night!

Who says that was towards you?

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, kairos70 said:

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That is, of course, the usual response from those who have nothing more of value to say.

Have a good night!

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:

5 minutes ago, kairos70 said:

7 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

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.

 

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!

[kairos70]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

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!

Wrong again. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 minutes ago, kairos70 said:

Wrong again.