This is basic economics. Graphed as price against quantity supplied, supply has a positive slope. Increasing the price offered serves to increase the number of units available for purchase. You claimed that a negative supply shock was causing the bidding runs for online editions, when the opposite is true (there has been an explosion in demand for a relatively stable supply).
I was nitpicking, goddammit!
F*** you, I know what I'm talking about.
I was under the impression that the preorder was more valuable, as it was for Bioshock, which had limited supplies of schwag to go around.
(Yes, Faunus has grokked the economics behind this more completely than DS.)
In any event, speculating with low volumes of consumer products doesn't seem like the way to strike it rich. Much better to simply rape the stock market with a computer that makes 10,000 trades every minute.
I'll address this later without having read any rebuttal other than I apparently don't understand economics (lol). I said I had no idea what you were talking about because I had no idea what you were responding to. As if you were continuing a conversation we just had.
If consumers are unwilling to pay for the good on account of the marked up prices. More basic economics: ceteris paribus. The supply shock is significant enough to overcompensate.
Momentarily ignoring new revelations about CE availability: what's stable about the supply? It had been preordered to the point of complete retail stock depletion (aka [-] supply) at which point the only avenue of purchase was through the user market. Unless you're proposing that a majority of the original CE copies were put back up for sale, we're still looking at a significantly depressed supply.
Well I don't think there's a difference between the Collector's Edition that was available for preorder and the one out now...
This word appears insulting. Consider yourself fortunate that I know better.
It means existing supplies of the product remain unpurchased.
Last edited by Eminence on Dec 29th, 2011 at 11:56 PM
I believe Zampano was referring to the added incentive for firms to supply more of a product when they are able to do so at a greater price, not that a higher price immediately leads to greater supply.
Ceteris Paribus is generally taken as a given. I was essentially dismissing out of hand the existence of a simultaneous supply shock; DS claimed there was one while explaining the effects of a demand shock.
That wasn't exactly how I was looking at it, but you make a good point. I was thinking that on the margin the increased price of CEs was driving users to be willing to sell their copies (a la Dave's example of speculation).
That the aftermarket wouldn't exist without an exhausted inventory wasn't something I'd considered. I was imagining that the demand had shifted outward following success and positive reviews. Either way, Dave himself is an anecdotal argument in favor of a price-pulled increase in quantity supplied (as opposed to increase in supply schedule).
Oh. Well then my only explanation is that people are idiots.
You know I love you. And that's a damn fine book.
You mean that existing supplies of the product become profitable when sold.
Pretend that you have a CE that you expect to enjoy a lot. If I offer you $5 for it, you'd say "hell no. It's worth more than that!" If I offer you $1,000,000 for it, you'd say "sure thing, care for a bj, too?" Clearly the value of that CE for you is somewhere between $5 and $1 mill. By raising the price, it becomes more likely that someone new, somewhere, will be willing to accept a trade at that new price. For example, I wouldn't sell my copy of Mass Effect for $40. But if you offered $50, I'd go for it, increasing the supply by one unit.
Things aren't appearing from nowhere. Motivation is appearing from increased incentives.
Whoa whoa I didn't claim anything (that I can remember). I'll educate you guys when I get home. For the record, only conservatives understand economics. Liberals/democrats seem to have a brain fart in regards to this subject.
[SPOILER - highlight to read]: I am unwilling to concede without a verifiable excuse: confounded by the burning of my eyes by the drift of bhut jolokia (I am fairly certain I can extract detectable doses of capsaicin from my eyes) and a minor degree of sleep deprivation, I attempted to trade high ground for higher ground and fell into a fucking ravine, because I was going so high shit got icy. It has been two years since I was academically obligated to open an economics book, and that was macro; my logicks did not go deep enough. This has sufficiently motivated me to reintegrate economics into my short-term "to learn independently" list, right after multivariable.
ahahahabitch i accept your concession
[SPOILER - highlight to read]: luv u too brah. also i don't understand the book thing.
Happy, guys? Now if I look at this tomorrow and see that I've conceded something I shouldn't have or conceded in a manner unbecoming of me I will actually hurt the both of you at the same time with your own appendages and orifices.
Last edited by Eminence on Dec 30th, 2011 at 02:16 AM
and I happen to be immune to fear of big people unless they're actually strong, it's nighttime, or there are more than one of them. My suitemate's a hair shy of six six, you get used to it. so you will not be able to escape injury on account of me not wanting to get into it with you, not without the summoning of your extended family.
edit: And I'm always willing to share seven hundred thousand Scotsville units with your sensory organs and those of the people you hold dearest in life.