4 ms·

Well, all prices are still determined by the intersection of supply and demand. I'm not saying that the objective features are IRRELEVANT to a consumer's purch

Well, all prices are still determined by the intersection of supply and demand. I'm not saying that the objective features are IRRELEVANT to a consumer's purchase decision, obviously they're not, but ultimately each person values what they're buying differently than the next person. I'll run with your coffee example: Let's say someone currently values a cup of Starbucks at $6 / cup and Starbucks is selling it for $4 / cup. If Starbucks raises their prices above $6 / cup (to $20 like you say), that person would no longer purchase Starbucks coffee unless their values change. But there's a good chance that SOME people (a small minority no doubt, but probably not zero people) currently value Starbucks at more than $20 / cup, those people would continue to buy coffee from Starbucks unless their values change. As prices for Starbucks coffee increase and exceed the amount that individuals value it, those people will begin to explore alternatives on the market to determine if there is another comparable good that meets their needs at a price less than they value it.

vasilipupkin 9y ago
"but ultimately each person values what they're buying differently than the next person" that is true, but irrelevant. On average, overall value is highly correlated to objective metrics. so, this is why this conversation started. Price, including price of bitcoin, is not simply some subjective thing - it must be tied to some objective indicators. For example, price of coffee at Starbucks cannot be too far above what it costs to make coffee at home. It will be higher, since you are paying for convenience. But there is only so much that makes sense to pay for convenience and people won't pay more than that.
- sbenitoj 9y ago
  This was your original comment in this thread: "There is such a thing as objective value. Stocks have objective value because they pay dividends. Real estate in warm climates has objective value because it's pleasant to be in a warm place in winter. BMW costs more than a honda civic because it is objectively a better driving experience." You were claiming that value is determined by the objective features/metrics, now you're saying that "overall value is highly correlated to objective metrics" -- which one is it? First you say it's objective, now you're saying it's just highly correlated? Those aren't the same things -- if objective metrics were all that mattered, value would be 100% tied to the objective metrics/features, but it's not. If objective metrics were all that mattered, you could ALWAYS create something bigger, faster, or stronger and have it sell for more than the next best item on the market -- but that's not how it works. There are NUMEROUS example of products which were "objectively" better but failed because people did not perceive their value to be high enough worth purchasing.
  - vasilipupkin 9y ago
    You were claiming that value is determined by the objective features/metrics, now you're saying that "overall value is highly correlated to objective metrics" -- which one is it? it's both. You observe this high correlation, because objective metrics determine value. They do not account for 100% of it 100% of the time, only on average. I keep using the term "on average", I think you keep missing its significance.

vasilipupkin 9y ago

"but ultimately each person values what they're buying differently than the next person" that is true, but irrelevant. On average, overall value is highly correlated to objective metrics. so, this is why this conversation started. Price, including price of bitcoin, is not simply some subjective thing - it must be tied to some objective indicators. For example, price of coffee at Starbucks cannot be too far above what it costs to make coffee at home. It will be higher, since you are paying for convenience. But there is only so much that makes sense to pay for convenience and people won't pay more than that.

sbenitoj 9y ago
This was your original comment in this thread: "There is such a thing as objective value. Stocks have objective value because they pay dividends. Real estate in warm climates has objective value because it's pleasant to be in a warm place in winter. BMW costs more than a honda civic because it is objectively a better driving experience." You were claiming that value is determined by the objective features/metrics, now you're saying that "overall value is highly correlated to objective metrics" -- which one is it? First you say it's objective, now you're saying it's just highly correlated? Those aren't the same things -- if objective metrics were all that mattered, value would be 100% tied to the objective metrics/features, but it's not. If objective metrics were all that mattered, you could ALWAYS create something bigger, faster, or stronger and have it sell for more than the next best item on the market -- but that's not how it works. There are NUMEROUS example of products which were "objectively" better but failed because people did not perceive their value to be high enough worth purchasing.
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  You were claiming that value is determined by the objective features/metrics, now you're saying that "overall value is highly correlated to objective metrics" -- which one is it? it's both. You observe this high correlation, because objective metrics determine value. They do not account for 100% of it 100% of the time, only on average. I keep using the term "on average", I think you keep missing its significance.