3 ms·

Ok, so you want to get a new BMW. If it is a lease, that may be $500 or $1000 or whatever per month. That's after downpayment of $many, will be more without dow

Ok, so you want to get a new BMW. If it is a lease, that may be $500 or $1000 or whatever per month. That's after downpayment of $many, will be more without downpayment or trade-in or whatever you got. BMW throws in a cellular connection ("BMW assist" or whatever they call it) for $0, for the first X years. Not sure how many. You can also get carplay, free for the first year (I think) But then after that, carplay will be like $80/year. That is <$7/month. How does that even register, never mind make any difference? And what is the narrative here, like "Oh, I was looking at BMW and Audi; I bought Audi because of the BMW's price-gouging $7/month fee!". Did that ever happen? May be, but it just does not compute. Far as I can tell, if you are concerned over $7/month, you will not be buying a new BMW or Audi. It just does not add up.

sk5t 9y ago
Like I said, if $80 is nothing to a BMW owner, try getting one of those BMW owners to hand you $80 for a friendly hello. Conversely, if 1% of a thing is nothing, can I have 1% of your company's common stock?
- carterehsmith 9y ago
  >> Conversely, if 1% of a thing is nothing, can I have 1% of your company's common stock? If you bought 80% of it, yeah, 1% would not make much of a difference. But you want it for free? Well, dream on.
prepend 9y ago
I’m not quite sure I understand the reasoning of your argument. I certainly agree that if someone is buying a bmw they can afford an extra $7/month. But I think that the question is value as well as a sense of fairness. Just because someone has money doesn’t mean they will spend it arbitrarily for things of little value. This does happen all the time (eg, natural water), but there is certainly a large group of people who don’t purchase based on this philosophy. This may contribute to their wealth level making them capable of buying luxury vehicles. I think so. Arguing that people have the money to pay, therefore should pay, without evaluating the value of the item is silly and will lead to increased poverty. As the market will make more and more expensive things without value until an equilibrium is reached where the buyers can not afford it.

sk5t 9y ago

Like I said, if $80 is nothing to a BMW owner, try getting one of those BMW owners to hand you $80 for a friendly hello. Conversely, if 1% of a thing is nothing, can I have 1% of your company's common stock?

carterehsmith 9y ago
>> Conversely, if 1% of a thing is nothing, can I have 1% of your company's common stock? If you bought 80% of it, yeah, 1% would not make much of a difference. But you want it for free? Well, dream on.

prepend 9y ago

I’m not quite sure I understand the reasoning of your argument. I certainly agree that if someone is buying a bmw they can afford an extra $7/month. But I think that the question is value as well as a sense of fairness. Just because someone has money doesn’t mean they will spend it arbitrarily for things of little value. This does happen all the time (eg, natural water), but there is certainly a large group of people who don’t purchase based on this philosophy. This may contribute to their wealth level making them capable of buying luxury vehicles. I think so. Arguing that people have the money to pay, therefore should pay, without evaluating the value of the item is silly and will lead to increased poverty. As the market will make more and more expensive things without value until an equilibrium is reached where the buyers can not afford it.