3 ms·
> And you will get exactly what you paid for. What are they getting though? It's like saying when you spend $1,000 for a beanie baby (or a cabbage patch kid i
by SavantIdiot 5y ago
> And you will get exactly what you paid for.
What are they getting though?
It's like saying when you spend $1,000 for a beanie baby (or a cabbage patch kid if you're older) you got something of transient value driven by cultural hype.
On its face, yes you are right: you got a doll for a lot of money, or a token for a lot of money.
But you weren't buying a doll, you were buying hype whipped up by con men that it will be worth more to another person who is conned. Dolls aren't worth thousands of dollars unless a critical mass agrees they are.
Its the Austrian economic theory why diamonds are worth more than water, when water is necessary for life and diamonds are just shiny rocks.
I consider that a scam too.
You are correct that words do matter. We need to call these what they are: scams and cons.
I think perhaps you are trying to partition a scam or a con into a "bait and switch", that is also a scam/con, at the expense of everything else. That's what it sounds like to me.
- fleddr 5y agoWell, clearly you apply the word "scam" very generously. You apply it to anything involving hype, so in that sense you might consider fashion a scam too. Or pretty much anything involving marketing. The famous art work consisting of a banana duck-taped to a wall, is that a scam? I consider the value of that work zero, somebody else might consider it worth a million USD. Yet I see no scam, just a subjective valuation. A subjective valuation isn't equal to a scam. We could go back and forth on the definition of a scam, but in a context of regulation it does matter.