3 ms·
The combination of high and very low prices also stuck out to me. I agree it’s interesting, but I personally don’t mind it. It’s not a bad progressive model to
by imajoredinecon 5y ago
The combination of high and very low prices also stuck out to me. I agree it’s interesting, but I personally don’t mind it. It’s not a bad progressive model to have people who aren’t price-sensitive subsidize people who are.
- brimble 5y agoI dislike trends toward finding a way to make you pay as much as possible for your own time & attention, is the reason it bugs me. [EDIT] More generally, I just prefer my commerce to be fairly straightforward. I don't like having to second-guess whether there are hidden tricks going on to screw me.
- mr_toad 5y ago> It’s not a bad progressive model to have people who aren’t price-sensitive subsidize people who are. It is entirely bad. It arrogates consumer surplus to the supplier. The people paying higher prices don’t subsidise those paying lower prices, the supplier pockets most of the gains. They’d like you to believe that the people paying cheaper prices are subsidised, but they’re not selling to them at a loss. And it causes a deadweight efficiency loss. The fact that businesses can pass this off as some kind of progressive pricing and good for the consumer makes it as disingenuous as it is pernicious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss