3 ms·

Ergo... Artifical scarcity (of Pi's at MSRP) created by (non-practicing) scalpers (arbitragers, as they like to be called) reestablishing a price point, far in

Ergo... Artifical scarcity (of Pi's at MSRP) created by (non-practicing) scalpers (arbitragers, as they like to be called) reestablishing a price point, far in excess of what is reasonable, basically undoing the actual feat of engineering that resulted in such a cheap system in the first place. Obligatory, and apropos: https://xkcd.com/1499/ https://xkcd.com/1499/ The bit people don't realize, is finance draws in people like this, and does the same thing, day in, day out. No value extraction opportunity left unexploited lest one "leave money on the table". These people are a significant contributor to why we cannot have nice things.

rahimnathwani 4y ago
You've chosen to redefine a common word (scarcity) rather than engage with my point. I have nothing more to say.
- salawat 4y ago
  How have I redefined scarcity? At most I have set the subject being modified to (Pi at MSRP) from what you were operating on, (the Pi, no price included). The conjunction of Pi at a pricepoint, was the endgoal of the engineering process. Nothing about the meaning of the word scarcity has changed. What you seem to object to is that I don't accept the practice of decoupling the price point from the output as being morally desirable/defensible to have from the original intent of the engineering process. If someone builds a thing and stands by that price point for the express purpose of making that available at that price point, going the ideal market way you suggest is essentially socially parasitic. They set out to make a $15 bundle of compute. Jerks with automation come along, clear out that unit of compute at $15 and plop it at a price point greatly in excess of the original intent. I do not hold that one that does so is immune from being called a burden, because they read an economics book once. Your point, if granted, is bollocks. It admits it is perfectly fine to take things priced at cost, and jack the price up sky high despite the fact we nailed the engineering to make it that cheap. I am not willing to concede that. I'm sorry. Your point is rubbish. Even if most of the market operates that way, we'd almost universally be better off if everyone just stopped doing that. Left unaddressed, the pattern of behavior siphons capital from those just trying to get by plying a trade, to those looking to capitalize on someone else leaving money on the table. Which is again, as previously stated, rubbish. If you've got nothing more to say, that's fine. It's just another case of a potential Sinclairism. It being hard to get a man to understand something his livelihood is dependent on them not understanding. But don't try to say I redefined anything. I most certainly did not.

rahimnathwani 4y ago

You've chosen to redefine a common word (scarcity) rather than engage with my point. I have nothing more to say.

salawat 4y ago
How have I redefined scarcity? At most I have set the subject being modified to (Pi at MSRP) from what you were operating on, (the Pi, no price included). The conjunction of Pi at a pricepoint, was the endgoal of the engineering process. Nothing about the meaning of the word scarcity has changed. What you seem to object to is that I don't accept the practice of decoupling the price point from the output as being morally desirable/defensible to have from the original intent of the engineering process. If someone builds a thing and stands by that price point for the express purpose of making that available at that price point, going the ideal market way you suggest is essentially socially parasitic. They set out to make a $15 bundle of compute. Jerks with automation come along, clear out that unit of compute at $15 and plop it at a price point greatly in excess of the original intent. I do not hold that one that does so is immune from being called a burden, because they read an economics book once. Your point, if granted, is bollocks. It admits it is perfectly fine to take things priced at cost, and jack the price up sky high despite the fact we nailed the engineering to make it that cheap. I am not willing to concede that. I'm sorry. Your point is rubbish. Even if most of the market operates that way, we'd almost universally be better off if everyone just stopped doing that. Left unaddressed, the pattern of behavior siphons capital from those just trying to get by plying a trade, to those looking to capitalize on someone else leaving money on the table. Which is again, as previously stated, rubbish. If you've got nothing more to say, that's fine. It's just another case of a potential Sinclairism. It being hard to get a man to understand something his livelihood is dependent on them not understanding. But don't try to say I redefined anything. I most certainly did not.