3 ms·

It's a commodity in the same way as fashion is. Each piece is unique, and people become attached, but something equivalent would take its place in its absence.

It's a commodity in the same way as fashion is. Each piece is unique, and people become attached, but something equivalent would take its place in its absence. I don't know a term for that other than commodity, but sure, it's not the strict definition in economics. Please suggest an alternative word if you know it.

CPLX 3y ago
> It's a commodity in the same way as fashion is. Which is to say, it's not. That's the point. There's no fashion choices in West Texas Crude or Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil. Those are commodities. Each producer of the product produces an indistinguishable result from each other producer. You are producer indifferent. Most of the time you don't even have a way of knowing who produced the commodity you're consuming. Fashion, music, cars, hotels, laptops, and many other things aren't that. You care if it's Chanel, BMW, Hilton, Apple, or Taylor Swift, versus H&M, Honda, Motel 6, HP, or Metallica.
- solarmist 3y ago
  I'm not asking what it's not. I'm asking what it is. If an option were removed, something (not a random substitution, but eventually a substitute would be found) else would take its place and fulfill the same function even though it isn't the same it's close enough to fulfill the purpose.
  - CPLX 3y ago
    That’s called a substitute good. Every good has a substitute good. That doesn’t make it a commodity, words have meanings. The distinction is important. The original thread here posited that music wasn’t a lucrative field because it’s an interchangeable commodity. That’s just flat wrong. It’s the opposite. It’s not lucrative because it’s very highly differentiated and the popularity follows a power law distribution and you’re probably not in the top echelon. But you could be. Which is why people try so hard. That’s an entirely different analysis.
    - solarmist 3y ago
      Cheers for the terminology, but being pedantic and purposely missing the point isn't useful or helpful. You could've avoided this whole digression by providing the word people were searching for and doing a mental search/replace then moving the conversation forward.

CPLX 3y ago

> It's a commodity in the same way as fashion is. Which is to say, it's not. That's the point. There's no fashion choices in West Texas Crude or Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil. Those are commodities. Each producer of the product produces an indistinguishable result from each other producer. You are producer indifferent. Most of the time you don't even have a way of knowing who produced the commodity you're consuming. Fashion, music, cars, hotels, laptops, and many other things aren't that. You care if it's Chanel, BMW, Hilton, Apple, or Taylor Swift, versus H&M, Honda, Motel 6, HP, or Metallica.

solarmist 3y ago
I'm not asking what it's not. I'm asking what it is. If an option were removed, something (not a random substitution, but eventually a substitute would be found) else would take its place and fulfill the same function even though it isn't the same it's close enough to fulfill the purpose.
- CPLX 3y ago
  That’s called a substitute good. Every good has a substitute good. That doesn’t make it a commodity, words have meanings. The distinction is important. The original thread here posited that music wasn’t a lucrative field because it’s an interchangeable commodity. That’s just flat wrong. It’s the opposite. It’s not lucrative because it’s very highly differentiated and the popularity follows a power law distribution and you’re probably not in the top echelon. But you could be. Which is why people try so hard. That’s an entirely different analysis.
  - solarmist 3y ago
    Cheers for the terminology, but being pedantic and purposely missing the point isn't useful or helpful. You could've avoided this whole digression by providing the word people were searching for and doing a mental search/replace then moving the conversation forward.