3 ms·

If books were precious physical objects of great value, why is that not reflected in their prices? Used books are usually worthless. And if their inherent val

by pfdietz 3mo ago

If books were precious physical objects of great value, why is that not reflected in their prices? Used books are usually worthless. And if their inherent value was so great, regardless of supply or use, wouldn't we be able to churn out infinite value by just printing enormous nunbers of copies and storing them? This absurd consequence shows the outrage here is without rational foundation. It's feelings run amok. Feels are not a good way to think, people.

qsera 3mo ago
>why is that not reflected in their prices? Because the consumers are stupid and think being "new" is worth a lot more, for some reason, when it comes to art/literature/movies. So they are willing to pay more for new stuff that could be mediocre. I would really pay 10 times the price of some old books, but consumer demand is nearly zero because they are old, so they have gone out of print...
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- bighi 3mo ago
  These books ARE new. New-ish. They are all books from 2020 and 2021.
tgv 3mo ago
If air is so valuable to you, why don't you pay premium for it? Not that it's comparable to books, but it has the same presupposition as your question.
- pfdietz 3mo ago
  If someone had posted "OMG Google is using up air" I'd have been equally contemptuous. I'm kind of surprised we aren't hearing that as an argument against burning fossil fuels, actually.
- Legend2440 3mo ago
  Because air is extremely common and not scarce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value Similarly, wholesale used books are cheap because they are extremely common and not scarce.
  - bighi 3mo ago
    This was a very nonsensical response. It's not analogous to the argument being made, nor it add any value to the conversation.
  - qsera 3mo ago
    They are cheap because they are old, and people are so stupid that they think if something is old, it should be worthless.
    - pfdietz 3mo ago
      When your justification for your idea is that everyone else is stupid, maybe you need to reevaluate who is being stupid.
      - qsera 3mo ago
        I didn't say everyone else is stupid. I said (or meant) consumers show largely/collectively stupid behavior that I described.
        pfdietz 3mo ago
        Just most people. Your quibble doesn't save you. Why should anyone take your personal idiosyncratic definition of value seriously, especially when it leads to absurd consequences? The simplest explanation here is that you have just not expended the effort to think things through.
        qsera 3mo ago
        > Why should anyone take your personal idiosyncratic definition of value seriously... so that they get more value out of their $$$...or else feel free to part all your cash on the newest piece of shit. I don't really care. An idiot and his money is soon parted. Tale as old as time. Suit yourselves...
michaelmrose 3mo ago
If we value things according to their monetary value we must conclude that Elon musk is more valuable than every teacher in Americas labor for the next decade. Economic value is oft divorced entirely from any notion of real value. What you are describing derisively as "feels" is actually nuance the very essence of intelligence is not reducing complexity to tapioca. Destroying the last copy of a rare book reduces the sum total of human knowledge even if its not one already of note. Historically current thinking isn't the best and most accurate judgement of value. We cherish many works that were not notable upon publication or even in the author's lifetime. Previously the works were distributed and hard to lose all at once now they are possibly inaccurately scanned and even that slightly lossy data may disappear all at once in a wave bankruptcy especially if the economy crashes again as seems to happen every 10 to 20 years. I suggest you ruminate instead of patting yourself on the back
- pfdietz 3mo ago
  Equating people to inanimate objects is a remarkable argument. How about we reject that out of hand.
  - michaelmrose 3mo ago
    It's not. It's an excellent example that economic value!= value. Your facile dodge isn't an argument and suggests you lack one.

by pfdietz 3mo ago

qsera 3mo ago

>why is that not reflected in their prices? Because the consumers are stupid and think being "new" is worth a lot more, for some reason, when it comes to art/literature/movies. So they are willing to pay more for new stuff that could be mediocre. I would really pay 10 times the price of some old books, but consumer demand is nearly zero because they are old, so they have gone out of print...

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
bighi 3mo ago
These books ARE new. New-ish. They are all books from 2020 and 2021.

tgv 3mo ago

If air is so valuable to you, why don't you pay premium for it? Not that it's comparable to books, but it has the same presupposition as your question.

pfdietz 3mo ago
If someone had posted "OMG Google is using up air" I'd have been equally contemptuous. I'm kind of surprised we aren't hearing that as an argument against burning fossil fuels, actually.
Legend2440 3mo ago
Because air is extremely common and not scarce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value Similarly, wholesale used books are cheap because they are extremely common and not scarce.
- bighi 3mo ago
  This was a very nonsensical response. It's not analogous to the argument being made, nor it add any value to the conversation.
- qsera 3mo ago
  They are cheap because they are old, and people are so stupid that they think if something is old, it should be worthless.
  - pfdietz 3mo ago
    When your justification for your idea is that everyone else is stupid, maybe you need to reevaluate who is being stupid.
    - qsera 3mo ago
      I didn't say everyone else is stupid. I said (or meant) consumers show largely/collectively stupid behavior that I described.
      - pfdietz 3mo ago
        Just most people. Your quibble doesn't save you. Why should anyone take your personal idiosyncratic definition of value seriously, especially when it leads to absurd consequences? The simplest explanation here is that you have just not expended the effort to think things through.
        qsera 3mo ago
        > Why should anyone take your personal idiosyncratic definition of value seriously... so that they get more value out of their $$$...or else feel free to part all your cash on the newest piece of shit. I don't really care. An idiot and his money is soon parted. Tale as old as time. Suit yourselves...

michaelmrose 3mo ago

If we value things according to their monetary value we must conclude that Elon musk is more valuable than every teacher in Americas labor for the next decade. Economic value is oft divorced entirely from any notion of real value. What you are describing derisively as "feels" is actually nuance the very essence of intelligence is not reducing complexity to tapioca. Destroying the last copy of a rare book reduces the sum total of human knowledge even if its not one already of note. Historically current thinking isn't the best and most accurate judgement of value. We cherish many works that were not notable upon publication or even in the author's lifetime. Previously the works were distributed and hard to lose all at once now they are possibly inaccurately scanned and even that slightly lossy data may disappear all at once in a wave bankruptcy especially if the economy crashes again as seems to happen every 10 to 20 years. I suggest you ruminate instead of patting yourself on the back

pfdietz 3mo ago
Equating people to inanimate objects is a remarkable argument. How about we reject that out of hand.
- michaelmrose 3mo ago
  It's not. It's an excellent example that economic value!= value. Your facile dodge isn't an argument and suggests you lack one.