7 ms·
Who taught you this? And why do you think this way?
by bravura 3mo ago
Who taught you this? And why do you think this way?
- thaumasiotes 3mo agoHe thinks that way because it's the only correct way to think. Try raising the value of the record and see what you think about it.
- prollings 3mo agoWhy? We know the price was $1300. Doesn't mean anyone would buy it for that much. So try lowering the number and see what you think? The value is what someone is willing to pay for it.
- embedding-shape 3mo ago> He thinks that way because it's the only correct way to think. I typed up something, but ended up almost antagonistic. I realize I just feel sad that for some people money is literally the single goal in their life, seemingly nothing else matters.
- Dylan16807 3mo agoWhat are you talking about? They didn't say anything about what decision is correct. They just said that the two decisions are equivalent. Please note the use of the word "insane" is specifically because buildsjets said it was insane.
- NikolaNovak 3mo agoMathematically that's absolutely true. Emotionally, it feels different. It's fascinating to see downright angry gut reactions! A few years ago my friend was selling his expensive camera on Kijiji. I asked him to sell it to me for slightly less as a friendly discount. He told me that's the same as just randomly one day giving me a wad of cash, so why would he do that?? I thought he's crazy and was a little bit offended. Actually maybe a fair bit offended! It took me YEARS to realize that 1. He's absolutely completely Inarguably correct, and 2. People would find me no less crazy if I adopted same perspective. Buy for $x, have and not sell for $x, same mathematically. But oh boy will people get instantly riled up emotionally :).
- pbhjpbhj 3mo agoYes, strictly true, but friendship is worth it, no? Do you spend a couple of hours with a friend and then hand each other bills for the hours? Clearly there was a[n opportunity] cost to both of you, after all. Just spending time together without charging would be like randomly handing over a wad of cash ... >Buy for $x, have and not sell for $x, same mathematically. They're not the same. £20 item to buy, I have £100; buying leaves me £80. Either, I have £100; not buying/selling leaves me £100 £20 item I own, I have £100; selling leaves me £120. In the first case maybe I can't make rent now. In the last case I have more cash, but then I need to spend money if I want entertainment/utility that the item had. In the first case I lose 25% of my cash; in the last I gain 20% (this matters when you're sharing your money across different needs).
- Dylan16807 3mo agoIf you're trying to make rent right now it makes a difference. In the long run it's looking at X income and comparing how much better/worse off you'd be with X-1 and X+1 income, and those two deltas are almost the same. The fluctuation in value of the object will make a bigger difference than the technicalities of buying versus selling.
- throw0101a 3mo ago> Buy for $x, have and not sell for $x, same mathematically. But oh boy will people get instantly riled up emotionally :). Price and value are not the same. The logic of your friend was basically putting a price on how "special" (or not) he saw your relationship versus some rando-buyer online. That is why people (close to you) get riled up emotionally: they're being treated in a way no different than a complete stranger.
- Dylan16807 3mo agoIf you ask your friend for $100 for no particular reason, just because you want $100, that's an annoying request and "no" is a reasonable response. It's not putting a price on your relationship. It's technically the same answer they'd give a stranger, but that doesn't mean you're being treated like a stranger. (I do think a slight discount often makes sense just because a friend is probably quicker and easier to deal with. But anything more substantial turns into asking for free stuff, and yes and no are both perfectly fine answers to that.)
- JKCalhoun 3mo agoI have no idea, have not looked into the value of my record collection. An easy end to that line of reasoning for me.
- prmoustache 3mo agoThe fact it sold once at that price doesn't mean there is still someone willing to buy it at that price. And he doesn't necessarili need thos $1300
- pembrook 3mo agoOP has a valid question though. If you think its insane to spend that amount of money on it (essentially: it's not worth that much to you), then you holding onto it instead of having $1300 is pretty much the exact same scenario? By holding onto it you're saying it is worth that much to you. It sounds like believing you hunted down a 'deal' causes you to wildly change how you perceive value at an emotional level. I would probably do the same thing. It's just funny to see expressed on HN where everybody complains that advertising and marketing are evil/scams and proclaims loudly how rational they are.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- chownie 3mo agoHe wants the thing. He does not value the thing at 1300 dollars so he would not buy it for 1300 dollars. He found it for a lower value, he kept it because the point at the start was he wanted the thing. On the topic of HN users, is it our collective first day on earth?
- foobarbecue 3mo agoTake me to your reader
- Dylan16807 3mo ago> He does not value the thing at 1300 dollars If you decline to sell a thing for an easy 1300, doesn't that mean you value it at 1300 or more?
- thatguy0900 3mo agoIt's the thought process you learn by having some financial issues in life. You feel guilty for owning expensive things instead of selling them to buy other things. I have the same problems with trading cards I own from a long time ago that are now expensive, I can keep them for sentimental reasons or sell them to put it towards some bill
- jmalicki 3mo agoIt's called the fallacy of sunk costs.