[buildsjets]

I keep 3 pressings of Led Zep II out so I can demonstrate the difference to people who don’t believe that there is one. A first-week Robert Ludwig mastered version, a second-week pressing of the Ahmet Ertegun disaster, and 1977 remaster that really sounds just as good as the 1969 RL mix and is a lot cheaper. $20 for a VG+ copy compared to $1300. I am not insane so I did not spend $1300 on a used vinyl record, I found mine for $2 at Goodwill.

https://www.therevolverclub.com/blogs/the-revolver-club/the-...

[lmm]

> I am not insane so I did not spend $1300 on a used vinyl record, I found mine for $2 at Goodwill.

How is holding onto it instead of selling it for $1300 any less insane than buying it for $1300 in the first place?

[williamdclt]

If they don't need $1300 cash, they don't have any real reason to sell it

[bravura]

Who taught you this? And why do you think this way?

[thatguy0900]

It'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

[pembrook]

OP 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.

[chownie]

He 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?

[pembrook]

The point is it's irrational behavior. And we all do it.

It's burning $5 in gas and $20 in time to go to a store further away and save $25 on a sale item. And then proudly bragging "I'm not like those idiots who pay full price!"

OP didn't find a record...he found a $1300 arbitrage, then decided to spend the proceeds on the record by keeping it.

In other words, this is why selling stuff to consumers is a nightmare.

You have to trick them into believing they "won one over" on everybody else, via discounting and promotions, no matter if ultimately they're the ones losing by spending hours of their time jumping through hoops on a product that they legitimately value at full price.

[chownie]

As kindly as I can, your comment is 100% the irrational behaviour.

Everyone who's replied thus far has fallen into the same trap, you saw money and you forgot the value of the actual thing he wanted. Now he has the thing, you're still stuck talking and thinking about the money.

This comment section sees two guys trading a briefcase of dollars bills all day long as a roaring economy. Somehow completely blind to the human.

[Dylan16807]

> 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?

[Borealid]

Technically no, because selling a thing is both a risk and a cost (of time and money).

[GuinansEyebrows]

it could simply be that you value owning the object in terms other than money. sentimental reasons, completionism tendencies, novelty, some other "non-rational"/emotional reason; any of these can have a stronger pull on the mind than $1300 to someone who doesn't immediately need the cash for survival. i have some records like this (not in that price-range but still) along with a few other collectible items (some rare handmade keycaps that were going for over $500 a piece at one point) that I refuse to part with for money because i just... like them :)

[brazzy]

Only if you actually need the 1300 cash, or think that you won't be able to sell it in the future.

[ToucanLoucan]

> On the topic of HN users, is it our collective first day on earth?

The disease of financialization at work. Money is all that matters to people, everything is converted into money. It's only value is what you could get from selling it, and/or what you spent to acquire it.

Like those weird fuckers who buy $200k supercars so they can sit in a damn garage. (She said, having put 30k miles on a Corvette inside of 3 years)

[genewitch]

10k mi/yr is a nice round "lease" number of miles. Are you sure you don't value the resale value of your car more than the joy value?

someone, above: > believing you hunted down a 'deal' causes you to wildly change how you perceive value at an emotional level.

I'm going to quote myself, paraphrased, because i forget the exact phrasing.

"All else equal, which tastes better: ice cream you've paid for; or ice cream that cost you nothing?"

edit: i didn't intend the above to be snark, even though it may read that way.

[foobarbecue]

Take me to your reader

[hluska]

I don’t see any sign they own the original pressing which is $1300. Instead they own the 1977 remaster which apparently sounds as good as the original pressing though I don’t own the original. The 1977 remaster sells for between $5 and $50 depending on grade. I paid $3 for mine and it might be worth $25 or $30 of if I did a lot of leg work.

You’re making a lot of assumptions here in your thinking. The first one is that you can just randomly turn around and sell that record for $1300. Hitting those peaks usually only happens with in person sales or amongst collectors who know each other well. It’s incredibly expensive to get to that point and requires thousands of hours of work. For a normal person without extensive contacts, it’s still a lot of leg work for a fraction of that price. That might yield maybe $30 an hour.

Some people value their time higher than that; it’s really not that deep.

[jmalicki]

It's called the fallacy of sunk costs.

[thaumasiotes]

He 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.

[NikolaNovak]

Mathematically 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 :).

[jorvi]

Usually you give your friends a friendly discount because it saves the hassle from advertising, packing, etc. and also your friends return the favor.

But I would never sell something expensive to a friend, period. There be dragons.

[ssl-3]

Even giving things to friends can invoke dragons.

If I want a thing gone, for whatever reason I want that to happen, then I want it gone. I never want to see it again.

When I get rid of a thing with eBay or Craigslist or FB Marketplace or whatever this decade's thing is, or with a dumpster, then it is gone from my life. It will never resurface.

But friends have a habit of bringing things back. Whether it's "Hey, remember that camera you gave me?" or "Hey, my old lady is kicking me out -- can I store some shit in your garage [like these four giant rackmount Elo touchscreens that I wouldn't let you bin two years ago]?", things given to friends have a bad habit of coming back 'round.

[dmurray]

I'd be inclined to pay more for it getting it from my friend than on a second hand marketplace. It removes the chance I'm going to be scammed, or the product isn't as described, or the seller will leave me a bad review.

On the other hand, I wouldn't ask my friend to pay more if selling, so maybe a par price is fair.

[JKCalhoun]

You hit all the salient points.

[throw0101a]

> 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]

If 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.)

[jerf]

"Buy for $x, have and not sell for $x, same mathematically."

Sort of. People are being less irrational than it sounds if you account for transaction costs. There's a lot of stuff I might "sell" if I could point a video-game-like pointer at it and right click and hit "sell", and it just instantly disappeared and money was credited to my bank account. Perhaps even more if buying was just as easy and I didn't need to hang on to something like my drill which I don't use very often and I could trivially "rent" it from the market by buying, using it, and selling in mere minutes.

But in practice one-off selling for anything less than $100 or so is a waste of time because there are significant transaction costs for one-off events like that.

[pbhjpbhj]

Yes, 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]

If 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.

[prmoustache]

The 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

[prollings]

Why? 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.

[JKCalhoun]

I have no idea, have not looked into the value of my record collection.

An easy end to that line of reasoning for me.

[embedding-shape]

> 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]

What 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.

[iainmerrick]

Even if you think in purely transactional terms like "asset currently worth $1300", what's wrong with holding onto an asset? Especially one that's likely to appreciate, not depreciate, as long as you look after it carefully.

And in the meantime, you get to enjoy owning it.

[axus]

This is the psychological basis of capitalism: we enjoy owning things.

[hidroto]

all right let me buy one of your kidneys, after all you only need one.

[mrweasel]

The logic is a little broken for me... If he really wanted the record, and got it for $2, why would he then sell it and then not have it? Replacing it would cost at least $1300.

You're logic is why so much in this world if fucking broken. Everything is a grift, a hustle, an opportunity for profit.

[NikolaNovak]

People are getting angry at the math here. I'm Not the OP and have no moral judgement here, but from strict bank account balance perspective it's the same. Persuade me otherwise through addition and subtraction, not moral appeals.

1. I have 10,000 in my bank account. 2. I see a 1,300 record I like 3. I buy it 4. My bank account now has 8700 5. There's 1,300 difference if I choose to buy it or not

1. I have 10,000 in my bank account 2. I have a 1,300 record 3. If I sell it my bank account will have 11,300 4. 1,300 difference if I choose to sell it or not

No "end of the world, this is what's wrong with everybody" gross hyperboles please, I don't care one iota about whether anybody buys or sells expensive records, I don't make any moral judgement whatsoever and would appreciate people in turn not making extreme assumptions about what I think about expensive records. But economically, buying an expensive item or selling expensive item is the same - Prove it wrong with numbers not appeals to emotion please.

[mrweasel]

> Prove it wrong with numbers not appeals to emotion please

But my point is that I don't care about the numbers. If fact my complaint was that it was made into a financial decision, just because the record happens to be worth $1300.

If it was a $10 record, bought used at $2, then few would argue that you should sell it and make $8. My argument is that it doesn't matter if you could make $8 or $1298, not if you enjoy the record and wish keep it. It's the defaulting to "You could make money" in so many of aspects of life that's starting to annoy me.

[Dylan16807]

It's fine if you want to own and use an expensive thing.

The argument is not "you could make money", the argument is that if you got the expensive thing for free and choose not to sell then you're roughly as "insane" as the person that paid full price. Go ahead and splurge but try not to be a hypocrite about it. It's not lmm that was passing judgement, it was the person that owns the record passing judgement.

[NikolaNovak]

The thread started with calling those who buy a record at 1300, and I quote, insane. Argument was made that keeping a 1300 record is equally insane or not. That is the discussion here. It started about whether 1300 was sane or not. It was not turned into that discussion by people who hussle.

It is a massive massive massive privilege of us here to even ponder keeping a record we bought for 2 which could be sold for 1300. For a lot of other population this would be not even an argument.

Again, I don't actually care, but I do believe that mathematically, if one starts with assumption / claim that buying a 1300 record is insane, not selling it is equally insane (or not;). Crux of my argument is that two sides of that equation are equal, not whether we should consider that equation or not. I find it dishonest to make one side of the claim, but go all "modern culture is all about hussle!" When pointing the equivalence of the other side of the claim.

[Jach]

You are assuming symmetries where there are none. I want a thing, discover it's readily available for $1300, that seems insane, so I don't buy it. By chance I acquire the thing from a source that was unaware of its fair market value for $2, amazing deal. I have the thing without having to pay an insane price, I am happy. Now here comes an insane person who wants it enough to offer me $1300. Both parties must benefit from an exchange for there to be a transaction, but the benefit is always subjective to them, depends on public and private information, there's no symmetry in buying/selling, and the equations have inequalities rather than equal signs. Now if the offer is sufficiently higher than $1300, or I know I can find the thing again for sufficiently less, or I find myself in need of the $1298 unrealized gain for other things, then sure, it becomes insane to not sell, but absent such factors refusing a fair market offer at a price you wouldn't ever entertain paying yourself is not insane. Additionally, prices aren't static, platonic things. If someone is insane enough to offer $1300, perhaps they are insane enough to offer $2600 in a year, I will be enjoying the thing in the meantime.

[dash2]

Turns out HN users have the Endowment Effect…

[jmalicki]

And are crazy defensive at pretending it is somehow rational!

[econrebuttal1]

friction and transaction costs exists in our world which are absolutely factors that would delineate the economic utility of purchasing a new luxury item from selling an already owned luxury item.

Spend $2. Receive album worth $1000. Make $300 an hour at job. Have no immediate use case for $1000 in cash. Have somewhat immediate want for music on that album.

Time to sell album with high quality images/ description, deal with questions from discerning buyers (tire-kickers), post the album: 4 hours

Opportunity cost- $1,200 Sale value - $1000 Replacement album cost - $20

Deciding to sell would put this hypothetical guy down $220 vs just listening to his cool, potential appreciating album and working for the same amount of time.

[happyraul]

I don't think it's useful to account for time spent outside of work by the same hourly income as a way to measure how much something costs. By that logic, spending an hour listening would also "cost" $300.

[kube-system]

This calculation is faulty because neglects all of the intangible value.

The reason anyone buys anything other than the minimum clothing, food, and shelter for mere survival is because of intangible value.

Any time you see someone who is not opting to optimize tangible value, it is likely that you are simply failing to observe some intangible value.

> Prove it wrong with numbers not appeals to emotion please.

This is a false dichotomy. Intangible value is not some fallacious appeal to emotion -- it is a real thing that economists overwhelmingly agree exists, but also recognize is difficult to put a number on.