[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.

[NikolaNovak]

>> You are assuming symmetries where there are none

That's the Crux of the conversation here, with two differing perspectives. I'm not assuming it, I'm putting my perspective forward. and asking either clear disproof or acknowledgement of two perspectives.

My perspective to be clear :

If I buy a thing for $2, somebody offers me $1,300 for it, and it is not worth $1,300 to me, I will likely sell it; or I will acknowledge that it's clearly worth 1,300 to me and not call others who buy it for 1,300 insane :).

(This is the opposite of claiming there is no sentimental value. This is acknowledging that somethings absolutely have sentimental value to me and others are more utility based).

[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.