[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.)

[throw0101a]

> 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.

If a stranger walks up to you and asks for $100, you're unlikely to give it to him. If a friend does, there's a more likely probability that you will consider the request.

And depending on the relationship, you may expect for the money to be paid back (eventually), or you may not (considering it a gift). (Often the advice is to consider "loans" to family and friends as gifts in practice, as otherwise the expectation of repayment may sour the relationship.)

[Dylan16807]

Sure you'll consider it. The point is you could say yes or no without being a bad friend if their reason for the money is "friendship I guess? *shrug*".

I don't know why so many people are acting like I said a "no" is the only acceptable answer.

[NikolaNovak]

That's the thing. This was a $3000 camera. A 20% friends discount is 600. We've been best friends for two decades, but most days he doesn't give me $600 on cash. Don't get me wrong, we don't keep track who paid for dinner or cinema ticket or whatever. But there IS a threshold at which it really becomes a random cash gift.

Yes dealing with friends is nicer than strangers - but also when you're selling stuff, sometimes it's better to do strangers. Expectations of long term service and support are clearer and have more defined boundaries.

[throw0101a]

> But there IS a threshold at which it really becomes a random cash gift.

Not wrong, but it is also possible that the $600 'cash equivalent' discount would be considered a birthday or Christmas present, or a form of 'repayment' for the time he helped you out with the Thing with the Guy in the Place. (“I'd never been to Belize.”)

[soulofmischief]

I guess friendship means different things to different people. I've had friends spot me plenty more than $600 and I've spent thousands on friends in return. I can't imagine having such an indifferent attitude towards someone I care about.

[Dylan16807]

"Spot you" implies you actually had a level of need for the money.

Declining to give you $600 out of the blue because you'd rather have more money is not being indifferent.

[soulofmischief]

It can imply that, but it can imply other things too and you shouldn't draw conclusions from one interpretation. You've never just paid for a friend's dinner or ticket?

Perhaps this is a cultural thing. I routinely buy gifts for friends, pay for their meals, travel and vice versa. Having more money is not some supreme objective that is more important than the people around you. Money is just a tool for enjoying life. I come from an impoverished and deprived background, spent years homeless since I was a teenager, and I still recognize that putting money before friends is a scarcity mindset.

[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.