Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hella_Tellah" data-source="post: 3897189" data-attributes="member: 52669">Aww, be fair.&nbsp; If economic theory didn't apply to discretionary spending, we'd have no need for marketing departments!Treebore's argument isn't invalid at all; he's not wrong to apply the theory of marginal value to a good that people don't need.&nbsp; Just because something doesn't have an inelastic demand (like food, a need) doesn't mean economic theory doesn't apply.&nbsp; It's completely reasonable to ask if a product will make you $120 happier--that's the only reasonable way to examine any purchase.&nbsp; It's an impressive feat of marketing that companies can cause us to lose sight of this and purchase something &quot;just because we want it.&quot;&nbsp; Rational actors in an economy ask, &quot;Will this product make me happier than any other possible use of the same amount of money?&quot;It is, however, a fallacy of reasoning to consider money spent on 3rd Edition books when contemplating buying 4th Edition books.&nbsp; The money is already spent, and you can only recover that investment by reselling the books.&nbsp; It's a &quot;sunk cost,&quot; and doesn't factor into future purchases.&nbsp; It's irrelevant that you may have spent $5,000 on 3rd Edition products.&nbsp; The only question at hand is whether spending $120 on 4th Edition will make you happier than any other possible use of $120.&nbsp; You're right to ridicule arguments that take investment on 3e products into account.As an aside, a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_good" target="_blank">luxury good</a> is a good for which demand increases with increased discretionary income.&nbsp; I'd say D&amp;D books are more of a normal good, since there's a decreased marginal value to increased spending on D&amp;D books.&nbsp; If they were really luxury goods, like a Lexus or jewelry, there'd be no theoretical limit to the amount you might spend on them, given unlimited income.(Props to my Microecon profs.&nbsp; Keep them dollas real!)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hella_Tellah, post: 3897189, member: 52669"] Aww, be fair. If economic theory didn't apply to discretionary spending, we'd have no need for marketing departments! Treebore's argument isn't invalid at all; he's not wrong to apply the theory of marginal value to a good that people don't [I]need[/I]. Just because something doesn't have an inelastic demand (like food, a need) doesn't mean economic theory doesn't apply. It's completely reasonable to ask if a product will make you $120 happier--that's the only reasonable way to examine any purchase. It's an impressive feat of marketing that companies can cause us to lose sight of this and purchase something "just because we want it." Rational actors in an economy ask, "Will this product make me happier than any other possible use of the same amount of money?" It is, however, a fallacy of reasoning to consider money spent on 3rd Edition books when contemplating buying 4th Edition books. The money is already spent, and you can only recover that investment by reselling the books. It's a "sunk cost," and doesn't factor into future purchases. It's irrelevant that you may have spent $5,000 on 3rd Edition products. The only question at hand is whether spending $120 on 4th Edition will make you happier than any other possible use of $120. You're right to ridicule arguments that take investment on 3e products into account. As an aside, a [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_good]luxury good[/URL] is a good for which demand increases with increased discretionary income. I'd say D&D books are more of a normal good, since there's a decreased marginal value to increased spending on D&D books. If they were really luxury goods, like a Lexus or jewelry, there'd be no theoretical limit to the amount you might spend on them, given unlimited income. (Props to my Microecon profs. Keep them dollas real!) [/QUOTE]

Verification