19 Apr
2004
19 Apr
'04
3:16 a.m.
--- "R. D. Davis" <rdd(a)rddavis.org> wrote:
That, I'm not disputing. However, the cheaper
one
can keep prices,
the thriftier one can be with purchases---no matter
how much money one
has, and the more toys one can accumulate. Hence,
the big collectors
should like this as well, since they could have even
more toys for the
same amount of money. Who doesn't like to spend the
least amount of
money for something?
Fine but if you take that position then you can't
complain about someone who's position is "who doesn't
like to receive the most amount for something they
sell?". It two sides of the same coin, you are
basically arguing about sellers who has the same
philosophy as you do (i.e., money is more important
then anything else).
Thriftiness is a good idea, no
matter what one's
income is; it makes good economic sense.
Bullcrap, thriftiness can be bad economic sense for a
billionare who's time is worth alot of money (since
thriftiness is usually a time consuming behavior). Yes
if the billionare is buying a company, it will pay to
be thrifty, but not if he is buying pieces of a large
personal collection. It just doesn't make any sense
for a billionare to spend a week of his time to save a
hundred bucks on a collectible item when he could be
saving hundreds of thousands if he spent that time on
a bigger business transactions.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash