• Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    You contradict yourself immediately in your first sentence. It can’t be both worth 1 and 2000 at the same time. Someone willing to pay a high price does not set that price for others. We are talking about setting fair prices, not just for a single outlier.

    Your definition equates to “my wares are worth whatever I can convince someone they are worth.” Is that a fair way to set prices?

    • y0kai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Your definition equates to “my wares are worth whatever I can convince someone they are worth.” Is that a fair way to set prices?

      That actually hits the nail on the head and I believe that is a perfectly acceptable way to set prices for luxury items like a Gucci bag.

      ETA:

      It can’t be both worth 1 and 2000 at the same time.

      It can, because people value things differently. One person might not regard a single item as being worth $1 and $2,000 at the same time, but two people could. And, as long as both people exist, the guy who thinks it’s worth $2,000 is who the company is going to sell it to.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        22 minutes ago

        I understand its based on perspective, I’m saying that you can’t say an item holds a certain worth objectively. A Gucci bag is only worth 2000 if you can find someone to pay that. I think the word “worth” is doing extra work it doesnt need to.