a tiny rant/question on selling Mosaics for profit

[AllenLowe]

he can reissue them from Tahiti - public domain there is about 3 days -

[Randy Twizzle]

and by the way, I did check under this guy's bed - he's got 235 copies of Nat Cole there -

[Ron S]

regardless of supply and demand. It has nothing to do with demand, it has only to do with what the seller wants to make and what some crazy person is willing to pay.

But that IS supply and demand (at least, that's what they taught us at the Wharton School ).

OK, it's official--we can now trot out THIS thing:

[AmirBagachelles]

I didn't realize the Nat Cole set was so rare. Is it possible I saw it at Barnes & Noble or somewhere at retail about a year or two after it came out? I am sure I saw it in stores, however briefly.

[AllenLowe]

supply and demand is the general description of what we're talking about - THE LAW of supply and demand says that supply and demand acts according to certain laws - like supply high, demand high, price low - which is BS when you look at oil and gas prices - you are confusing the concept of supply and demand with the law of supply and demand -

[AllenLowe]

From the web:

"The Law of Demand: quantity demanded in inversely proportional to price.

Simply put, the higher the price, the lower the demand and the lower the price, the higher the demand. "

so - look at oil - cold winter - plenty of oil - at a HIGH price - and, what do you know, there's plenty of demand - kind of makes you think there's something out of wack with the law of supply and demand - because there are certain things it does not take into account - like Nat's solo on Body and Soul, which is one of the most perfect things I've ever heard - and which many people may never hear because of the butcheries of late-dynasty capitalism -

very truly yours,

Allen Lowe

Edited February 9, 2005 by AllenLowe

[Ron S]

Allen,

To what I'm sure will be the jubilation of the rest of the Board, I've decided to concede the debate.

Besides, how can ANYONE argue with the music of Nat "King" Cole.

[AllenLowe]

now wait a minute - I can't aggree with that -

[Brad]

Allen,

Are you sure you're not the one selling that Cole Mosaic . I don't claim to be the world's brightest bulb but when you say "the higher the price, the lower the demand and the lower the price, the higher the demand" doesn't that assume that you have that commodity in plentiful demand. This is not the case, it's a relatively rare item. So isn't it the higher the demand together with its scarcity equal a higher price?

I too will follow the path of Ron S. and retire, to everybody's relief.

[Ron S]

now wait a minute - I can't aggree with that -

[PHILLYQ]

wait - supply and demand says that when supply is low and demand high, prices will go up - "what the market will bear" means that people charge as much as they like, even if the demand is high and the SUPPLY is high - that is contrary to the law, which says if demand is high and supply high prices will go down or at least stay even - hence gasoline and oil where prices have gone up and up even as supplies have been steady - so the market does not really necessarily observe supply and demand -

However, China has greatly increased its industrial capacity, leading to higher demand. Coupled with OPEC's near monopoly on oil supplies and refusal to pump more oil, higher demand + static supply= higher prices.

I posted before I read of the retirements and I will now retire the economics talk myself.

Edited February 10, 2005 by PHILLYQ

[Sundog]

I say if you can't beat em' join them. I have a number of spare Mosaics for a rainy day. I consider them more as trading material for the future rather than profit makers.

[Alexander]

  As a future Social Studies teacher, I understand the law of supply and demand and recognize the inevitability (under this system) as such.  But, like the man says, understanding it doesn't mean I have to like it.

Yes, but will you teach it, or do some re-educating, I mean, teaching alternative theories?

Oh, I do plan to present alternative theories, such as Socialism. The students are free to subscribe to whatever theories please them most.

[Edward]

From the web:

"The Law of Demand: quantity demanded in inversely proportional to price.

Simply put, the higher the price, the lower the demand and the lower the price, the higher the demand. "

so - look at oil - cold winter - plenty of oil - at a HIGH price - and, what do you know, there's plenty of demand - kind of makes you think there's something out of wack with the law of supply and demand - because there are certain things it does not take into account - like Nat's solo on Body and Soul, which is one of the most perfect things I've ever heard - and which many people may never hear because of the butcheries of late-dynasty capitalism -

very truly yours,

Allen Lowe

I think that you missed Ron's earlier point about elasticity of demand. The demand for oil is fairly inelastic since it has few substitutes. My hat's off to you, though, for arguing about basic economic principles with somebody who earned an economics degree from Wharton.

I agree with Dmitry's assessment below:

I think most Mosaics don't sell to their 100% capacity, i.e. 5,000 or 7,000 or whatever # of copies. In many cases their licensing agreements run out before they get to even print most of them.

So the contention that someone who buys one or more Mosaics to resell them later on is depriving someone else is kind of absurd.

Some people (not necessarily anyone participating in this thread) appear to have some fanciful notion that no one should have to pay much more than original list price for a Mosaic, no matter how long it has been OOP. I recall someone once visiting the old BNBB seeking advice about how to best dispose of numerous Mosaic sets left to his mother by his father. Despite his revelation that his mother had few assets, many board members were urging him to sell the sets at "reasonable" prices. Unbelievable - I really wish that I had said something. There was a moral responsiblity there, but it was for the son to fetch the highest price possible for those Mosaics.

Edited February 10, 2005 by Edward

[AllenLowe]

all right, I'll leave the economics to the college boys - the somewhat ironic thing in all of this is that I don't own a single Mosiaic - nothing against the label, I just have a mild aversion to boxed sets, and have tended to own most of what they offer in other formats that I purchased earlier. Nothing against the label, as I said, and I knew Charlie Lourie, who was a sweetheart of a guy.

Edited February 10, 2005 by AllenLowe

[Dan Gould]

all right, I'll leave the economics to the college boys - the somewhat ironic thing in all of this is that I don't own a single Mosiaic - nothing against the label, I just have a mild aversion to boxed sets, and have tended to own most of what they offer in other formats that I purchased earlier. Nothing against the label, as I said, and I knew Charlie Lourie, who was a sweetheart of a guy.

So we still have a deal for $4?

[Rooster_Ties]

...the rule is not supply and demand but whatever the market will bear.

Allan,

If I might ask you a serious question. In cases where supply is truly limited (as in the case of a particular out-of-print Mosaic, where there may have been up to as many as only 7,500 issues available in the marketplace), how would you suggest limiting the "market price" to a price you feel is more reasonable???

Let's take a hypothetical Mosaic set, with 5 discs, the original price of which was $80 ($16 per disc). Let's say five years after the set goes out of print, the average price on eBay is roughly $250 (or about $50 per disc). And let's say that prices elsewhere in the marketplace (from knowledgeable sellers) range anywhere from $200 to $300 (or $40 to $60 per disc).

I'm assuming that you think that these prices are unreasonable, and not at all "fair".

What steps or rules would you introduce into the system so as to limit the price to something you think would be more fair??? For example, say a maximum of $25 per disc, or a total of $125 in the case of this particular set. (I'm assuming you would think that's "more fair". Or suggest an alternate price point.)

How would you fairly limit the price in the open marketplace???

Allan, I understand you find it an outrage that Mosaics (and other limited commodities) rise in price, sometimes to outrageous levels (as compared to their original prices). Translate that outrage into a proposed "real world" solution, but one that is fair to all parties --- the original copyright holder, sellers, all potential buyers, and actual buyers.

Eagerly awaiting your response.

Edited February 10, 2005 by Rooster_Ties

[John L]

The argument here is not about the validity of supply and demand in determining the price. That is beyond dispute. The question concerns only the factors that are behind the supply and demand curves.

1) The first question that Allen raises concerns competition. Yes, it is generally the case that competition will increase supply in most markets, as monopolists (or sellers with market power) would like to limit supply in order to generate a higher market price. That does not violate the idea of a supply curve. It simply changes the nature of the supply curve, creating a curve where somewhat less supply is offered for a given price. How much less supply will depend on an assessment of how demand responds to price (the elasticity of demand, as discussed above). If demand is very sensitive to price (is very elastic), a monopolist will want to supply less, as supplying more will drive the market price down faster than the additional revenues that can be gained by selling more items. (Of course, special discounts and sales to groups people willing to pay only less are used by businesses to get around that problem somewhat.)

2) The second of Allen's questions concerns energy prices. Yes, supply has not gone done. It has increased, and so has the price: reason? Demand is higher. New demand from China and Asia has shifted the demand curve outward, meaning that the market is willing to pay a higher price for the same amount. Suppliers are meeting this higher demand, but at a higher price and higher costs.

3) The case of OOP Mosaic sets is a special one, as the supply is fixed. Certainly, a greedy seller with 240 under his bed would like to hide them and sell them off one at a time at auctions, getting the maximum that any buyer is willing to pay at each auction. As some posters have commented, the primary question is what to do about it? Forbidding their sale and forcing the seller to keep them under his bed is not going to make anyone better off.

4) Copyright laws. It was noted that they limit markets. Actually, more often, they create markets. Without copyright laws, there would be no Mosaics, period.

5) Nat's solo on Body and Soul. Now there is the problem! That is what is driving the market price up so high. There ought to be a law against solos that jack up prices!

Edited February 10, 2005 by John L

[Ron S]

Obviously, this calls for the creation of a new government agency: FMRC (Federal Mosaic Regulatory Commission)--maybe in the Department of Homeland Security? If we're lucky, the Commission will quickly expand it's regulatory jurisdiction to include other non-Mosaic OP box sets and, if we're REAL lucky, even box sets still in print!

[Jim Alfredson]

I can summarize this thread in two words: Boo Hoo.

[AllenLowe]

well, now my head is spinning, and that's not a pretty sight - when it comes to energy prices, I will say, if you think it has anything to do with the market and supply and demand than you haven't lived through the last 40 years of oil company lies and profiteering - basically what happens is that the companies (which control ALL ends of the market - it's called vertical integration) invent fake shortages, wait until the prices go up and stay stable, and than say, good, supplies are fine. We can argue this all night and day, but that's the reality. Now, saying that all of this price gouging is inevitable and that there's no solution except natural market selection is like saying, well, crime is inevitable, you just have to let it play out in nature's natural way - B.S., I say. Do we let people rob liquor stores just because shit happerns and it's hard to prevent? No, we pass laws and we regulate. Now, with Mosaic it would be impossible to regulate; it can't be done and it would entail the klind of repressive laws that you and I do not enjoy. So what's left? Buyer rationality; personal ethics. Live by your word. I do - I sell things and I charge a fair price for them and I don't gouge no matter how desparate people are for them (and I think this is confirmed by my recent dealings withpeople on this site). Sell things for whatever you want; get a fair profit; but don't delude yourself into thinking that, in the big world, things run by the rules of economics 101 -

[Ron S]

well, now my head is spinning, and that's not  a pretty sight

That's it! Time to call:

[John L]

well, now my head is spinning, and that's not a pretty sight - when it comes to energy prices, I will say, if you think it has anything to do with the market and supply and demand than you haven't lived through the last 40 years of oil company lies and profiteering - basically what happens is that the companies (which control ALL ends of the market - it's called vertical integration) invent fake shortages, wait until the prices go up and stay stable, and than say, good, supplies are fine. We can argue this all night and day, but that's the reality.

Allen: Nobody here is questioning the fact that greedy oil companies are looking for ways to manipulte the market and sell at higher prices. The only point that some of us are making is that this is not inconsistent with the market or supply and demand.

[AllenLowe]

I understand, but I think that what the oil companies do does not conform with those laws - it subverts, inverts, and perverts them - we'll have to pull John Kenneth Galbreath in here -

Edited February 10, 2005 by AllenLowe

[AllenLowe]

your mother sows socks that smell -