Re: [Leica] price gouging/economics etc.

["Jack Herron" <jherron@theriver.com>]

Nathan,
    A few short comments, mostly agreement, interspersed below.
Jack Herron
8118 E. 20th St.
Tucson, AZ 85710
520 885-6933
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Wajsman (private)" <nathanw@bluewin.ch>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 3:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] price gouging/economics etc.


> Jack,
>
> First of all, I did not perceive in the slightest that your initial
> reply was a personal attack, so no need to apologize on your part. It
> ought to be possible to have a civilized debate on the LUG and I believe
> that you and I are showing that with our exchanges on this topic.
>

I am gratified to hear that.

> The concept of "fair" prices is, as we agree, impossible to define. In
> the water-for-hurrican victims example, all reasonable people would
> agree that $20/gallon is immoral and constitutes price gouging. How much
> lower the price needs to be for it to become "fair" is impossible to
> define a priori. It is a bit like the pornography definition, you know
> it when you see it.
>
Very well put!

> However, my point is that the whole issue of fair pricing and morality
> is simply meaningless when we talk about Leicas and associated
> accessories. We are not talking about necessities of life by any stretch
> of the imagination here. We are talking about a luxury item, and the
> only guide to whether the price in some sense is correct or not is
> whether supply and demand are balanced at that price. Therefore, I find
> it impossible to call Leica a price gouger--the concept simply has no
> applicability here. They try to set prices that will maximize profits,
> period. That is the prerogative of every business, even Tom's. In this
> respect, I do not believe that there is a fundamental difference between
> Tom and Leica. Sure, the cost structures are different, the size is
> different and so on, but in the final analysis both of them provide a
> product into the market and both must cover their costs and make a
> profit in order to stay in business in the long run.

All correct, and academically accurate.  I sense that we simply disagree on
this and I am comfortable with that.  My motivations are not yours, and so
it is natural that our opinions are likely to be different.  I do not,
however, believe that Leica buyers make decisions based on classroom
economics.  I think that most such decisions are based on emotion more than
logic.  Certainly no-one can defend a Leica purchase as "cost effective".
Since, by my definition ;), this whole field is emotion driven, the question
of whether Leica is a price-gouger drops into the pornography definition you
gave above.  I know it when I see it!
>
> As for ticket scalping, it is illegal in some jurisdictions and legal in
> others, so I find it difficult to use the law as a guide to what is
> moral and what is not. Also, the law permits many activities which I as
> a human being consider immoral, so again, it is a poor guide to morality.
>
Again, well put.  At best, the law is an indicator of such, and nothing
more.  It reminds me of what one wag said about the Dow-Jones.  "It has
successfully predicted 5 out of the last 3 recessions!"  Perhaps the law's
moral record reflects similiar statistics!

Thanks for the interesting correspondence!
Keep snapping that shutter!
Best wishes,
Jack
> Kind regards,
> Nathan
>
>
> --
> Nathan Wajsman
> Herrliberg (ZH), Switzerland
>
> e-mail: nathanw@bluewin.ch
> mobile: +41 78 732 1430
>
> Photo-A-Week: http://www.wajsman.com/indexpaw2003.htm
> General photo site: http://www.wajsman.com/index.htm
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html