Community Chat

[Northray]

So reading the Martha Stewart thread about the crazy expensive ham made me think about my professor of economic's theory that we have a moral duty to fight high pricing of merchandise.  He believes that if we all accept over the top prices for merchandise, even if we can afford it, then we send a message to the retail community that it's okay to overcharge the public for whatever they are selling thus keeping the poor from ever being able to buy some quilty things.  I have a sinus cold right now and I'm not wording it right I'm sure but what do you think - agree, disagree? 

[Laura14]

The problem is everyone's pricing threshold is different.  What you would pay good money for, someone else wouldn't give more than two red cents.  

[JBKO]

Agree. I always say that you can't let them get away with thinking it's ok to charge such outrageous prices. I think it's ok to buy expensive but not overpriced. Those are two different things. Mason Pearson hairbrushes always come to mind. They are very expensive, but the quality will last you for years actually making it quite affordable. 

[deepwaterdotter]

I did my part by not buying the Martha Stewart ham.

[makena]

I agree but it would never happen.  I think the only way it would have an affect is if we were all poor.  It's a nice thought though. 

[cherry]

I don't try to spend other peoples money for them, nor tell them how to live

The actress Ruth Gordon, once said, I'm an old broad ,and I have been alive a long time. In all of my years of living, no one ever said ,whoopee , we are so lucky to be living now ,when everything is so cheap! Everything has always been expensive, and it's always going to be expensive.

[chickenbutt]

Again, as I expressed in the aforementioned thread, the market determines the value.   I guess it was not clear, but dsthe point is - if people, or at least enough people, will pay the price, then the retailer will charge the price.

I'm not saying any given price seems fair (it's highly subjective as already mentioned), but if people will pay it, people will charge it.

I also did my part by not paying because, for me, it's too high a price.  We all do our own parts in how things are valued and clearly, to enough people, that is a price they are wiling to pay.

There are levels.  For example, probably nobody feels like the prices that that creepy, vile pharma dude put on the meds in the company he bought were anywhere near fair, not to mention affordable for most.  Now, THAT is a gouge!   

The prices on tv shopping channels, or whatever reasonable given retailer, are what enough people are willing to pay in order for them to have a profit.  So - they charge it and people pay it.  That's the way it works.

If nobody would pay, the item would be devalued accordingly.

[Ketra]

@Northray For your professor’s theory to work, people would have to have similar moral values. Thinking of what’s best for the collective and not just what’s best for one’s self would be one if those values. 

[AuntG]

It's hard to speak for others, but I buy what fits my needs and budget. When Aldi's sells hams that get great reviews, I'll buy from them and save a lot of dollars. The problem with QVC foods is that the reviews are all over the place - I expect to see some consistency when I read reviews and that is rare with their food.

[jackthebear]

---

@Northraywrote:

So reading the Martha Stewart thread about the crazy expensive ham made me think about my professor of economic's theory that we have a moral duty to fight high pricing of merchandise.  He believes that if we all accept over the top prices for merchandise, even if we can afford it, then we send a message to the retail community that it's okay to overcharge the public for whatever they are selling thus keeping the poor from ever being able to buy some quilty things.  I have a sinus cold right now and I'm not wording it right I'm sure but what do you think - agree, disagree? 

---

professor's view is very sanctimonious,