Comment by lmm
3 days ago
> I am not insane so I did not spend $1300 on a used vinyl record, I found mine for $2 at Goodwill.
How is holding onto it instead of selling it for $1300 any less insane than buying it for $1300 in the first place?
3 days ago
> I am not insane so I did not spend $1300 on a used vinyl record, I found mine for $2 at Goodwill.
How is holding onto it instead of selling it for $1300 any less insane than buying it for $1300 in the first place?
If they don't need $1300 cash, they don't have any real reason to sell it
Who taught you this? And why do you think this way?
It's the thought process you learn by having some financial issues in life. You feel guilty for owning expensive things instead of selling them to buy other things.
I have the same problems with trading cards I own from a long time ago that are now expensive, I can keep them for sentimental reasons or sell them to put it towards some bill
OP has a valid question though.
If you think its insane to spend that amount of money on it (essentially: it's not worth that much to you), then you holding onto it instead of having $1300 is pretty much the exact same scenario? By holding onto it you're saying it is worth that much to you.
It sounds like believing you hunted down a 'deal' causes you to wildly change how you perceive value at an emotional level.
I would probably do the same thing. It's just funny to see expressed on HN where everybody complains that advertising and marketing are evil/scams and proclaims loudly how rational they are.
He wants the thing. He does not value the thing at 1300 dollars so he would not buy it for 1300 dollars. He found it for a lower value, he kept it because the point at the start was he wanted the thing.
On the topic of HN users, is it our collective first day on earth?
11 replies →
I don’t see any sign they own the original pressing which is $1300. Instead they own the 1977 remaster which apparently sounds as good as the original pressing though I don’t own the original. The 1977 remaster sells for between $5 and $50 depending on grade. I paid $3 for mine and it might be worth $25 or $30 of if I did a lot of leg work.
You’re making a lot of assumptions here in your thinking. The first one is that you can just randomly turn around and sell that record for $1300. Hitting those peaks usually only happens with in person sales or amongst collectors who know each other well. It’s incredibly expensive to get to that point and requires thousands of hours of work. For a normal person without extensive contacts, it’s still a lot of leg work for a fraction of that price. That might yield maybe $30 an hour.
Some people value their time higher than that; it’s really not that deep.
It's called the fallacy of sunk costs.
He thinks that way because it's the only correct way to think.
Try raising the value of the record and see what you think about it.
Mathematically that's absolutely true.
Emotionally, it feels different. It's fascinating to see downright angry gut reactions!
A few years ago my friend was selling his expensive camera on Kijiji. I asked him to sell it to me for slightly less as a friendly discount. He told me that's the same as just randomly one day giving me a wad of cash, so why would he do that?? I thought he's crazy and was a little bit offended. Actually maybe a fair bit offended!
It took me YEARS to realize that 1. He's absolutely completely Inarguably correct, and 2. People would find me no less crazy if I adopted same perspective.
Buy for $x, have and not sell for $x, same mathematically. But oh boy will people get instantly riled up emotionally :).
25 replies →
The fact it sold once at that price doesn't mean there is still someone willing to buy it at that price.
And he doesn't necessarili need thos $1300
Why? We know the price was $1300. Doesn't mean anyone would buy it for that much. So try lowering the number and see what you think? The value is what someone is willing to pay for it.
I have no idea, have not looked into the value of my record collection.
An easy end to that line of reasoning for me.
> He thinks that way because it's the only correct way to think.
I typed up something, but ended up almost antagonistic. I realize I just feel sad that for some people money is literally the single goal in their life, seemingly nothing else matters.
1 reply →
Even if you think in purely transactional terms like "asset currently worth $1300", what's wrong with holding onto an asset? Especially one that's likely to appreciate, not depreciate, as long as you look after it carefully.
And in the meantime, you get to enjoy owning it.
This is the psychological basis of capitalism: we enjoy owning things.
all right let me buy one of your kidneys, after all you only need one.
The logic is a little broken for me... If he really wanted the record, and got it for $2, why would he then sell it and then not have it? Replacing it would cost at least $1300.
You're logic is why so much in this world if fucking broken. Everything is a grift, a hustle, an opportunity for profit.
People are getting angry at the math here. I'm Not the OP and have no moral judgement here, but from strict bank account balance perspective it's the same. Persuade me otherwise through addition and subtraction, not moral appeals.
1. I have 10,000 in my bank account. 2. I see a 1,300 record I like 3. I buy it 4. My bank account now has 8700 5. There's 1,300 difference if I choose to buy it or not
1. I have 10,000 in my bank account 2. I have a 1,300 record 3. If I sell it my bank account will have 11,300 4. 1,300 difference if I choose to sell it or not
No "end of the world, this is what's wrong with everybody" gross hyperboles please, I don't care one iota about whether anybody buys or sells expensive records, I don't make any moral judgement whatsoever and would appreciate people in turn not making extreme assumptions about what I think about expensive records. But economically, buying an expensive item or selling expensive item is the same - Prove it wrong with numbers not appeals to emotion please.
> Prove it wrong with numbers not appeals to emotion please
But my point is that I don't care about the numbers. If fact my complaint was that it was made into a financial decision, just because the record happens to be worth $1300.
If it was a $10 record, bought used at $2, then few would argue that you should sell it and make $8. My argument is that it doesn't matter if you could make $8 or $1298, not if you enjoy the record and wish keep it. It's the defaulting to "You could make money" in so many of aspects of life that's starting to annoy me.
4 replies →
Turns out HN users have the Endowment Effect…
1 reply →
friction and transaction costs exists in our world which are absolutely factors that would delineate the economic utility of purchasing a new luxury item from selling an already owned luxury item.
Spend $2. Receive album worth $1000. Make $300 an hour at job. Have no immediate use case for $1000 in cash. Have somewhat immediate want for music on that album.
Time to sell album with high quality images/ description, deal with questions from discerning buyers (tire-kickers), post the album: 4 hours
Opportunity cost- $1,200 Sale value - $1000 Replacement album cost - $20
Deciding to sell would put this hypothetical guy down $220 vs just listening to his cool, potential appreciating album and working for the same amount of time.
1 reply →
This calculation is faulty because neglects all of the intangible value.
The reason anyone buys anything other than the minimum clothing, food, and shelter for mere survival is because of intangible value.
Any time you see someone who is not opting to optimize tangible value, it is likely that you are simply failing to observe some intangible value.
> Prove it wrong with numbers not appeals to emotion please.
This is a false dichotomy. Intangible value is not some fallacious appeal to emotion -- it is a real thing that economists overwhelmingly agree exists, but also recognize is difficult to put a number on.