[Joey_V]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightWoundsTime yeah but you try your space age materials that aren't old wood or leather and test the sound properties of them. I'll take old wood any day.

Agreed.

 

[erikzen]

I'd be happy with just the chair.

 

[Len]

Hehe. His furniture are the things I find most lacking. If you can spend half a million on audio gear, you can afford nicer furniture. A nice lounge chair by Eames or Paulin would great increase my enjoyment of the room

The man knows his audio gear, but fine furniture is another story

 

[Joey_V]

I'm looking for a similar chair at IKEA, I hope to find a good one so I can sit back and listen to my Martin Logans in style.

 

[Twombly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey_V Markl, I completely agree. Twombly's naive belief that people who are wealthy shouldnt display their wealth on their terms since displaying it would be a pompous act doesnt make sense both logically and financially. This is why our country runs on a capitalistic economy - so those of us who work hard and are given a stroke of luck can be rewarded very well materialistically. To assume that one is a dick for acquiring such materials is not only presumptuous on your part, Twombly, but also defeats the purpose of what runs this country financially.

A capitalist economy runs on the principle that companies who consistently produce a better product at a better value receive more business and thus have more capital to keep innovating and putting out good products. Paying $20,000 dollars for an item whose production costs are likely half that and moreover, whose usefulness is highly dubious is not good capitalism. You're rewarding the taking of huge profit margins and nothing more. The same applies to clothing, cars, and nearly every product you can think of.

At least you can drive a Ferrari on the track.

 

[hifiguy]

Really beautiful woodwork in the room and on the gear. Lucky fellow has the wherewithal to make it happen. I hope he really likes music. It would be a shame for all that effort and money to be wasted on a status seeker.

 

[markl]

Nonsense. Capitalism is about the free market. In a free market, any item gets sold for what the *market* determines its value is, regardless of cost. How much did it cost Rembrandt to create one of his paintings? Surely not the $10 million they sell for today. Capitalism is also about letting hard-working individuals enjoy the fruits of their labor. Anyone with a problem with that is surely in the wrong country!

Free market assigns value to goods, deal with it. If those cables weren't worth the asking price to their target market, those companies will quickly go out of business, the market will correct itself. No one forced him to buy the gear in that room. It was his choice. If he wanted $200 bookshelf speakers, he could have those, too. Apparently, he prefers the more expensive stuff.

 

[Len]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twombly A capitalist economy runs on the principle that companies who consistently produce a better product at a better value receive more business and thus have more capital to keep innovating and putting out good products. Paying $20,000 dollars for an item whose production costs are likely half that and moreover, whose usefulness is highly dubious is not good capitalism. You're rewarding the taking of huge profit margins and nothing more. The same applies to clothing, cars, and nearly every product you can think of.

Incorrect. You (and joey_v) are asserting your own personal interpretations for the definition of capitalism. Capitalism, simply put, is "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market." It is mutually exclusive to the concepts of quality, value, and utility. I do not know what "good capitalism" means.

At its core, capitalism is merely a free market economy based the macroeconomics of supply and demand. Supply and demand is far more complicated then the sum of value, quality, and competition. FWIW, no modern governing society I am aware of is a pure capitalistic system.

 

[Twombly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Len Incorrect. You (and joey_v) are asserting your own personal interpretations for the definition of capitalism. Capitalism, simply put, is "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market." It is mutually exclusive to the concepts of quality, value, and utility. I do not know what "good capitalism" means. At its core, capitalism is merely a free market economy based the macroeconomics of supply and demand. Supply and demand is far more complicated then the sum of value, quality, and competition. FWIW, no modern governing society I am aware of is a pure capitalistic system.

Whether or not my assertions fit the canonical definitions of capitalism is moot. Rewarding grossly inflated pricing is being a bad consumer.

 

[Len]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twombly Whether or not my assertions fit the canonical definitions of capitalism is moot. Rewarding grossly inflated pricing is being a bad consumer.

You're merely espousing your personal value and ethic system. That's fine, but it has nothing to do with what capitalism is about. There is no such thing as a bad consumer.

 

[Twombly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Len You're merely espousing your personal value and ethic system. That's fine, but it has nothing to do with what capitalism is about. There is no such thing as a bad consumer.

Nothing to do with ethics. Paying extra for the same product is only hurting yourself and other people.

 

[Len]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twombly Nothing to do with ethics. Paying extra for the same product is only hurting yourself and other people.

You'll have to define "hurt." I have a strong suspecision your definition will encompass ideas pertaining to socialism (as well as ethics and your value system), in which case our discussion would diverge on a whole new direction.

 

[markl]

If the guy spending the bucks on those big cables feels ripped off, he has hurt himself, and he will return them, sell them or trash them, and tell others they are over-priced junk. Word will spread. The company that sold them to him will quickly go out of business. The system corrects itself. The fact that these hi-end audio companies have existed since the dawn of audio is an indicator that many customers do not find their products to be a waste of money.

Also in this case, he has not "hurt" anyone else by his purchase. How are you "hurt" by how much someone spends on a bottle of wine? A car? A house? A painting? It doesn't affect you in any way.

I think the "hurt" derrives from plain old envy, plain and simple. And frankly, that's your problem, not his.

 

[Twombly]

Buy it at a ridiculous premium (which by the way has nothing to do with cost of materials, unless copper suddenly increased in price tenfold while i wasn't looking) and companies will continue to sell it to you at that price. Don't you want to buy your products with profit margins kept to a reasonable level? As in no more than 100% of the product's cost of manufacture?

 

[markl]

I want the free market to determine the costs of goods and services, not some goverment agency. If these goods weren't worth the price being asked for them, the price would go down.