On Wed, 1 May 2019 07:07:18 -0000 (UTC), "Arlen G. Holder"
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 22:01:00 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:

The price is usually at least based on something

We disagree philosophically, where I completely understand your assumption
that if something is more expensive, it _must_ be better.
Never said that. You totally misunderstand. Higher cost does not
mean better. Many examples of that - but when the price is lower than
it should be you pretty much know there is something wrong.
For me, if something is more expensive, it's just more expensive.
o The expense is an indication of the demand and nothing else.

For you if it is less expensive it's a better deal. For me, unless I
KNOW why it's less expensive I assume it is just CHEAP. CHEAP
generally means inferior. Inexpensive isn't ALWAYS cheap, and isn't
ALWAYS inferior - but the general rule is if it looks too good to be
true it usually is.

Demand may or may not track with quality.
In today's North America generally it doesn't. Low quality and high
demand seem to track more directly than high quality and high demand.

People seem to know all about the price of something, and nothing
about either the cost or quality.(value) - as Oscar Wilde put it " A
man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing."

Of course, if everyone were _intelligent_, the demand might better match
quality, but the mere fact that advertising works means that the demand is
influenced by bull**** marketing, which has _nothing_ to do with quality.

Bull**** marketing, as you call it, is required to sell what people
don't need. Price pretty much sells everything else

In short, my philosophy is based on fact since I'm allergic to bull****.
o You get what you get (which is whatever you can tell about what you get).
o You pay what other people pay (since the overall demand sets the price).
Yet the demand for cheap crap drives the North American economy -
not the demand for high quality