The value of $30 is not impossible as one can argue that the other contents of the theme deck have a negative value.
No, the theme deck is just being sold under the market equibrium with excess demand inflating the prices of the cards. The other contents don't have a negative value.
No, the theme deck is just being sold under the market equibrium with excess demand inflating the prices of the cards. The other contents don't have a negative value.
That's incorrect. Obviously, for these items to somehow surface on eBay, their supply is adequate. More like a deficit of product knowledge with a massive surplus of corrupt sellers.
Negative value doesn't inflate 0 to 30. Unless the customer was extremely infatuated with [insert card here], there's no way to justify negative value from a playability or collectible perspective (and I'm not sure that there's anything else)
One can argue that the other contents have a negative value as a means of justifying the $30 valuation of that single card. Its a viable defense.No, the theme deck is just being sold under the market equibrium with excess demand inflating the prices of the cards. The other contents don't have a negative value.
One can argue that the other contents have a negative value as a means of justifying the $30 valuation of that single card. Its a viable defense.
Regardless of there being enough supply, people are still happy to pay more money for the cards. People are making big profits by reselling these. I don't agree with the deficit of knowledge, but with that demand is inflated more than it should be because of that. If everyone knew about these cards and there would no corrupt sellers, $10 may work, but currently people are buying the cards off those sellers because they don't realise.
Huh?
Here's a simple check if supply is adequate: if you go to your local Target and you see 20+ of these WC decks, then it is adequate. Not to mention that this topic has been all about people being ripped off thinking that these cards are legitimate, so the S/D curve that you're arguing for may very well be for the playable version of the card, not the WC edition. Also, one would assume that the marketing team of TPCi would detect a rise in demand and match it with a rise in price.
To expand on negative value: If someone is being fooled that these cards are playable, then they will most likely want the rest of the deck. If someone wants to collect 'rare' cards, then they will most likely want the rest of the deck. The only reason that the seller does this is to trick multiple people and to compound shipping while they're at it. It's much easier to hide "World Championship" edition when you're selling individual cards.
If someone was actively seeking to purchase said milk carton, and the alternative was to purchase it alongside said nuclear waste, thereby facilitating the production of further nuclear waste, then I can see the justification for a $50 valuation of said milk carton.I suspect a couple of people are trolling this topic.
They seem to be taking the position that someone should buy an empty milk carton from me for $50 because I also have some nuclear waste that I kept in it, but I've taken that out, so now the negative value of that has raised the value of the milk carton to $50.
It's about the most ridiculous argument I've even seen.
If someone was actively seeking to purchase said milk carton, and the alternative was to purchase it alongside said nuclear waste, thereby facilitating the production of further nuclear waste, then I can see the justification for a $50 valuation of said milk carton.
Suffice it to say it would take a fool to buy said milk carton at said price.
No, you wouldn't need to prove that they do. You'd need to prove that it is possible for them to. And again, no, I'm admitting that it is ridiculous to buy at that price, yet perfectly justifiable and highly profitable to sell. It's only the consumer that loses out in the end. Big deal.
Mis-representing the value of a product is not only immoral, but illegal as well.
In a free-market system, ethical advertising is essential. These are prime examples of deceptive advertising.
I invite you to browse the following FAQ page on the FTC website about truth-in-advertising:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/adv/bus35.shtm
The "bottom line" is whether the advertisement "misleads" the consumer, causing potential "material" injury to a "reasonable" consumer. Such is the case in these eBay ads.