From the Vault [Archive]

rleader

08-28-2008, 04:52 PM

So rather than the $35 that was promised for the Dragons box, SCG is scalping them at $99. Thanks Ben! Of course, Wizards may go on and print a million of them, hosing anyone who preordered for the higher price.

Then again, Hasbro might step in and say, "hey, why didn't WE think of selling them for $100?"

That's stupid, and would certainly hurt a big part of their casual market (and even tournament players who can't always use foils; I have my doubts that their new secret ingredient prevents warping), but if they're going for that much money a set, I can imagine they'd be *somewhat* more likely to reprint a Vault: Portal (sea drake, mercenary knight, cruel bargain, though probably not grim tutor) or a set with foil Force of Wills. Because they wouldn't really be undercutting the secondary market that much at that price point, once you subtract chaff cards (like dragon whelp in the current Vault set).

Any thoughts?

dahcmai

08-28-2008, 06:00 PM

Well, I do give the guy credit for being pretty close to ending prices a lot of the time. Plus, this one will sell pretty fast since it does have a few things worth getting out of it. I planned to get one just for the Foil Thunder Dragon if anything. The old one I use in a Re-animator and the old picture is pretty bad. I was happy to see a reprint of it.

Nicol Bolas looks pretty slick now also.

$99 does seem a little high though. I could see tacking on $20 if they thought it was going to be that hot.

Apex

08-28-2008, 07:40 PM

SCG prices has always been higher, compared to what people "would actually pay for" (ebay, online trades, etc).

Though $100 is really pushing it if MSRP is $35. They will seriously inflate the prices of these cards in the short run. I suggest holding off on ordering them from SCG till you can buy them from your local retailer.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-28-2008, 07:43 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

Either SCG is able to get people to buy them at 99$ or not. If they are, they're just pre-emptively solving an excess of demand. If they're not, they're the only ones getting punished for their miscalculation. Well, that and people that didn't know that there are other places in the world wide web to actually buy Magic cards at. If they stay at 99$, blame Wizards for not printing enough. Bleiweiss may be an emo tool, but that's just good business.

Phantom

08-28-2008, 07:48 PM

dahcmai

08-28-2008, 10:10 PM

If the guy is right, they will make a killing. There's one thing about bitching about people like that, you can't say much if they are quadrupling your income. They knew first while you sit on your larels.

Apex

08-28-2008, 10:48 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand.

It's not that simple.

S&D curve assumes perfect competition. However, we know that the world of Magic retailers isn't perfectly competitive. Also, I would probably look at this situation from the Demand side, since Supply should be perfectly inelastic (or close enough to) since WotC prints a set amount of these babies.

SCG however, is using the fact that they are more "well known" across the intarweb. They are making it upon themselves to set a given standard, instead of letting the world follow S&D. This happened with Strategic Planning, and it's happening here. I'm immediately seeing ebay prices with $100 after the SCG prices went up. It's not a good example of S&D, the behaviour is more like a cartel.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-29-2008, 12:13 AM

It's not that simple.

S&D curve assumes perfect competition. However, we know that the world of Magic retailers isn't perfectly competitive. Also, I would probably look at this situation from the Demand side, since Supply should be perfectly inelastic (or close enough to) since WotC prints a set amount of these babies.

SCG however, is using the fact that they are more "well known" across the intarweb. They are making it upon themselves to set a given standard, instead of letting the world follow S&D. This happened with Strategic Planning, and it's happening here. I'm immediately seeing ebay prices with $100 after the SCG prices went up. It's not a good example of S&D, the behaviour is more like a cartel.

Sellers anticipate a great demand for the product so set their prices accordingly. Where is there a cartel? Do you even know what that means? Why are you using that word in the same paragraph as e-bay? If the same people that buy SCG's products when they can get them via card shark or e-bay or findmagiccards at half the price buy FtV at an over-inflated price, my sympathy is limited.

But since supply is, as you say, limited, then the retailers have every right to regulate any high demand via price. What doesn't make sense about that? Who's being harmed?

DeathwingZERO

08-29-2008, 12:39 AM

To make this VERY simple, EBay sellers that bought as many as they could second hand or directly from Wizards during the con already had this set going for $100+ sealed. In fact, even last week they were still selling regularly for that much.

In summary, you can't blame SCG for something MANY people were willing to pay on Ebay within days after they were "officially" released. This is the truest form of S&D, especially counting that retail outlets got nowhere near as many as they ordered (the store near me, CCGHouse, for example, got 1/8 of their initial order filled).

AngryTroll

08-29-2008, 05:20 AM

The local shop has them for $60...I'll be curious to see how he does with them.

I was there tonight, and it sounded like he had someone coming in at midnight to buy one, and everyone there was fondling the one he had on the counter for people to look at.

MTG Guru

08-29-2008, 05:23 AM

DeathwingZERO

08-29-2008, 05:49 AM

I think the main reason it's hot is becuase of the little foiled out Thunder Dragon. I'm tempted to buy 4 boxes just to get a playset.

Just get the singletons from one of the sellers that was pre-selling decksets of each dragon. He might still have some auctions up.

Apex

08-29-2008, 10:59 AM

Sellers anticipate a great demand for the product so set their prices accordingly. Where is there a cartel? Do you even know what that means? Why are you using that word in the same paragraph as e-bay? If the same people that buy SCG's products when they can get them via card shark or e-bay or findmagiccards at half the price buy FtV at an over-inflated price, my sympathy is limited.

But since supply is, as you say, limited, then the retailers have every right to regulate any high demand via price. What doesn't make sense about that? Who's being harmed?

I know perfectly well what a cartel is, and if you knew what it stands for, and the model that governs the behaviours of cartels, you'd also understand what I'm talking about.

SCG offers each FTV unit at a price of $100 per (even though the MRSP is $35). They are arbitrarily setting a price for the product (doesn't matter their reasoning, even though it's pretty apparent). First of all, this doesn't happen in a perfectly competitive market, as described by the S&D model. Prices are determined by the change in demand or supply, not vice versa.

SCG can get away with this because they are more "well known", and carries a "name brand" quality to them. I know at least 3 local stores that set their prices using SCG as a guideline. This causes other retailers to have an arbitrary standard that they must meet, and if their price falls under significantly, they will be oversold, and will lose quite alot of profit to opportunity costs. Therefore, to maximize revenue, other smaller retailers (including dealers) must also set their price close to the SCG price. Therefore, this whole collection will behave much like a cartel, where a collection of suppliers behave together like a monopoly (I did mention perfectly inelastic supply, didn't I?).

I mentioned ebay, because after gen con, auctions did go up for FTV units, and the completed auction list shows that before SCG put up their price, the finished auction price for a unit was significantly lower than $100. Now many ebay auctions are around $100. SCG inflated the price in the short term, and as long as SCG exists, then a pseudo-cartel (which can basically be described with a real one) model can account for the explanations.

The people that suffer (or harmed, in your words) in the end are the consumers. Imagine if SCG put up their FTV unit for $50, then it's not likely that we will be paying $100 average for each unit.

The local shop has them for $60...I'll be curious to see how he does with them.

I was there tonight, and it sounded like he had someone coming in at midnight to buy one, and everyone there was fondling the one he had on the counter for people to look at.

Looking at ebay stats, I suggest you buy it from him now, turn it around and make a $40 profit.

Sanguine Voyeur

08-29-2008, 11:17 AM

Wow that pisses me off. I wanted to pick one of those up, but not for $100. Why the hell would they print so few? Wizards would make more if they printed more.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-29-2008, 11:31 AM

I know perfectly well what a cartel is, and if you knew what it stands for, and the model that governs the behaviours of cartels, you'd also understand what I'm talking about.

Well golly gee geepers, I guess I'm just lost in the sauce.

SCG offers each FTV unit at a price of $100 per (even though the MRSP is $35). They are arbitrarily setting a price for the product (doesn't matter their reasoning, even though it's pretty apparent). First of all, this doesn't happen in a perfectly competitive market, as described by the S&D model. Prices are determined by the change in demand or supply, not vice versa.

Yeah, in a free market you're not allowed to anticipate increased demand based upon easily perceived factors. Under penalty of torture.

SCG can get away with this because they are more "well known", and carries a "name brand" quality to them. I know at least 3 local stores that set their prices using SCG as a guideline. This causes other retailers to have an arbitrary standard that they must meet, and if their price falls under significantly, they will be oversold, and will lose quite alot of profit to opportunity costs. Therefore, to maximize revenue, other smaller retailers (including dealers) must also set their price close to the SCG price. Therefore, this whole collection will behave much like a cartel, where a collection of suppliers behave together like a monopoly (I did mention perfectly inelastic supply, didn't I?).

You did, but it still doesn't help your cause.

While speculation might temporarily raise the price of a good, it can't set the long-term price unless the demand is adequate. If 100$ is too much for a box of FtV, then they'll sit around until someone thinks to lower the price, regardless of how seriously other sellers take SCG's speculation.

I mentioned ebay, because after gen con, auctions did go up for FTV units, and the completed auction list shows that before SCG put up their price, the finished auction price for a unit was significantly lower than $100. Now many ebay auctions are around $100. SCG inflated the price in the short term, and as long as SCG exists, then a pseudo-cartel (which can basically be described with a real one) model can account for the explanations.

No, it can't. A cartel indicates a conspiracy to manipulate price. When market fucking forces act to set a higher price, that is called supply and demand.

The people that suffer (or harmed, in your words) in the end are the consumers. Imagine if SCG put up their FTV unit for $50, then it's not likely that we will be paying $100 average for each unit.

You offer no support for this. If people are willing to buy out FtV at $100, it stands to reason that they'll buy it out much faster at $50. In this scenario, the people being harmed are those who want to buy a FtV but can't because it's been sold out because it was under-priced. Given the choice between denying the product to those that are unwilling to shell out the extra fifty bucks, and breaking the natural economic law to deny it to those who just didn't show up as fast as someone else, I'd go with the former.

Apex

08-29-2008, 03:57 PM

No need to get cute, I'm here to discuss the effect that SCG had on their recent pricing of the FTV unit, not to argue pointlessly, so no need to be so aggressive with your tone.

Let us categorize our scenario, if you want to really analyze the economics. Micro or Macro? Definitely micro, so there is no need for anything long term related. We care about the price and effects in the short run, and that is all. If you want to count long term prices and effects, then there are macro economics models that govern price setting and how firms behave in the long run. I probably should have made it more clear in my post, by adding "in the short term" after every sentence, but it felt redundant, given our conversation topic.

You also have some weird notions about cartels. Cartels aren't "conspiracies", merely a group of organizations that behave in a certain way. In fact, they only come into the negative light when linked with the word "Private". Public cartels, such as OPEC, are an accepted part of the world and its economics.

I proposed a model that the current scenario can be fitted onto. You mentioned S&D, it isn't that simple. If all you learned was first year econ, then yeah, that explains absolutely everything, but go to second year and beyond, and you'll find that simple S&D (which assumes perfect competition, which pretty much NEVER happens in the real world) can't account for jack. It's a good model to introduce students to, but this is hardly a case of simple S&D.

In our current case, if SCG sets the price of 1 FTV unit @ $35 (the MRSP), then sure, prices might go up eventually, due to increase in demand and a perfectly inelastic supply, but prices would still have been increased by the changes in the marketplace, and there would have been a timeframe in which consumers could react to. It's not the same thing when a firm (not mentioning the fact that it has more sway with consumers than most other firms) decides to artificially set a price for goods. This would NEVER happen in simple S&D. Now account for the sway SCG has with consumers (since not all consumers in Magic are equal, therefore, simple S&D fails yet again), and the fact that other firms (and certain consumers) react to the news by adjusting to the new price as if it was the Standard Price, you get a short term inflation of price for goods, which ultimately equals to more money out of consumers' pockets. This whole scenario could actually be modeled pretty well by a cartel model, where firms can collude to set prices due to perfectly inelastic supply. I never mentioned anything about these stores actually being in a cartel, (and I admit that there are flaws between the scenario and the model, like how the assumption of restricting output in cartels isn't really in effect here, but it's still a pretty good one if you want to look at MC, MR and Demand) I merely mentioned that you can model the behaviours using this well known model, and it isn't just simple Supply and Demand.

Maybe Simple Supply and Demand means something different to you and I. I dunno, I get that notion. Maybe I think of S&D as a definition (much like how I view "Mean" differently than other people. I see it as a statistical definition, while other people see it as the average).

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-29-2008, 06:40 PM

Market forces do not exist in an abstract vacuum. Retailers are allowed to set price based upon what they perceive the demand relative to supply to be; they don't have to actually wait for a stampede of customers and their stocks to be empty if they can foresee that coming. I'm not sure why you're trying to reference the way supply and demand, according to you, work in "real life", and then when you're presented with a real life example of it, you throw a hissy fit that SCG isn't allowed to do that. Go write an e-mail to SCG telling them that that's now how real businesses operate if it makes you happy. I'm sure they'll realize that their existence is a paradox and vanish in a puff of smoke. Then you can have all the FtV that you want.

I also advise against the appeal to authority tactic. I'm a high school dropout without a degree or much at all in the way of formal education. Based upon authority, lots of people should be able to win against me at debate. In actuality, more often the subject just makes it more painful that I'm right and they're wrong about shit.

Apex

08-29-2008, 07:17 PM

Seriously, stop with the random insults, there isn't a need to have non-constructive comments plastered all over when we are discussing about some topic. Either discuss like a level headed person or shut the fuck up (there, I get to satisfy my angry comment quota of the day).

Me stating economic theory != me throwing a "hissy fit" because the "real world doesn't work like that". I merely offered an explanation of how the market could behave. I personally think it's a dick move that SCG made, but my personal belief doesn't affect how the market moves. You completely circumvented my statements, made up some random stuff that sounded like real economics (Seriously? "Market forces do not exist in an abstract vacuum"? No shit Sherlock. That's like talking about souls when we are discussing biochemistry pathways of the brain. I was talking about how economics model can predict market behaviours, not philosophy). Firms CAN set prices, but then that would have moved AWAY from simple Supply and Demand! Get it through your head man. Simple Supply and Demand is not fully adequate in explaining this scenario, you need more detailed explanation and models to account for all parameters.

You then proceeded to label yourself correct. On what basis? You never challenged my model or explanation with real facts or alternate models (that actual economists have heard of, with real variables, not some random sentences with some textbook words thrown in). Nor did you bother to raise questions about how I could've had broken certain axioms or forgot about certain basic assumptions (like how you would disprove of a mathematics proof).

I just realized I wasted my time speaking about economics to someone who doesn't really understand (or want to learn apparently) economics. I thought you actually knew what I was talking about, but it's apparent you don't. So there is no point for me to continue to argue with you anymore. I described this scenario based on a well known economics model, and you simply slap down the Wikipedia link for Supply and Demand and think that solves everything? And then attack other people for coming up with a more detailed explanation because I said to you "it's not that simple"? Man, seriously, take a course and read a book.

Wallace

08-29-2008, 07:23 PM

Hey anybody who really wants one of these for less than $100, there are like 5 on ebay right now form $59.99 to $69.99 buy it now.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-29-2008, 07:28 PM

Seriously, stop with the random insults

There weren't any insult. Or is this just a pre-emptive justification of aggression? Way to be, Putin. Those Georgians were coming right for you.

Me stating economic theory != me throwing a "hissy fit" because the "real world doesn't work like that". I merely offered an explanation of how the market could behave. I personally think it's a dick move that SCG made, but my personal belief doesn't affect how the market moves. You completely circumvented my statements, made up some random stuff that sounded like real economics (Seriously? "Market forces do not exist in an abstract vacuum"? No shit Sherlock. That's like talking about souls when we are discussing biochemistry pathways of the brain. I was talking about how economics model can predict market behaviours, not philosophy).

You then proceeded to label yourself correct. On what basis? You never challenged my model or explanation with real facts or alternate models (that actual economists have heard of, with real variables, not some random sentences with some textbook words thrown in). Nor did you bother to raise questions about how I could've had broken certain axioms or forgot about certain basic assumptions (like how you would disprove of a mathematics proof).

Perhaps you'd like to actually phrase your point, then, in a cogent fashion. You've thrown around some vague and apparently meaningless, as you don't actually intend to defend them on the meaning, claims about SCG behaving as a cartel (whatever it is that you think that means). I've attempted, as best I can, to infer meaning from your ramblings, but it's not as easy as my good natured banter might lead you to believe. Go on. If you have an actual claim to make that you don't think has been addressed, make that claim. You have little right to complain about anyone addressing points you won't make, however.

I just realized I wasted my time speaking about economics to someone who doesn't really understand (or want to learn apparently) economics. I thought you actually knew what I was talking about, but it's apparent you don't. So there is no point for me to continue to argue with you anymore. I described this scenario based on a well known economics model, and you simply slap down the Wikipedia link for Supply and Demand and think that solves everything? And then attack other people for coming up with a more detailed explanation because I said to you "it's not that simple"? Man, seriously, take a course and read a book.

Ad hominem. You have to actually make an argument before you can complain that the other side doesn't understand it. Also, since I do not know the Latin phrase for this, pathetic flailing. Piss-poor for winning rhetorical contests, although barely adequate for providing a nice cover to give up the ghost and escape with some bare modicum of dignity.

Also, you display a poor understanding of the ebb and flow of time, as I slapped down a link to Supply and Demand before you even attempted to justify any claim. If you can't even follow the course of argument in a one-page thread, why should I trust your research or understanding of a subject as complex as economics?

I've tried to warn you not to resort to the appeal to authority fallacy, but it appears that you won't listen. Very well. We'll make a deal. You can use whatever credentials you imagine makes you more qualified in this subject, and I'll cease being nice. Shoot.

DeathwingZERO

08-29-2008, 08:04 PM

Apex, apparently you didn't hear a damn word I said.

WIZARDS SHORT RAN THE PRODUCT. Premier stores in the NW are getting shafted, getting maybe 1/8-1/10 of what they initially ordered, because of SUPPLY.

This basically means your entire "cartel" idea is complete fallacy. SCG knows what happens with Wizards, they are a DIRECT buyer. They knocked up the price knowing they won't be reprinted, and others followed suit. You know who started it? The Ebay sellers that bought them from the Con in the first place.

So rather than arguing economics, I suggest you take a minute to read everyone's post in here, as I know what I'm talking about from both first hand and insider experience.

Product is short supplied, after already being set in a short supply to begin with. Now the prices are up, and people happen to be using SCG (and Ebay, for that matter), as a basis. It's called marketing.

frogboy

08-29-2008, 08:52 PM

Is there any way to track how many of those SCG has sold at 100? The empirics would pretty much settle any debate.

Simple Supply and Demand is not fully adequate in explaining this scenario, you need more detailed explanation and models to account for all parameters.

increased demand, fixed supply, gg?

oh:
the finished auction price for a unit was significantly lower than $100. Now many ebay auctions are around $100.

Is it possible that due to short term inelasticities in supply and demand that there is a range of prices where quantity demanded meets quantity supplied? If you would pay $15 for a meal, would you pay $16?

(tip: perfect competition doesn't exist)

rleader

08-29-2008, 09:01 PM

Is there any way to track how many of those SCG has sold at 100?

Not really. On preorder items they always put a handful up for sale and then automatically restock and change the price on depending on how quickly the last batch sold. So there's no way to even guess at what their entire inventory is for the item.

Apex

08-29-2008, 09:13 PM

If I'm Putin, you're GWB, claiming "we are giving you Freedom!" while killing people left and right. I didn't even start posting those stuff about being civil, until you started to insert random thinly veiled verbal attacks. Maybe you are that much of a dick in the real world and are still tolerated amongst your peers (I doubt it), but other people might not welcome the way you formulate your sentences.

Also, seriously people, you say I don't read your posts (and you would be wrong, I do read them), and then you ignore what I posted.

I've mentioned PERFECTLY INELASTIC SUPPLY like a bajillion times. This would be the bajillionth + 1 time of me mentioning it.

On the cartel issue: cartel is the MODEL. I never claimed SCG is in a cartel with anyone. I said the MODEL can work in this situation, given the circumstances (and I did say it's not really a cartel, maybe about I dunno, a bajillion times) where different firms behave as a whole and can act like a pseudo-cartel in their price setting (I specifically mentioned that it's not a real cartel, as I said, it doesn't satisfy one of the fundamental assumptions of restricting output). Please, I welcome you to challenge my economics on this, please, show me where my MC doesn't match my MR. Quit claiming "fallacy", "vague" and "meaningless" if you didn't even understand what I was just talking about!

And of course I "resort to authority". Would you expect to talk about laboratory biotechnology indepth with someone whos only got the faintest idea of how it works, much less the nitty gritty? Do you talk about the new Oligonucleotide Mircoarrays release and how it might speed up 2-3 of your regular tests? Fuck no! You can bitch all you want about how you are a dropout and can still "hang with the pros", but in the end, you are just a phony without any real knowledge (there, ad hom attack thrown in for free).

Man, seriously, pick up an econ book, read it and then do some of those excersises in the back, and then maybe you'll think differently afterwards. I've got my degrees (double majored in Stats and Biochem, minored in Econ), so I'm comfortable with my credentials, and I believe I am qualified. So cease away.

Is it possible that due to short term inelasticities in supply and demand that there is a range of prices where quantity demanded meets quantity supplied? If you would pay $15 for a meal, would you pay $16?

(tip: perfect competition doesn't exist)

I would, but if I would pay $15 for a meal, would I pay $200? Hells no. The finished ebay auctions some time ago was significantly lower in price than when SCG published their price, like it finished around $30-50. And I also don't believe that's case, particularly since demand is not inelastic for this situation, as shown by the rising prices of finished auctions leading up to the SCG standard price.

(tip: I said that a bijillion times too, that's why I said it's not as simple as simple supply and demand off wiki. Thanks for reading my post)

and what's going to happen now is that you will challenge me to put forth some "cogent" economics, while I will rehash my previous posts because they contain real economics theory, and then you will say that those are not real, and then I will say they are, some people will join in this conversation without knowing stuff, and some mod will come in and lock all of this up because it will just dissolve into a flamefest with big words.

insertnamehere

08-29-2008, 09:23 PM

There are two things I wanted to say in regards to this.
1.Not defending anystore, If they see that they are limited to two that is a farse. I know a store that got the two from Wizards and got two more each from other dist. because of the extremely limited print run by Wizards.

2. The local gaming store near me sold them for $80 to two different customers after being talked down by both customers (He originally wanted $100 and showed the two patrons what various websited and ebay was selling them for.

conboy31

08-29-2008, 09:27 PM

Does anyone know some more about the actual print run and if stores will be getting more shipments?

Is what the stores have as of now all they will get?

Thanks for any speculation or insight.

Captain_Morgan

08-29-2008, 09:45 PM

They're nice cards, but to be honest the "middle men" thing is rather annoying, as well as the actual supply. I really do enjoy comemorative stuff and ect., but to be honest this is haggis.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-29-2008, 10:20 PM

Maybe you are that much of a dick in the real world and are still tolerated amongst your peers (I doubt it), but other people might not welcome the way you formulate your sentences.

"Other people might not welcome the way you formulate your sentences".

Well, alright.

I've mentioned PERFECTLY INELASTIC SUPPLY like a bajillion times. This would be the bajillionth + 1 time of me mentioning it.

And this is pursuant to what, exactly? I'm not sure what institution you matriculated at, but repeating phrases without meaning or understanding does not a persuasive argument make.

On the cartel issue: cartel is the MODEL. I never claimed SCG is in a cartel with anyone. I said the MODEL can work in this situation, given the circumstances (and I did say it's not really a cartel, maybe about I dunno, a bajillion times) where different firms behave as a whole and can act like a pseudo-cartel in their price setting (I specifically mentioned that it's not a real cartel, as I said, it doesn't satisfy one of the fundamental assumptions of restricting output). Please, I welcome you to challenge my economics on this, please, show me where my MC doesn't match my MR. Quit claiming "fallacy", "vague" and "meaningless" if you didn't even understand what I was just talking about!

You would have to specify an actual argument for this to work. You've simply stated that the market would act as a pseudo-cartel, but without actually defending any specifics, you haven't explained why this is different from the natural tendency in any free market for sells to adjust price according to demand to maximize profits.

And of course I "resort to authority". Would you expect to talk about laboratory biotechnology indepth with someone whos only got the faintest idea of how it works, much less the nitty gritty? Do you talk about the new Oligonucleotide Mircoarrays release and how it might speed up 2-3 of your regular tests? Fuck no!

Actually, the answer here is either yes or inapplicable. Any actually qualified expert will either lower the level of technicality of an explanation to meet their audiences' expected knowledge level, or not try to explain it at all. You might've noticed, for instance, as you were going through school, that your teachers didn't simply jump into quantum mechanics from physics 101. If they had, they would've almost assuredly been met with blank stares. This would not be the students' fault for not knowing more about economics; this would be the lecturer's fault for misgauging their audience. Every great mind accepts this principle; if you want to use superior knowledge in a discussion or argument with those with less knowledge (assuming you have it), you must make that knowledge accessible and understandable. Frankly, I think your inability to understand this intuitively casts severe doubt on your competency in general, and if Milton Friedman and Stephen Hawking accept this principle, I think it's extremely, and of course, unjustifiably arrogant of you to think yourself better.

You can bitch all you want about how you are a dropout and can still "hang with the pros", but in the end, you are just a phony without any real knowledge (there, ad hom attack thrown in for free).

You know, I live upon the pleasant banks of the Potomac. If you think a college degree from Generic U. is impressive, you must not at all be familiar with Greater Washington. I can't throw a rock without hitting someone with an Ivy degree. Frankly, sir, you're not terribly impressive. Only intellectual dwarfs actually think that slinging around, "I Have a major/minor in *blank* from a real life genuine college!" is an impressive form of argumentation.

I would advise you to retreat to whatever hole you crawled out from.

Man, seriously, pick up an econ book, read it and then do some of those excersises in the back, and then maybe you'll think differently afterwards. I've got my degrees (double majored in Stats and Biochem, minored in Econ), so I'm comfortable with my credentials, and I believe I am qualified. So cease away.

Credentials do not convey understanding, and idiocy does not display it. That being the case, we've taken entirely the wrong tact, haven't we*?

*You. This is not the actual 'we'.

I'm curious what school you actually matriculated at that you were taught that waving your arms, wiggling your fingers, and shouting, "I've got a degreeeeee" was compelling rhetoric.

m03

08-29-2008, 10:41 PM

Hey anybody who really wants one of these for less than $100, there are like 5 on ebay right now form $59.99 to $69.99 buy it now.

My local store has them for $34.99. They're out there, you just have to look to find a proper deal (as with anything).

Ewokslayer

08-29-2008, 10:55 PM

My local store has them for $34.99. They're out there, you just have to look to find a proper deal (as with anything).

If they don't have any then isn't what they are charging kinda pointless?

m03

08-29-2008, 11:06 PM

If they don't have any then isn't what they are charging kinda pointless?

What? Didn't I just get done saying that they have them at the MSRP?

Apex

08-29-2008, 11:08 PM

I graduated from the University of Toronto (number one rated University in Canada) with scholarships. I rejected offers from Cornell, Duke and Princeton because of financial issues (I really didn't want to pay the student loans), so I really doubt that I am as stupid as you are trying to make me look. You on the other hand, seem to think just by living around people that have Ivy degrees, somehow makes you more qualified in certain ways? And you say I'm full of myself.

Any actually qualified expert will either lower the level of technicality of an explanation to meet their audiences' expected knowledge level, or not try to explain it at all.

Forgive me for this, since this is actually my fault, but I really did believe that I was speaking to someone that was versed in economics (since people that are not familiar with a certain issue usually don't come into a discussion so sure of themselves). I didn't even factor in the dropout part, since I assumed you must have learned it from somewhere, hence the jargons. So I guess I'll dumb it down. Excuse my expectations.

Now let's go step by step for the pseudo-cartel model:

SCG has more sway with buyers (consumers) than other retailers (sellers). Their pricing affects the market Standard Price (the price usually settled upon after market movements, set by supply and demand). I've used previous and current ebay auctions to show this.

Now due to the fact that SCG pricing also affects other smaller retailers, other retailers will adjust their price per unit. Ebay is once again, good at showing this. Therefore, you have a short term inflation of price for a specific item by everyone, and the standard price in this case, is actually arbitrarily set, without allowing for a market adjustment period, like many common commodities. This is the dick move part.

It could very well be, that the demand for the FTV unit is so high, that the price per unit goes well past that of $100, but that's a change in demand I cannot predict without looking at trends (plus, that's demand side theories, where I'm not on familiar grounds beyond the first couple of years). So we speak from the suppliers side (the retailers in this case), since the supplies of these FTV units are perfectly inelastic (they are fixed, since only a certain quality was produced, and barring reprints, will not introduce more goods into this system, so supply is very scarce), the best move from them is to keep in line with the SCG prices (why sell under and lose money when everyone else is selling higher?), and maybe holding on to their units and try and artificially increase demand. Now, we have a group of firms that are (somewhat) fixing the price of these units, given that supply is perfectly inelastic. That's why I said it can be modeled by a pseudo-cartel. Now, one more thing, the theory of cartel is actually not one that is 100% accepted by every economist (since economists usually come from 2 sides, the demand side, or the supply side), but it still exists in our world, so we use it. Again, I never said it's a cartel, that would imply collusion and the limiting of output of products, which we don't have (or in the latter case, seen any evidence of). But the jump in Standard Price and the fixing of prices can be modeled as such.

I said it wasn't Simple Supply and Demand because it's not. There are no perfect competition here, nor are the consumers actually equal. When one firm holds more sway with consumers than other firms, it creates a case that's more complicated.

Or maybe because I studied more supply side economics than demand side, so my theories don't mesh well with that of a everyday person's preconceived notions about economics.

Ewokslayer

08-29-2008, 11:25 PM

What? Didn't I just get done saying that they have them at the MSRP?

My local store has them for $34.99. They're out there, you just have to look to find a proper deal (as with anything).

I assumed that the out meant sold out. Sorry. You should buy them and sell them on ebay before the owner realizes he can sell them for more.

@ Apex.
Aren't you assuming that the price set by SCG is higher than what the market would be under a supply/demand explanation?
I don't know if you can use previous ebay auctions as proof of that since it appears that the extent of the limited supply wasn't fully known previously thus a proper cost wouldn't have been able to be reached.

C.P.

08-29-2008, 11:34 PM

I don't know if you can use previous ebay auctions as proof of that since it appears that the extent of the limited supply wasn't fully known previously thus a proper cost wouldn't have been able to be reached.

But did this not speed up the process of price raising? I'm sure price would be less than what we see right now if SCG price was 60 instead of 100. It seems to me that sudden jump was not the careful reflection of supply and demand.

EDIT: It may eventually reach 100, but not this fast.

Ewokslayer

08-29-2008, 11:42 PM

Well, if they are selling at a reasonable rate at 100 then they aren't charging too much.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-29-2008, 11:42 PM

One of the actualities of supply and demand, as it's reflected in reality rather than graphs, is that people are intelligent, and are going to try and be ahead of the curve. They're not going to simply wait and be a victim of events as they play out. Failing to appreciate this fact leads to disasters like the 70's.

Seriously. People keep complaining that SCG is altering the natural system of supply and demand, but people raising prices pre-emptively in anticipation of great demand, with fixed supply, is a completely natural and normal part of that process.

Also, number one school in Canada? I got the highest possible test scores on the Army aptitude tests, but at least I have the good grace to recognize a consolation prize when I see it.

Anyway, now that you've more or less presented your case in a relevant and tangible manner, allow me to destroy it;

MOTL (http://www.magictraders.com/pricelists/current-magic) lists the average price for Visara the Dreadful as being under 4.00$. SCG sells it at 8.00$; I found multiple sites selling for around half of that and slightly upwards within moments of Googling.

QED, Starcity does not set market prices. It follows that if this price stays, it must be due to other factors.

Also, no, I don't think I'm a genius because I associate with very well educated people on a regular basis. I've simply learned, long ago, that graduation from a good school is no cure for idiocy, and to tell the difference between someone who actually attended a top school and took advantage of it to learn as much as possible, and a blowhard who staggered through in a haze of frat parties and pity B's. Guess which camp you fall into?

Isamaru

08-29-2008, 11:49 PM

I was going to read the entire thread before commenting that I think that it's a bit pricey... but after about 3 posts of TIBA trying to argue for the sake of arguing, I didn't care to read any more.

Captain_Morgan

08-30-2008, 12:18 AM

It's fear and greed that drive prices and up and down, doesn't really take much of anything to figure that out. "Fear" that instills in the buyer to "buy" the "greedy" prices that are charged by second or third party dealers. I don't mind appreciation, but to be honest these sorts of market activities are counter intuitive for newer players or those on a budget.

To be honest, I believe that ultimately things like the high mark ups in Standard (and other products like this) will ultimately hurt the game more than help. Sure it assists dealers, but really for noobs with little procket change the Standard environment is supposed to be the "noob tournament."

Although equally these have to do with WoTC as equally as people that raise prices up high like Starcity.

Capitalism is nice, but it also hurts in trying to get people introduced to the game without a huge upfront cost to be actually be competitive. This is something that I see fading, and a dangerous thing. It could also be easily helped with power creeping commons/uncommins though and moving towards powering up draft to be more equal to constructed blocks. That and moving away from "Chimney Imp-itus" design ethos. If a person can build a decent tribal deck out of uncommons, commons, a few rares, and maybe 1-2 mythical rares I'd call that a great adjustment.

I enjoyed the concept of Affinity's cheapness and power, however I despised it's ability to dominate an entire format. There's enough middle ground, if the designers were willing to actually abandon some philosophies such as what's seen with Faeries.

DeathwingZERO

08-30-2008, 01:40 AM

Captain, the problem with what you are describing is it has nothing to do with this specific product. From the Vault was supposed to be designed for the collectors willing to shell out money for a limited edition set of cards that are considered iconic of what is already an iconic staple of the game: the Dragons.

@Apex: You assume far, far too much with SCG that you are giving them highly unfair credit. Ebay sales were all not listed (nor sold) for well under $100 before SCG started raising their prices. Nor does that actually make a difference, as most sellers in the area that I know already had them ready to be listed WELL above $100 before SCG even listed their prices. The stores I know in the area, for instance, were already planning on going to possibly $120 or more when they had heard the supply was cut back so sharply (realize a Premier store getting 1/8 of it's INITIAL order as a VERY large cut in supply, not a small one), and therefor more people are inclined to do the same.

All I'm saying (and something IBA has been pointing out frequently) is that you specifically attacked SCG, and specifically stated it's their fault the market skyrocketed. It would have taken less than a week (and it did, based on store sales as well as Ebay ones) for the market to reach that price on it's own, so your argument in numbers is arbitrary.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-30-2008, 02:19 AM

C_M, please believe me when I say that the situation can be summed up this way; either the price on FtV will rise to meet demand, or it will be impossible to find. Either way, someone loses. Yeah, it's great when you're the guy that finds a couple Mox at some guy's garage sale going for five dollars a pop, but that's a fortunate anomaly, not where you can reasonably expect the price to be when you really need the card. Price isn't the villain; price is just the market's way of telling you that there's not enough of the product to meet everyone's desire for it. It's the sole factor that makes sure that the card is rationed so that you can get it if you really need it. Both the biggest villain and victim in this is Wizards, which has the opportunity to make more money and satisfy their customers, but apparently don't want to (assuming that this is where the price stays).

rleader

08-30-2008, 02:21 AM

It would have taken less than a week (and it did, based on store sales as well as Ebay ones) for the market to reach that price on it's own, so your argument in numbers is arbitrary.

Maybe. But I've seen enough threads where half the people here argue that SCG drives prices for stuff like Grindstone beyond what the market would normally bear. :shrug: Of course, way more grindstones were printed than dragon sets, obviously, so that's not apples to apples.

frogboy

08-30-2008, 02:29 AM

but it still exists in our world, so we use it.

They sold three in the last four hours at $100. How's that for empirics?

the standard price in this case, is actually arbitrarily set, without allowing for a market adjustment period, like many common commodities.

SCG is clearly not a price taker, but they're not the only game in town, either. I would argue, given ebay, that my equilibrium example still holds.

(why sell under and lose money when everyone else is selling higher?)

are you fucking kidding me?

edit:
SCG drives prices for stuff like Grindstone beyond what the market would normally bear.

if people are buying them, seems like what they're charging is what the market is bearing?

DeathwingZERO

08-30-2008, 02:34 AM

Maybe. But I've seen enough threads where half the people here argue that SCG drives prices for stuff like Grindstone beyond what the market would normally bear. :shrug: Of course, way more grindstones were printed than dragon sets, obviously, so that's not apples to apples.

SCG will price chase rares according to what they believe they will get for them. A collectible market is not solid, nor does it revolve around a SINGLE "empire" adjusting the prices for everybody. For as many people as I see quoting SCG, I see people quoting Ebay/MoTL or Findmagiccards.com vendors.

All I am saying is the market was where it was at regardless of SCG. And the market is not going to be persuaded by SCG as much as some claim. Hell, I have a perfect example of them NOT screwing over the average price, when a buddy of mine picked up 2 NM Nether Voids in English from them just this month for $45 a pop. Try finding that to be the case in most places on the net.

Captain_Morgan

08-30-2008, 08:18 AM

[QUOTE=DeathwingZERO;267684]Captain, the problem with what you are describing is it has nothing to do with this specific product. From the Vault was supposed to be designed for the collectors willing to shell out money for a limited edition set of cards that are considered iconic of what is already an iconic staple of the game: the Dragons.

QUOTE]

Perhaps to an extent, however define "collector." I believe that low entry cost, and the ability to have some "iconic collectors" stuff entices long term players. It's also the object of appreciation for having a lower threshold for younger collectors that actually has that "these will accrue in value as long as MTG is a playable game at a significant level."

It's a balancing act, but the base price being set at such a large mark up definately drives out the kids. Which I think is wrong. Not everything has to be, but lets be honest with ourselves Dragons probably has the largest kiddie factor.

Limited quantity is fine, but this "limited quantity" is a tad too low, and the price increases hurts more than helps to entice younger collectors. Great idea, poor execution. I'd rather have a first come first serve with adults and kids being able to buy at the retail value, then deal with price jacking when the distributors are out of the product and it goes to the tertiary markets.

DeathwingZERO

08-30-2008, 11:14 AM

Personally, I think the entire idea of making the cards so limited to begin with was a bad idea. I mean Wizards HAD to know people would have wanted near decksets of specific dragons, especially Kokusho and Thunder, let alone at least one of the new Nicol Bolas, Shivan, etc.

This should have been printed along the same terms as the Vs packs they've been doing, though maybe a little more scarce than that. It's okay though, I'm sure they've learned their lesson after seeing the secondary market with this one.

My real concern is that they wouldn't care with a future set, knowing how fast these have sold.

Apex

08-30-2008, 11:56 AM

They sold three in the last four hours at $100. How's that for empirics?

This was a response to what, my quote on that the cartel model is used in our world? Eyebrows.

are you fucking kidding me?

Apparently, according to you, I am. Why don't you take more quotes out of context and ask again? As for the quote, I guess I should have added "selling higher at an inflated short term standard price (which was not dictated by market movement, but by one firm)". I guess it's a bad habit of mine expecting everyone in this discussion to understand economics.

As for you IBA, I'm really getting sick and tired of your attitude.

Also, number one school in Canada? I got the highest possible test scores on the Army aptitude tests, but at least I have the good grace to recognize a consolation prize when I see it.

I've simply learned, long ago, that graduation from a good school is no cure for idiocy, and to tell the difference between someone who actually attended a top school and took advantage of it to learn as much as possible, and a blowhard who staggered through in a haze of frat parties and pity B's. Guess which camp you fall into?

You know why I went to UofT? Prepare for it, ready? Because I'm fucking CANADIAN. You know the price of American state universities for international students? 4x as much. The other option is private schools that costs 40k a year. I said I didn't want to pay the loans, so I went to the best school in Canada.

You want American equivalency? I scored 1580 on my SAT I (perfect is 1600, this was before the format change), 800 on SAT II Math, 800 on SAT II Bio, 750 on SAT II Writing, with 800 being the perfect score in individual categories. I qualified for the American Mathematics Olympiad through my scores from the AMC 12 and the American Invitational Mathematics Examination. I was accepted to Princeton, Duke and Cornell.

And while at UofT, I busted my ass getting my double major and a minor, all in unrelated fields. I took extra courses every year and in the summers, did volunteer work for the nearby hospitals, and worked on research projects for the professors. Now I'm considering whether I want to take the LSAT or the MCAT and decide whether I want to be a lawyer or a doctor.

You, who probably never studied hard for one day in your entire fucking life, has the galls of telling me that I partied my way through school and got "pity Bs"? Kindly shut the fuck up. Get off your ass and get a degree. I hate people like you, who assumes that other people always got free rides on everything when they end up with better job/careers/opportunities than you. I never even derided you on the fact that you dropped out of high school. Fuck, that's pretty pathetic if you think about. I even worked part time in high school to pay for all of my application fees, and I still ended up with a 96% average. Don't talk about shit you don't know.

As for the economics, I'm fucking done, I don't care anymore. Or if someone else wants to talk about the merits of this situation, pm me and we can exchange messages, but I don't want to argue pointlessly here anymore, particularly with fucktards like you, who assumes everything you say is right, and that everything that differs from your opinion is wrong.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-30-2008, 12:12 PM

I'm going to sit here and sip my coffee, contemplating the overwhelming irony and how completely awesome I am.

In all fairness, I tried to warn you.

Apex

08-30-2008, 12:18 PM

Captain_Morgan

08-30-2008, 12:20 PM

I'm going to sit here and sip my coffee, contemplating the overwhelming irony and how completely awesome I am.

In all fairness, I tried to warn you.

I'm a middle class, virgin shnook that writhes in a blissful blitz living in a basement with stacks of rum, whilst leeching off my parents well into my 40's. Beat that dawg.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-30-2008, 12:39 PM

Yep, you got it buddy, you arguments was so good that I was completedly and utterly defeated by your comments. I am not worthy of your internet awesomeness.

Now where is that ignore button on the user cp?

User CP, Control Panel, Miscellaneous, Buddy/Ignore Lists.

Remember to mask your retreat with XTREME sarcasm.

I'm a middle class, virgin shnook that writhes in a blissful blitz living in a basement with stacks of rum, whilst leeching off my parents well into my 40's. Beat that dawg.

Y'know that awesome feeling you get when you deal with intellectual blowhards making unfounded claims, and then completely tear apart their weak and pathetic argument until they're reduced to backtracking, vague sarcasm and isolated and meaningless insults in an attempt to scrounge together the last bitter shreds of dignity?

I know you don't, but it's completely awesome.

frogboy

08-30-2008, 01:08 PM

I guess it's a bad habit of mine expecting everyone in this discussion to understand economics.

yeah because I'd really hate to be the guy doing all the business in the industry.

wait, no.

This was a response to what, my quote on that the cartel model is used in our world? Eyebrows.

That's a response to your suggestion that SCG is selling above the market price, which is kind of hilarious by definition if you stop and think about it.

Apex

08-30-2008, 01:17 PM

That's a response to your suggestion that SCG is selling above the market price, which is kind of hilarious by definition if you stop and think about it.

You want to seriously discuss this issue? PM me and we can continue. If you just want to get in a quick couple of jabs, then I suggest you and I stop here. As for your statement that I said SCG is selling above the Standard Price, I never made that statement, pure and simple. I said that SCG managed to raise the Standard Price in the short term. Don't put words into my mouth.

@IBA

When I say something, it's unfounded, when you say something, it's the "motherfucking truth". Always.

When I attempt to validate my theory, it's backtracking, even though you attacked me for NOT dumbing down economics for you earlier. You would never backtrack, since you never need to validate your theory, because again, they are the "motherfucking truth". Always. Might as well be the words from God's mouth.

You insult my intelligence and work ethics first, and then when I showed you my credentials, I become an intellectual blowhard.

When I confront you, I'm using vague sarcasm and meaningless insults, while your insults are just glossed over like it never happened, and you always strike first, usually unprovoked.

Of course you always win, you can't possibly lose if you always have a double standard when it comes to others and yourself.

I suggest you stop waiting tables or flipping burgers and go get a job writing attack ads for politicians, you'd do great.

As for satisfaction, I really doubt the slim satisfaction you get here is going to be more than mine when down the road, when I get to treat patients or represent the innocents. You'll still be the Internet Jesus, only the rest of the world will see you as a failure.

Now you will get in the last word, and promptly win the argument. So I'll just concede here.

frogboy

08-30-2008, 01:45 PM

I said that SCG managed to raise the Standard Price in the short term. Don't put words into my mouth.

The point IBA and I are making is that a) increased demand has led to increasing price and b) there is a range of prices that satisfy equilibrium and that SCG has moved to the higher end of that range. Your point, from what I can see, is that SCG is acting like a cartel and fixing short term prices. That statement looks pretty weird when you consider that SCG is not, in fact, a cartel, and that the consumers are the price takers, and firms can charge whatever they want. It is infinitely more likely that smaller firms saw SCG increase their prices and sell product at those prices and wanted in. Saying that the price is "too high" when consumers are purchasing the product is ludicrous. Do you also believe that oil speculators drive the spot price?

Captain_Morgan

08-30-2008, 03:40 PM

User CP, Control Panel, Miscellaneous, Buddy/Ignore Lists.

Remember to mask your retreat with XTREME sarcasm.

Y'know that awesome feeling you get when you deal with intellectual blowhards making unfounded claims, and then completely tear apart their weak and pathetic argument until they're reduced to backtracking, vague sarcasm and isolated and meaningless insults in an attempt to scrounge together the last bitter shreds of dignity?

I know you don't, but it's completely awesome.

Ya, the lack of meaning in human folley is amusing isn't it?

Whit3 Ghost

08-30-2008, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Ewokslayer
@everyone that isn't IBA.
You should all watch War Games.
The computer at the ends gets it right.
The only way to win is not to play.
It applies to Thermonuclear War as much as it does to debating IBA.

rleader

08-30-2008, 09:53 PM

if people are buying them, seems like what they're charging is what the market is bearing?

I think they're content to sit on them forever and ever, as they're in no danger of going out of business: so even though they only sell grindstones at a trickle, they're the people you have to go to in order to get one (if you have to have it right now), as they've created a stockpile (I mean, god, they had 0 bitterblossoms for months and all of a sudden they have 1000 for sale and that number hardly ever budges?) by buying out other resellers.

Sort of how they charge 2x what everyone else does for an arcbound ravager as they're solvent enough not to need money now, whereas other people might have to move them at $12 to pay the rent.

I wouldn't call them a cartel, but they occupy a different place in the market than most other sellers. On one hand, that's great for semi/pros who need cards on the spot (as the higher prices ensures that they'll always have grindstones/ravagers in stock when other people likely don't), but it probably does help to pull the average price of other resellers up even though they serve more casual markets.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-30-2008, 11:01 PM

Rar

Unfortunately, declarative statements about the future (i.e., "I will be successful and you will die alone in a ditch, unloved and covered in your own vomitus") are logically invalid as they must be speculative. So, relying upon them as your sole defense as the harsh and withering light of reason dissolves your vaporous arguments is probably not the best last stand to take.

We can, however, make causal statements about the future, and as such, ask, for instance, "If you are unable to win an arguments about a subject in which you minor'd after working your ass off at a top university with a high school dropout who has delivered pizzas for a living, then is it likely that you will achieve great success and satisfaction in life in much more demanding fields?"

There is, of course, a wide degree of error in possible answers to these questions, but we can certainly hypothesize.

Also, if you seriously want to pursue a career in the law, I'll offer you some inside advice; don't present an argument consisting of talking about how big your degree is and insulting everyone who earns five figures a year. Unless you really hate your client.

Based upon the level of understanding of causality and logic you've displayed, just don't bother becoming a doctor at all. Unless you really hate your patients.

raharu

08-30-2008, 11:22 PM

Unfortunately, declarative statements about the future (i.e., "I will be successful and you will die alone in a ditch, unloved and covered in your own vomitus") are logically invalid as they must be speculative. So, relying upon them as your sole defense as the harsh and withering light of reason dissolves your vaporous arguments is probably not the best last stand to take.

We can, however, make causal statements about the future, and as such, ask, for instance, "If you are unable to win an arguments about a subject in which you minor'd after working your ass off at a top university with a high school dropout who has delivered pizzas for a living, then is it likely that you will achieve great success and satisfaction in life in much more demanding fields?"

There is, of course, a wide degree of error in possible answers to these questions, but we can certainly hypothesize.

Also, if you seriously want to pursue a career in the law, I'll offer you some inside advice; don't present an argument consisting of talking about how big your degree is and insulting everyone who earns five figures a year. Unless you really hate your client.

Based upon the level of understanding of causality and logic you've displayed, just don't bother becoming a doctor at all. Unless you really hate your patients.
WARNING: arguing with Jack Eglin may cause anal seepage and soreness.