RE: Nishika Cameras

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> You make my point for me.  The camera's intrinsic value hasn't changed.
> It still takes excellent stereo pictures.  Only its market value has
> changed, due to outside forces.

I've always been talking about market value.  That's the only one
with a monetary association.

> >The sold-at price and its market value aren't related?  Huh?
> 
> In a pool of 150,000 potential transactions, one sale represents .00067
> percent of the total, which I consider mathematically insignificant.
> (Admittedly this is overly simplistic because one camera can change hands
> many times, making the limit virtually infinite.  1/infinity is virtually
> zero.  QED. (-:)

Then, you are saying that ALL sales prices are not significant because
*every* single one of those 150,000 cameras were  only 1/150,000 th
of the total.  That's like saying "why bother voting, my vote isn't
significant".  Truth is that each camera sale is no less significant than
any other camera's sale, and therefore is at least tied for the MOST
significant camera sale.  The price set in a single transaction
defines the market price for that camera "there and then", even if
its statistical contribution to a larger marketbase is small.

> You're attributing the motivations of my hypothetical buyers to a
> hypothetical seller.   I think any reasonable person would accept that
> the motivations of a buyer and seller are somewhat different.  Perhaps
> even diametrically opposed. :-)

So is the "value" (intrinsic or market, your choice) that of the buyer
or the seller?  And if they are different, which is "correct"?

Doesn't the mutually agreed upon sales price define the "correct"
value?

Mike K.

"P.S." --

With a bit of further thought, I think I can maybe resolve the
conversation, or at least maybe get across what my madness is.

I think it's the definition of "market".  Specificially, its
size, it's geographic location, its timeline.  One might have
forsale-3D as a "market".  One may have Detroit as one's market.
One may have the nation as a market.  One may have Dalia's mailing
list as a "market".  One may have one's local camera shows as
a market.  Ditto for Christie's mailing list, etc.  Each of
these physical locations will have different prices for the
same goods (Bangkok too).

If someone asks, "what's the market value for my realist".  Rather
than giving some number, there needs to be asked another question.
"Where do you want to sell it and when".  If one is in an area
where there are very few Realists around, then the value of the camera
may be much higher.  Likewise if one is in a local area with higher demand.
So if one's market is "local" (probably the case for most people other
than those here on the internet) then individual sales are VERY much
more significant.  I'm quite certain that there aren't 150,000
sales of Realist cameras locally.  Maybe where you are, but not
here!

>That is the most twisted line of thinking since I encountered Humpty
>Dumpty in "Alice Through the Looking Glass" (who insisted that words
>mean exactly what he said they mean).  That way lies madness.

In the above sequence, you don't accept that the Realist camera market 
in Bangkok is different than the camera market you participate in.
True, I have no actual idea about the supply/demand in Bangkok (sorry
to Bangkok folk who are in this mailing list), the location was arbitrary.  
The purpose was to select a different market other than the one you
participate in.  Historically, this difference in market values between 
different areas is what drove world trade (and still does for that matter).  
Things common/cheap in one area is expensive in others because there are multiple
levels and definition of markets (and values therein).

The most common market is one's local one.

So, I think we disagree on what "market" means.  You take it as global only,
while although I acknowledge a global market (and associated statistical valuation)
I insist there also are multiple levels --  including much smaller local markets 
where values are different (or not) than the global one.  I
also insist that not all Realist cameras are of equal value (as an example,
ones that Dalia sells are of higher value because of her solid warrantee which
one doesn't usally get though one's local camera show ... it's part of "value"
even though it isn't a lens-resolution technical performance issue).

Are we getting closer?  :-)



------------------------------