ya don't say.
Hey I was waiting for this argument.
let's cut to the short list: what argument *aren't* you waiting for.
Jump to content
Posted 14 July 2002 - 04:37 PM
Is it just me or does FGs avatar have a bit more of a grin than before?
They do not drive the market. We've already gone over and over again what it is that drives the market. Which part didn't you understand? You are still totally hogtied in a contradiction of your own creation and while you are providing a great quantity of entertainment you are not making any progress.
Posted 15 July 2002 - 07:07 AM
Yawn, stretch, sigh...
Wilfrid - If they made unlimited amounts of Mouton that wouldn't change how people use it. People still wouldn't use it at breakfast. Let's take me as an example. I can drink a First Growth any time I want to. That's really not much different than the supply being unlimited. Yet I drink them very sparingly. You know why that is? There just aren't that many occassions that warrant drinking a wine of that caliber. And I don't mean as a matter of expense, I mean as a matter of matching food and wine.
That's the part you keep missing, the gastronomic part. You don't use Rayas Chateauneuf-du-Pape for an occasion that only merits drinking a Cote de Rhone. And conversely when at a black truffle extravaganza in Provence, one might want to splurge for a 1978 La Chapelle. But I don't want to drink '78 La Chapelle with a ham sandwich. That's where your glass of milk comes in handy. No matter how much more Mouton they produced, it won't change when and where people drink wine or what occassion Mouton is appropriate for.
Posted 15 July 2002 - 07:42 AM
Steve P. failing to distinguish between "every" and "some"? I could set my watch by it.
Every thing that sells was chosen for the market by experts in that industry. There. I dare you to prove that statement wrong.
Self-published books, like the Zagat survey, sometimes make plenty of money and the decision to publish them usually goes exactly against the judgment of the industry experts.
Fat Guy - You are just pointing to exceptions to the rule
Posted 15 July 2002 - 07:55 AM
Posted 15 July 2002 - 08:10 AM
Posted 15 July 2002 - 08:21 AM
First, I had to laugh yesterday when channel surfing and coming upon an Iron Chef episode on which one (at least) of the competitors prepared pork belly with bacon. Didn't stop to see how it turned out.
Hollywood - The problem with using food as the example all the time, and it really is the underlying issue around here, is that it is invisible and so difficult to rest your case on when the argument being put forth by the opposition is that taste is subjective.
Posted 15 July 2002 - 09:22 AM
Posted 15 July 2002 - 09:37 AM
I see. So if there’s an upturn in the market for 1985 DRC Montrachet as a result of your enthusiasm, they’ll make more of it. Damn clever those French.
Wilfrid - Your quite wrong about what would happen with Mouton. The supply side would adjust. The supply side exists to *meet the market.* The market for Mouton is set by how people use it based on a certain quality they can offer.
Posted 15 July 2002 - 01:33 PM
Posted 16 July 2002 - 11:38 AM
I still can't figure out if you are saying something really obvious, or something profound. (Were you raised by Jesuits?) Is it that if you want something good, you pay for it. And, if you pay for it, you get it. Therefore, you get what you pay for? (Who could argue with that?) Or, is it that we could somehow come up with a classification of things that are inherently, immutably good and no one can change the accuracy of that? (Who wouldn't argue against that?)
Well this is exactly like a debate about the 1855 classifications. But that helps make my point. Latour tastes like Latour because of the special qualities of the Latour vineyard. A good vintage just enhances those qualities. But even in an off vintage, the characteristics of why it is a first growth come through. So in that context my quote means that the people who usually argue against that point are the people who can't taste those qualities. And since tasting is this invisible thing, and one can't prove anything other than to say whether they can taste it or not, it makes it an easy thing to argue about.
Posted 16 July 2002 - 12:42 PM
Posted 16 July 2002 - 02:19 PM
Within the context of your examples, I guess I see your point. But after we add on a lot of qualifiers, where does it get us? Like putting aside tulip crazes, South Sea Bubbles, advertising creating wants/needs, good and bad years, all other things being equal, etc. Then, it seems like it still only works for things that are produced in a sizeable quantity and capable of being replicated. The opposite would be art (definitely a case of things that aren't fungible). I might not think a particular Picasso is worth it, but it doesn't matter economically because the seller only has to find one buyer. And, who's to say my judgment is right or wrong? Couldn't a particular meal in a particular restaurant strike two particular cultivated patrons differently?
When you say that something isn't worth it, what does that mean? Doesn't that mean you can get something of better quality for the same or less money? How could something not be worth it if quality is fungeable? Well it's not.