>At the end of the day, value under consumer choice hinges
>on how people think about a commodity, not about what it
>cost to produce, nor about what you or I think it's value
>is. There are costs, of course, to building brand-name
>recognition, so the mark-up is not really the issue. It
>only seems to be when something is created with high
>fixed cost and minimal marginal cost.
it is so. if it costs money to get the swoosh, then they are creating value by making it scarce. they build a brand that way, in addition to building it via advertising. walmart has a brand, image, trademark, etc. it is not, however, built upon making walmart products unreasonably scarce by making the products inexpensive.
>Ironically, brand as value is a more social type of consumption
>than, say, $2K stereo systems in custom designed music rooms.
>You don't buy something with a swoosh to wear in your living
>room; you buy it for purposes of display.
not true. this is because people internalize these things and can actually feel better wearing their nike symbol in no one else's presence but their own. in Fight Club for example, Jack does what a lot of people do: they surround themselves with Ikea furniture and never have company who might even know that this is what their living circumstances are like. this is because they like looking at themselves objectified in their surroundings. it gives back to them their sense of identity. that isn't a bad thing per se.
kelley ok, i'm waaaaaay over limit and i again owe the Great God Panix.Com Autoresponder. ps. newbies: we have three post limit because doug pays for k wattage AND because marxist lists tend to implode under the impact of insane wars that last weeks, months, years. we have nothing at stake in our arguments since no one takes us seriously except dave who thinks marxist and lefties and liberals Rulez the Univerze. there is an expression for this, can't recall.