Drac,
Regarding your comments 1,2, 3, and 5 you seem to lack an appreciation for how things work in a free market economy.
Operators capable of raising capital must set pricing on the products the capital is used to produce at a level that maximizes the net-present-value of all future cash flows generated by that capital (as determined using a discount rate equal to the operator's cost of capital) which in turn must maximize the rate-of-return on each dollar of the capital raised.
Those who employ capital must make such pricing decisions by assessing the price elasticity for the product in question and the incumbent capital required to meet the demand for any given price point. The cost to produce any particular product is only used to determine the floor for pricing to determine a go-no-go decision on the capital project.
Failure to employ rate-of-return maximizing corporate finance principals will quickly undermine the operator's ability to raise capital as such capital will alternatively flow to those who understand these concepts.
What you describe harkens back to a Soviet style centrally planned economy where the cost of manufacturing is used to determine pricing. Maybe this is one small part of the disconnect so many have with your approach to things.
Regarding your comment 4, I must confess I oscillate between whether I think you really believe the things you say about cables (and as such simply need enlightenment as a scientific matter) or you understand how ill founded your positions are but nonetheless use them within the nebulas nature of the subject to berate those who's success you deplore. All things considered, (i.e., your clear venom toward the affluent, juvenile treatment toward anyone who logically challenges you, and the weakness of your positions) I continue to lean toward the latter.
Take the corollary of your position into consideration. In my experience I have generally found the correlation coefficient between intelligence and economic success to be greater the zero. On its face, your position argues that the most successful of the successful have happened upon their economic position in spite of the fact that you claim a correlation coefficient of less than zero. A pretty illogical proposition in my opinion.
I strongly encourage you to spend some time with the brain trust you purport to maintain to understand how inductance and capacitance not only impact current availability but influence bandwidth in analog cables; why skin effect is so critical in speaker cables (why I prefer Nordost btw); etc.etc.etc. The mere existence of snake oil is not justification for dismissal of all sound scientific principals. That behavior wreaks of an agenda.
I nor anyone I have seen on this thread has argued the lack of existence of extremes in the distribution of outcomes for cables (Al articulated this most clearly). Some high priced cables are poor performers and low priced cables are exceptional. Further, some high priced cables company's are indeed selling snake oil and bling. This reality, however, by no means negates the fact that other high-end cables are engineered and manufactured to very high standards and perform accordingly.
As I pointed out (and you chose to mock rather than acknowledge) there are 70,000 people in the USA alone who's time is valued to such a degree that it makes no economic sense for them to sort through the low priced cables to achieve the performance they desire. Such an endeavor would actually be more expensive not less expensive than going to a cable company with sound engineering and paying for their services. I refuse to believe you are incapable of grasping this concept but choose to ignore it because it stands in the way of your purpose here.
It is your refusal to embrace alternative thought and the absolute nature of your claims--that people who buy expensive cables are fools, retarded, etc.--that is the problem so many have with you and this thread.
Regarding your comments 1,2, 3, and 5 you seem to lack an appreciation for how things work in a free market economy.
Operators capable of raising capital must set pricing on the products the capital is used to produce at a level that maximizes the net-present-value of all future cash flows generated by that capital (as determined using a discount rate equal to the operator's cost of capital) which in turn must maximize the rate-of-return on each dollar of the capital raised.
Those who employ capital must make such pricing decisions by assessing the price elasticity for the product in question and the incumbent capital required to meet the demand for any given price point. The cost to produce any particular product is only used to determine the floor for pricing to determine a go-no-go decision on the capital project.
Failure to employ rate-of-return maximizing corporate finance principals will quickly undermine the operator's ability to raise capital as such capital will alternatively flow to those who understand these concepts.
What you describe harkens back to a Soviet style centrally planned economy where the cost of manufacturing is used to determine pricing. Maybe this is one small part of the disconnect so many have with your approach to things.
Regarding your comment 4, I must confess I oscillate between whether I think you really believe the things you say about cables (and as such simply need enlightenment as a scientific matter) or you understand how ill founded your positions are but nonetheless use them within the nebulas nature of the subject to berate those who's success you deplore. All things considered, (i.e., your clear venom toward the affluent, juvenile treatment toward anyone who logically challenges you, and the weakness of your positions) I continue to lean toward the latter.
Take the corollary of your position into consideration. In my experience I have generally found the correlation coefficient between intelligence and economic success to be greater the zero. On its face, your position argues that the most successful of the successful have happened upon their economic position in spite of the fact that you claim a correlation coefficient of less than zero. A pretty illogical proposition in my opinion.
I strongly encourage you to spend some time with the brain trust you purport to maintain to understand how inductance and capacitance not only impact current availability but influence bandwidth in analog cables; why skin effect is so critical in speaker cables (why I prefer Nordost btw); etc.etc.etc. The mere existence of snake oil is not justification for dismissal of all sound scientific principals. That behavior wreaks of an agenda.
I nor anyone I have seen on this thread has argued the lack of existence of extremes in the distribution of outcomes for cables (Al articulated this most clearly). Some high priced cables are poor performers and low priced cables are exceptional. Further, some high priced cables company's are indeed selling snake oil and bling. This reality, however, by no means negates the fact that other high-end cables are engineered and manufactured to very high standards and perform accordingly.
As I pointed out (and you chose to mock rather than acknowledge) there are 70,000 people in the USA alone who's time is valued to such a degree that it makes no economic sense for them to sort through the low priced cables to achieve the performance they desire. Such an endeavor would actually be more expensive not less expensive than going to a cable company with sound engineering and paying for their services. I refuse to believe you are incapable of grasping this concept but choose to ignore it because it stands in the way of your purpose here.
It is your refusal to embrace alternative thought and the absolute nature of your claims--that people who buy expensive cables are fools, retarded, etc.--that is the problem so many have with you and this thread.