Psych:
Yes, just based upon construction costs, but a capitalistic system is based upon supply and demand dynamics; the system should be based upon cost IMHO, and competition forces should drive prices down, but with "unique" products cost of construction is negated, ie a painting. This is where the mega-buck cable manufacturers fall in performative terms, or so they would contend. The question then becomes: is the performance worth it to you, in the context of such an economic system? Again it is relative. Reject the premise of the system, the capitalistic God, or reject the idea that mega-buck wire is unique. Saying it is not unique may be an argument, ie mega-buck cable is not sufficiently different in performance terms than cheaper stuff, but unless you make that argument, you can not point to construction expense as the determinitive factor in determining marginal utility, or value of use (read: performance). A factor to look at, but one that becomes incresingly irrelevant as demand increases and you have uniqueness of product. The mega-buck cables prices suffered from both, as did all components. Specifically, in the 90's the Japanese SE market propelled prices exponentially higher, and particularly in wire like Purist and NBS that excell at stae of the art tube systems; the Nordost Valhallas/SPM's which are consumed by bothe SS and tube afficionados came later. We are still suffering from this escalation. And although I may consider its escalation artificially high based upon irrationally high demand, capitalism doesn't care about irrational demand or not; it absorbs infinite greed, buying or selling.
So, again, you are left with the idea that people are stupid to pay so much. But then again, our economy is premised upon the climb towards such objects, the incentive to become "somebody" through acquisition. If you want to argue that some buy mega-buck cable simply to say they are owners, adding to their idea of themselves, that's a valid argument because surely it occurs. But again, is it determinitive of value in terms of performance?
Yes, agreed, extrusion of metal is not as complex form of construction as an amp, either in terms of matter arrangement or labor or means of production. But if that technology performs better, regardless of those factors, and IF it cost you nothing, which one would you pick?
You see, its the COST OF PURCHASE that bothers people, the $7K, not the construction cost. But if you were to make that argument, then you would have to argue that the cost of other "components" in a stereo is also not justified based upon construction complexity, ie. a tractor would have more absolute "value" than an amp because its more complex. You know why that doesn't sound right, like comparing apples and oranges? Because value is not to be considered in a vacuum but considered in terms of a tool's USE. "Use" describes, in stereo terms, its performance - so there you are back to that.
Then, you are left making the argument that construction costs do not justify that level of performance, the DISPARITY thing again. But again, that's relative based upon income and you desire (your demand).
Is a Van Gogh worth $54 mil? Should wire be considered tha "unique", or since the NBS's of the world have been caught up with by the Virtual Dynamics of the world, is the disparity not justified.
I would say incresingly less so, and thankfully so. But yet, the Dominus does "do" something in state-of the-art systems that people who have them say is critical - the space and harmonics thing. Is that true, or are the Porter's and HP's of the world merely hearing things?
