tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5465015914589377788.post8908255972155429853..comments2024-03-20T09:32:16.592-04:00Comments on Michael James on Money: Poor Charlie’s AlmanackMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10362529610470788243noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5465015914589377788.post-55598937679769044922019-11-17T17:36:35.482-05:002019-11-17T17:36:35.482-05:00@Ricardo: Good example. I've seen situations...@Ricardo: Good example. I've seen situations before when people won't take something for free, but they're interested when there's a small charge.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10362529610470788243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5465015914589377788.post-11210451494186463972019-11-17T11:08:40.873-05:002019-11-17T11:08:40.873-05:00"where raising prices allows you to sell more..."where raising prices allows you to sell more of something, which violates the simple price-quantity curve we learn in introductory economics."<br />I'll give you one.<br />A sawmill near me used to give away the outside cutting as it was of no use to them. You could go there with a trailer and they would load it up for you. Just small household trailers.<br />They could not get rid of it fast enough.<br />Someone came up with charging $10 per a loader grapple which is a significant amount. They soon ran out of supplies and each week could not meet demand as they only cut so many logs per week. Now why is this??<br />Quite simple really. It was worthless when free. It was really inexpensive when you paid "only" $10 for it.<br />So something more expensive ($10) sold better than something that was less expensive (free)<br />Maybe this has more to do with perception though.<br /><br />RICARDOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com