From: "Ted White" <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: New mass market pb format
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:05:54 -0500
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: <ronkean at juno.com>
To: <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 1:30 AM
Subject: [WSFA] Re: New mass market pb format

>
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 00:20:19 -0500 "Ted White" <twhite8 at cox.net> writes:
>
> > And I'm really confused by your math.   You're willing to spend $500
> > a year
> > on books -- but only if they are priced at (or below?) $5.00 each.
> > But if
> > their price rises to $8.00 each, you're only willing to spend less
> > than
> > one-fifth that, $96, a year for books.  And should, ghod forbid, the
> > prices
> > rise to $10.00 each, $20 is your annual maximum for books.
>
> I don't think it's a matter of math - rather it's economics.  If tuna is
> $1 per pound and caviar is $1000 per pound, most people would buy far
> more tuna than caviar, and, spend far more money each year on tuna than
> on caviar.  Probably most people would buy no caviar at all, given those
> prices.  If the prices were reversed, people would spend much more money
> on caviar than on tuna.

Bad comparison.  Far more people *like* tuna than like caviar, and tuna is
more useable in a variety of contexts, as well as being far more *edible*.

I thought I was reducing Keith's position to a reducto ad absurdum.  But,
pace his subsequent post, I was stating it literally.

--Ted White