Quote Originally Posted by STEvil View Post
IF this were a need and not a luxury I would probably agree with you. However this is a luxury item and you have the privilege to buy it, or the right to not as based on your personal wealth management.

Price drops are driven by market cash flow, development cycle, and competitor cycle. Wanting to pay less for something doesnt make it cost less, especially in a capitalist system.

This is in no way, shape, or form a monopoly. If you want to purchase a similar performing product from another manufacturer you can go do that today (but it will cost you more).


If you saved $150 would you really hold onto it for 2+ years it would take to save up another $500 to get your next high end card? It would be spent eventually, so your choice is to pay now, or wait until one of the three large price factors pushes prices down. You can complain until you're blue in the face if you want in the mean time, but its just inefficient in the face of the facts of how the market works.
I think you are confusing what is bad for the consumer for what it is bad for people in general. A huge basis of your argument is, that because it is a luxury item, it really doesn't effect the consumer. If the consumer only purchased items that are needs, such as food, shelter and utilities, the capitalist market as we known it would not exist and even more primitive markets would fall apart. Having the choice to spend money or not doesn't make saving money not a good thing for the consumer.


If what your saying is true about because things are luxuries, consumers are not worse off because they have a choice to pay a higher price or not, monopolies are not bad and do not effect the consumer really. For example if AMD went out of business with Intel and Nvidia slowing down their development cycles and generally raised their prices, the consumer would not be worse off.

If we take the heart of your argument, we can also interpret this as, as long as people get to live above the poverty line, they really don't need to worry about anything else and the pricing of luxury goods(most things are this) doesn't effect them because they have the choice to spend money or not and money saved means nothing.

Your justification for higher prices not being bad is, it is not a luxury item so the consumer can wait and has a choice to pay or not. What a monopoly does in most consumer cases is increase prices on what is typically a luxury item and slow down development cycles. But according to your argument, the consumer can simply wait things out. This does not make sense, because waiting things out is already bad for the consumer, saving money should always be a plus for the consumer. I don't think there can be an argument against this. This doesn't involve economics at all. It is just common sense.

Your argument below is a blanket statement.

You can complain until you're blue in the face if you want in the mean time, but its just inefficient in the face of the facts of how the market works.

Anytime the consumer saves more money, it gives them more wealth to either spend on true needs, semi luxuries like schooling, housing or more money saved for a rainy day, expensive prescriptions or retirement. Saving money is cumulative, so saving any chance a person can get is good.