On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:41:54 -0800 (PST),
trader_4 wrote:

> You did when you said:
>
>
> "I think price is not an indication of anything other than what the
> marketing can make people pay. It's certainly not an indication of quality."
>
> Do you really think that a prime steak has the same price as a choice
> steak, or a select grade steak? That a top quality 10" chef's knife
> from Henckel, Wusthoff, Misono doesn't reflect that quality and require
> a much higher price than the $5 10" chef knife at the discount store?
> The prices are correlated to the quality of the product. The same applies
> to brake pads, certainly to some extent.

You didn't understand a single word I said.
Either that, or you just want to argue.

We agree on the curves being *different* for things that are perceived to
be different.

If a tire to a billion people is NOT a commodity (there doesn't seem to be
a word for the opposite of a commodity), then each one has a certain demand
curve.

If those same tires *are* considered a commodity to another billion people,
then those tires, to those people, have a *different* (lumped together as
one) commodity-based demand curve.

Either you understand that, or you just want to argue for argument's sake.
I am done with arguing what is in *every* Economics textbook on the planet.

I can't teach you an entire course in Economics 101 in just a Usenet
thread. You either understand the basics, or you don't.

It's marketing's job to increase *perception* of value.

If you like beef and don't like pork, then the curves are different.
If you don't care, and if it's all just "meat" to you, then they're not.

This is extremely basic stuff covered in the first weeks of class.