Talk:Veblen good

message: Is it reasonable to say that Veblen "invented the concepts of conspicuous consumption and status-seeking."?  It seems that such concepts have existed for about as long as economies have, so perhaps "recognized" would be a better term? - Flooey 20:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the article!  The counter-Veblen effect is NOT econ101.  Like all the other "interaction" effects, it's an effect over and above what you'd expect from the simple effects of price on demand.  seglea 17:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invented? 

message: Do Apple products really qualify as Veblen goods?  As a computer programmer, I think that a) the perceived premium is just that, a perception, and b) Aesthetics and underlying design are not zero-value things to me. -- 19:12, 18 June 2009 129.188.33.25
:I'm not sure, but the link there goes to fruit apples, not computers. I'll remove it. Somebody can replace it if they feel they answer the question...Mvblair (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any sales figures handy, but I'm pretty sure that the lower priced iMacs and MacBooks handily outsell the more expensive Mac Pros and MacBook Pros. That kind of disqualifies them for Veblen good status, no? Phcordner (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Working for an Apple Specialist, I feel qualified to state that yes, we do sell far more of the 13" laptops and the iMacs than we do servers, workstations, and so forth. I don't have Apple's own numbers, of course. I think the idea with the original post was to claim that they are luxury priced in comparison to other brands, a la Microsoft's "Laptop Hunter" ads, but that point of argument isn't something that belongs on this page. I've gone ahead and removed the link... again. We seem to have a single-minded group of users bent on keeping it here. Jeremy Avalon (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think in general if there are plenty of good non-controversial examples on a topic, the policy should be to avoid adding or replacing existing examples with controversial ones. --81.153.144.130 (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Apple products

message: How do these relate to the example at the end of the article? Same car underneath, double the cost for the Bentley...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HiraV (talk • contribs) 16:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  VW Phaeton / Bentley Flying Spur 

message: I'm considering adding the following text below the snob and bandwagon effects.
* The "you get what you pay for" effect: Buyers assume the good to be a Giffen good out of lack of evidence. With little information on a good's quality, buyers may presume that the lower price of a good compared to its substitutes is because of inferior quality, regardless of the good's actual quality.
But are there any reliable sources documenting the prevalence of this proverb? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I found Common law of business balance. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So should the redirect You get what you pay for be retargeted there? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  You get what you paid for 

message: What is this trying to say?  There's a word missing somewhere, and it makes no sense: why would a "Veblen-seeker" buy a non-luxury item of lower quality? "At the other end of the spectrum, where luxury items priced equal to non-luxury items of lower quality, all else being equal more people would buy the luxury items, even though a few Veblen-seekers would not." Jpatokal (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoherent sentence 

message: This section reads more like an opinion, and it is not well sourced. Veblen good are usually seen as a violation of the law of demand. Putting an equation doesn't make it scientifically sound.
I would suggest to remove it. 193.34.225.91 (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The meaning of x in the equation is also not explained. 216.165.95.177 (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-violation of the law of demand