| AKA pooperscooper said:
You should probablly read what I was responding to next time you try and prove me wrong or else you'll make yourself look silly again. My response was to an assertion you made that was false (more detail below), regardless of context , and btw, I did read that post. I was saying I never said a mail in rebate was more appealing than a new global lower price point. And that is true. Then we agree on this point now, but in your previous post it sure seemed like you were trying to prove the opposite. especially since you've now done us the favor of highlighting the specific line you were responding to. as for your other point. You can have increased sales without increased demand. This deal is obviously for the fence sitters that are thinking about buying one anyways. It's suppose to sweeten the deal and tempt people even more into buying one. It will push a few fence sitters over the edge and will increase sales without increasing demand much if at all. (And if you would look at my post HIGH is the key word there) No, you can't. If the fence sitter suddenly decides that they want a PS3, then demand for the PS3 has gone up by 1 unit, that's one of the most basic concepts of economics. High demand is something that's impossible to define absolutely, that's why the only economic arguments that are sensible to make are in terms of relative change, increases and decreases.
|
