splatter":1q9e7kg7 said:
Some people have it in their ind that what they have is worth more than what you have.
I run into this on trades. Say i have something listed for $1000 and trade value at $1200
This needs explaining as it’s very different to how I operate.
If I’m selling for $X, then my trade value is...$X as I’m trading for an item that is also used - it’s a level playing field. How does the trade value rise 20% over the sale value?
In a comparable example, I’m selling a car for $1000, and then take it to a dealer to trade it against a new model. The trade-in value is then much less than my market value as the dealer has to then sell it on afterwards.
To bring that into this situation, you trade your $1000 item against something else, but for $1200, so the buyer at the other end has overpaid by 20% and is then in negative equity on your item. As they are trading an item too, then their trade value also rises by 20%, surely? It looks like the 20% is simply there so that one side's needs over-rule those of the other. They really want the trade more, so you expect a premium, but why would you trade for something you don’t want? You appear to be acting like the car dealer and want to sell the traded item on for a profit in order to pay for your time. However, you are inflating your item's value, which is not how the dealer, or the market, works. To be the same, you would have to reduce the trade-in value of the buyer's item, rather than inflate the price of yours.
Not that I agree with either tactic. I’m simply trying to make sense of it.