...
...
We know he's not a genius. "Incinuating"...that's quality.
First, stop the ad hominem argumentation. This isn't the presidential election.
Second, stop the patronizing tone, user1234. If you had made a valid point somewhere, I'm sure it hasn't been on this thread.
Third, if you're going to randomly go trolling on anandtech, there's an entire OT forum. A good deal is based on current pricing, not potential price-forecasting months in advance. Also, the choice of whether it is a hot deal is a decision to be made now, not to be made in the future. If you don't understand the limits of basic logic, that's up to you.
Also, your logic about the mushkin ram in dual channel is faulty. Whether they share the same timings, the chips could be from different batches. They might use different controller chips. That sort of assumption is just shows how little you really know about the issues at hand. When you buy a dual channel kit, it's guaranteed to run dual channel. When you buy 2 separate sticks and hope that they run dual channel, you can't return the sticks because they won't run in DC.
So, you're asking someone to take a risk based on your assumptions. Whether they work or not is still a "gamble" because it's not a sure thing, and there's no guarantee.
Good job.
Also, I thank user1234 for admitting that he's making assumptions about the memory market. At least he admits to that.
Oh, and sjwaste quoted ur last sentence.
"This is the result of price gouging made possible by artificially limiting supplies to create an overage of demand."
You used the word gouging to describe it. ...
Ok, maybe I'll address your logic in the following sentences.
"Second, I never said this is gouging, I said this is the natural way free markets behave, albeit on a micro scale here.
...No need to even go into this. You state it's price gouging, then say it's not. At least stick with one or the other.
"Third, what I meant by overage of demand is that lowering the supply, will initially cause some demand to be unfullfiled, thus causing the price to increase. I didn't mean demand increases because of this, amd I agree that in equlibirium the number of units sold will be lower following a reduction in supply. "
...Your logic here is faulty. Lowering supply with increase the equilibrium price. This has no effect on demand. In a basic supply-demand chart, equilibrium price is found where the two lgraphical representations meet. When there is less supply, you would move the supply chart to the left. This does NOT move the demand graph. You have a higher equilibrium price. A shift of the supply graph to the left (lower quantity) will always result in a higher equilibrium price and a lower equilibrium quantity. This in no way ever effects demand. If you say otherwise, then we know you have no economic education.
So your second statement "I didn't mean..." contradicts your first statement "Third, what i meant."
Good job once again.
And mindless1 is right. A situation where a product is sold at a much lower price than the norm does not mean that it is the industry standard. I made that point earlier, which you ignored.
I have some advice. Instead of trolling here in hot deals, why don't you go enroll in a microeconomics class. Then post in OT.
And god help me for actually posting again on this thread. I feel dirty and used.