Offensively High Resale Prices On Unicorn Blends
- Thread starter badbriar
- Start date
- Status
I got a plan for that, just nationalise Germains, job done. Hey, it worked for Cuban cigars lol
Thank you, I appreciate the sentiment. I'm very lucky in that I can afford to smoke the baccis I like
You do realize that the majority of the world's economy is based on reselling, right?
Chain Yanking 101.
I think you are ready for some more advanced stuff, like... "RYO is better than Capstan, you know".
I can't seem to find this Unicorn Blend you are all talking about...
Seriously though, I’d trade all of my esoterica and capstan for a stockpile of 1 or 2 D&R blends. I still lament the loss.
I'd go equal ounces of Pembroke and Dunbar for D&R London Dock.
I can't really add much here that others haven't already said better, and tempted as I am to wade into the philosophical waters here on just deserts, concepts of fairness, and supposedly free markets, I think it would be better for me to refrain. This thread is already teetering close to political territory, and at least one mod has already expressed his being bored of this thread. So, in before the lock, and all that jazz.
I will say one thing, however: the historian in me always wants to look backward for answers when feasible. So, what did great swaths of the medieval world, for instance, think of merchants and so-called "free markets"? I will paint with a very broad brush here, but typically speaking the merchant classes were treated as being loathsome. Why? The reasons are many, including ones that are rooted in anti-Semitism, religious dogmatism, the desire of feudal lords to concentrate power in their own hands, etc. In other words, a greatest hits medley of all of humanity's more odious reasons for moral and civil rigidity.
But one reason, however, isn't just charmingly quaint, but also echoes some of the sentiments here. (If it matters, it echoes, perhaps faintly, my own.) The reason merchants were hated was because it was thought they didn't actually contribute anything vital to the community. They were nomadic by occupation, so they didn't lay roots; they didn't fight, save souls, or grow food or build bridges, but rather sold the results of others' work; oftentimes, what they were selling were baubles or worse; but more than anything, their sole regard was their own wealth and not the betterment of anything other than themselves.
You see, in the medieval world, such greed expressed in this hyper-individualistic manner was not just evil, but an aberration to the natural order. It wasn't the "good economic sense" or an expression of "common nature" that we, raised in a neoliberal world, would necessarily view it as being.
Of course, I am generalizing, and I don't wish to be mistaken and thought to be advocating for a return to a feudal order. Even Marx understood that capitalism was greatly preferable to feudalism. Still, I think what many in that world despised in the merchant classes, feels just as relevant today as it did then. Tobacco is a luxury good, so I'm not very concerned by a handful of people selling overpriced tins on the internet. But I do see this same kind of behavior used in the selling of necessaries, especially in the United States as it regards healthcare. That's evil. Only, we are conditioned to not treat such as evil, but to treat it as an inevitability and expression of some entrepreneur's infinite wisdom and grit. Perhaps we aren't as far removed from medieval serfs in some regards, I suppose.
I will say one thing, however: the historian in me always wants to look backward for answers when feasible. So, what did great swaths of the medieval world, for instance, think of merchants and so-called "free markets"? I will paint with a very broad brush here, but typically speaking the merchant classes were treated as being loathsome. Why? The reasons are many, including ones that are rooted in anti-Semitism, religious dogmatism, the desire of feudal lords to concentrate power in their own hands, etc. In other words, a greatest hits medley of all of humanity's more odious reasons for moral and civil rigidity.
But one reason, however, isn't just charmingly quaint, but also echoes some of the sentiments here. (If it matters, it echoes, perhaps faintly, my own.) The reason merchants were hated was because it was thought they didn't actually contribute anything vital to the community. They were nomadic by occupation, so they didn't lay roots; they didn't fight, save souls, or grow food or build bridges, but rather sold the results of others' work; oftentimes, what they were selling were baubles or worse; but more than anything, their sole regard was their own wealth and not the betterment of anything other than themselves.
You see, in the medieval world, such greed expressed in this hyper-individualistic manner was not just evil, but an aberration to the natural order. It wasn't the "good economic sense" or an expression of "common nature" that we, raised in a neoliberal world, would necessarily view it as being.
Of course, I am generalizing, and I don't wish to be mistaken and thought to be advocating for a return to a feudal order. Even Marx understood that capitalism was greatly preferable to feudalism. Still, I think what many in that world despised in the merchant classes, feels just as relevant today as it did then. Tobacco is a luxury good, so I'm not very concerned by a handful of people selling overpriced tins on the internet. But I do see this same kind of behavior used in the selling of necessaries, especially in the United States as it regards healthcare. That's evil. Only, we are conditioned to not treat such as evil, but to treat it as an inevitability and expression of some entrepreneur's infinite wisdom and grit. Perhaps we aren't as far removed from medieval serfs in some regards, I suppose.
Last edited:
The word you are looking for my dear man, is eccentric.
Like I mean the alternative is they could be like Cuba and just go to hong Kong prices worldwide and everyone takes about a 60% increase in price
I'd rather have the Double Oaked! But then, I have no interest in reselling - just consuming and enjoying!
Last edited:
The reason an ethical person would NOT do that is because someone else would not get to honestly get to buy said unicorn tobacco blend. My stance is that ethics have apparently gone tits up and morons seem to support it. I bet those same geniuses would cry and bitch if they wanted to go to some event and had to pay 10x for seats.If you could buy something for retail and sell it for 500% markup to the Chinese who are more than willing it seems to pay the price…why not do it. Makes perfect economical sense.️
Everyone is a tough guy and a critic until it happens to them - then their tunes change real quickly.
I actually do have more Esotericas & HTF's than I really care for, which have been procured over several years. I simply share with my buddies.
Honestly, they aren't al that good, except for Penzance and Margate IMNSHO.
So, I am not one who is jealous of anyone for their cellar or whatever tobaccos they own. I have worked over the years in establishing a well stocked cellar. I've also sold Esotericas, including a 2012 bg of Penzance to another member a couple of years back for exactly what I had into it. Came to under 50 bucks. I. Don't. Scalp.
So, no, my panties are not in a wad over what I don't have or want. Sleezy, greedy scalping bastards simply piss me off.
- Status