What is Cost?

Posted by $ MikeMarotta 6 years, 6 months ago to Economics
7 comments | Share | Flag


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Lucky 6 years, 6 months ago
    Yes, you have correctly stated the ambiguity when the word cost is used.
    Cost is a human construct, more so than concepts such as time distance and mass which are (or are closer to) physical realities. Often the meaning is just subjective.
    To have meaning the purpose should be stated with the word cost.
    Opportunity cost, joint cost, avoidable cost, allocated cost are some of many descriptions which clarify.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Maritimus 6 years, 6 months ago
    Hello,

    I think you guys are playing with the meaning of words.

    To me, the cost means the total cost to produce the thing, as measured at the moment of completion (ready to ship to market) by the value of the currency chosen for measuring values at that moment. Price is what a willing buyer pays to a willing seller at the moment of the transaction.

    The concepts are simple and clear. What makes it complicated and difficult is that the costs, currency values and people's interests in selling and buying continuously change in not very predictable patterns.

    I am no economist whatsoever. This, to me, is pure logic.

    Stay well!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 6 months ago
    I have easy answers to the questions, but this makes me wonder if maybe it's more complicated.

    I imagine a bike that the bike shop would pay $500 wholesale for, you could sell for $750, and that retails for $1000 at the bikeshop. The cost of the bike is $750. If you buy it retail, you're paying for the convenience and experience of retail. If you sell it for $500 wholesale, you're "paying" for the convenience of the store being there to buy it all the time and not having to find a buyer.

    With the coins, they have some collectible value and some raw materials value, which in this case are greater than their face value. In my model the collectible value must be close to zero if during times of high materials prices people melt them down. Couldn't they sell it to a collector who wants a long position in the raw materials and wants the collectible value? Maybe the issue is some value is lost because the collectible and materials cannot be separated and it's rare for the same buyer to want both types of value.

    I suspect the collectible value was low, and people started melting them for materials once it became a tiny fraction of the materials value. As they do that, supply goes down, raising the collectible value to some point where it's easier to sell them to collectors than melt them down.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 6 years, 6 months ago
      Your $750 as the "true cost" is just a construct for your own estimations of value. The other factors of convenience of retail buying (includes customer service) or convenience of wholesale selling (always buying) are also factors that can be tallied, given dollar value and entered in your books as "cost of sales" or a one-time write-down. But if hoverboards sweep the markets, the value in bicycles could plummet, just as a huge gasoline crisis could make bikes highly desirable.

      From the viewpoint of Ayn Rand's Objectivism, we too easily say that value is "subjective." Value is not arbitrary, even though different people can objectively evaluate something differently depending on their own personal (but objective) values. My daughter is long grown up, so children's toys have little value to me. If a parent makes evaluations among them, that is also objective for them, based on their (personal) values. But neither case is subjective in the sense of being arbitrary or non-judgmental.

      I am not sure that belaboring the specifics of the numismatic markets provides more general understanding. The fact is that for 70 years, the value of silver was so low, that at a parity of $1.2929 per ounce, silver coins were worth more as tokens, at first (until 1933) against gold, but even later against paper dollars. Once silver crossed that line, it became profitable to hoard, sell, and melt common silver coins. But we are talking of prices still under $2 per ounce, then $3 per ounce, then $5... Over about ten years, millions of Washington Quarters and Roosevelt Dimes were (slowly) turned back into bullion. And silver was still coming from secondary smelting of copper and recovery from film processing.

      Then Nelson and Bunker Hunt decided to corner the silver market. They took actual physical delivery from the silver futures exchanges. (Futures markets are intended for producers and consumers to nominalize supply. Farmers wheat co-ops buy and sell wheat futures against the cash price. That prevents spikes immediately before harvest and drops immediately after.) Silver skyrocketed to $50 per ounce in a few months. Against that, the marginal numismatic value in a Proof quarter was negligible.

      Also at play - and unpopular in places like this - was what Keynes called "the animal spirits." Coin dealers who eked out a living suddenly saw huge cash influxes. Everyone who knew the Tulip Craze knew that it would not last, so they made the fastest money they could the easiest way possible. It was rational, given the market conditions. Again, in year 1, a silver dollar with 75 cents of silver in it for sale as a rarity for $2 now in year 9 has $40 dollars of silver in it.

      Another example involves gold. Today, with gold at $1300, you cannot touch a $3 gold piece with $200 of gold in it for less than $750. Back in 1935, they sold for a small margin over bullion, along with $10 and $5 and $20 gold coins. Today, we know that the $3 are objectively rare because numismatists did more research and reporting from Mint records.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 6 months ago
        "But if hoverboards sweep the markets, the value in bicycles could plummet, just as a huge gasoline crisis could make bikes highly desirable. "
        I completely agree. Couldn't we say the "cost" went up or down then? It's just as when markets sense instability time premium on options goes up and so does the price of gold. Gold bugs will tell you the price of all goods and services in the economy went down, in that scenario, due to the uncertainty, which seems completely absurd to me. Prices go up and down based on supply and demand.

        " If a parent makes evaluations among them, that is also objective for them, based on their (personal) values."
        Yes. I pay well over a $1 a sq ft in lost investment revenue, insurance, taxes, heating, and maintenance to store a lot of crap in my house that's worthless.

        I've got a box of old proof sets my great aunt bought me for the first 10 years of my life. I've shown them to my kids, who take an interest in the historical aspect of it. We'll probably keep paying $1/mo to store and heat space for them indefinitely.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo