Ah, the difficulty of understanding each other in shorthand. My answer is precisely linked to what Did underlines (in part, but only in part, rightly) and therefore my answer takes into account the two reflections (not intentions) and the previous allusion to sores.Janic, sorry, but I don't really understand what you are responding to my remark which aimed to supplement Did's and not to dispute the content of your message, which preceded his ...
In fact, this formulation that you use can be understood in two different ways: either as a simple observation that everything has to be paid for at its fair price (you don't buy a roll at the price of a 2CV), but the rest of the formulation " if one manages to make him believe that the amount of the label participates in the "value" of the product Suggests that the customer for this kind of product is either a gogo or a boho, and not an informed consumer who makes a different choice from the rest of the population by reflection and therefore for justified reasons such as ecology, ethics, health which are the most common reasons today.Quote:
I would say that another of the economic principles evoked by Janic is also to sell what the customer is ready to pay, if one manages to make him believe that the amount of the label participates in the "value" of the product. Many examples validate this psychological side.
If there is no longer any ambiguity, that concludes my intervention.