Did you know that his "invisible hand" was much more a reference to the concept of COMMUNITY GOODWILL in a small market-sized village, rather than to the concept of EVERYONE FOR HIMSELF as we currently perceive the free-market, for better or worse, to function? Did you know that Adam Smith's works make it pretty clear that, for an unfettered free market to work without seriously disenfranchising many of the deserving parties, all participants must self-regulate? Did you know that he pointed out the possibilities of excess corporatism (he called it "marketable conformity"), the possibilities that, without an "invisible hand" of GOD, COMMUNITY GOODWILL, and INDIVIDUAL RESTRAINT, the free market would force us all to compete for excessively valued resources in a manner not consistent with their actual worth to us in their use?
Note please, that most North Americans don't actually get the whole Adam Smith story, we just get the Milton Friedman version of Adam Smith. A bastardized, simplified version, designed to support some rather simple-minded policy-makers who hope that the problems of inner-city decay, maldistribution of wealth in our society, racial intolerance and hence economic disparity generation to generation, and lack of access to education, UNDER THE RUG.
Now then, now that I'm off my soap-box, I do see that this pricing thing is pretty much a statement about the free market. It indicates that resources which are good at advertising themselves end up being valued monetarily at a level much higher than in actual use. It's kind of like Pampers. It's possible that a person in the inner-city who is impoverished and on food stamps is more likely to try to spend those stamps somehow on Nike shoes than on baby formula. Our society tells them to. And Nike's just get more and more expensive. Are we similarly stupid consumers?
Well, I'm not. I do my research, and I insist on bargaining down from the "master class" price with even the most expensive women, and I understand the relationship between advertising and "manufactured desire," and the fact that it is NOT "need." How about the rest of you?
Well, sorry that this Adam Smith thing rang my chimes. We tend to say "free market according to Adam Smith" when what we mean is "free market according to Ronald Reagan's lies about Adam Smith." If Reagan could even pronounce "Smith" ...
Was checking out some reviews and saw where somebody paid $700 for 40 minutes, and was disappointed with the session. No kidding you were disappointed, what were you thinking in the first place. That's insane. There is nothing that a chick can do in an hour that justifies that kind of money, I don't care if she's your favorite porn star and gives you a 30 minute rim job, bbbj, and greek. And I've seen upwards of $1000/Hr..
So what do you consider to be pretty much your upper limit? For me if it's about $350/hr. Tops. And at that I'm expecting GFE, multiple pops, shower, the whole nine yards. I usually pay $200 - $300, and consider it way overpriced. I don't blame the girls, capitalism at it's finest and all that, but Jesus $700?
I pretty much agree with all your points, but $$ or $$$ is not really overpriced, IMHO, unless their service is lacking.
There are those who have the kind of cash to pay the big, big bucks, so more power to them. I would venture to say that one of the attractions for these clients is that they know they're not swimming in a very crowded pool, certainly not with common folk. Elitists need to get their rocks off too.
Most I have paid is $300 (though I did pay $350 for a threesome once).
The most I have considered paying is $450 for someone I have had my eye on, but wasnt able to schedule an appointment that was good for both of us, and I have yet to call her back.
and what you consider is a bargain. For me, 3 bills is a bargain. I get a great time with a beautiful woman and without the hassles of a GF. I wouldn't pay more than 4 though, but why should you anyway when there are so many ladies out there who can show you a great time and only charge 3?
Tot Ziens!!
SB
Supply and Demand
First rule of demand: At a certain price, there is a certain demand. At a higher price, demand will be less (all things being equal). Women (just as men) are not equal and (thank God herself) each woman derives her own "demand curve." The curvy ones sometimes genrate more demand and can increase price and maintain or improve cash flow.
Second Law of Demand: Response (in either direction) will be greater over time in response to a change in price (all things being equal -- see above). A woman who increase her price will push her clients into the price searcher mode where they will seek the same or superior service from another provider.
Also as prices influence supply. When prices are high women will be attracted into the field putting downward pressure on price. The distribution of information helps the market reach equilibrium.
And some guys will pay ANYTHING to actually touch a woman that looks like a Vivid Video Princess! And some girls will let an old skank like me in the door for a smile.... What a wonderful world!
Let's hear it for the Internet!!! YAHOOOOO!
$200-$300 is not overpriced. I know nice girls who were charging $200-$300 who are struggling to get the volume they want. In these instances, there is definitely market forces putting downward pressures on their prices. If they want more clients, they WILL lower their price accordingly. IF they think they can get by with their current prices and volume, or are satisfied with it, then they will not change.
Upon reviewing the reviews, I have noticed that some of the less desireable ladies have had to set a lower price. I have also noticed that lower prices have led to a higher volume of reviews, perhaps an indicator of higher volume.
Let the market dictate prices and let there be access to good and reliable information about the ladies so that it can be done so in a smoother and more efficent manner.
As far as the $700-$1000 range, sure there will be some takers, but not enough to effect the average market prices. Unreasonable prices, given ample supply, are not sustainable over the long run. Of course, prices are relative.
Did you know that his "invisible hand" was much more a reference to the concept of COMMUNITY GOODWILL in a small market-sized village, rather than to the concept of EVERYONE FOR HIMSELF as we currently perceive the free-market, for better or worse, to function? Did you know that Adam Smith's works make it pretty clear that, for an unfettered free market to work without seriously disenfranchising many of the deserving parties, all participants must self-regulate? Did you know that he pointed out the possibilities of excess corporatism (he called it "marketable conformity"), the possibilities that, without an "invisible hand" of GOD, COMMUNITY GOODWILL, and INDIVIDUAL RESTRAINT, the free market would force us all to compete for excessively valued resources in a manner not consistent with their actual worth to us in their use?
Note please, that most North Americans don't actually get the whole Adam Smith story, we just get the Milton Friedman version of Adam Smith. A bastardized, simplified version, designed to support some rather simple-minded policy-makers who hope that the problems of inner-city decay, maldistribution of wealth in our society, racial intolerance and hence economic disparity generation to generation, and lack of access to education, UNDER THE RUG.
Now then, now that I'm off my soap-box, I do see that this pricing thing is pretty much a statement about the free market. It indicates that resources which are good at advertising themselves end up being valued monetarily at a level much higher than in actual use. It's kind of like Pampers. It's possible that a person in the inner-city who is impoverished and on food stamps is more likely to try to spend those stamps somehow on Nike shoes than on baby formula. Our society tells them to. And Nike's just get more and more expensive. Are we similarly stupid consumers?
Well, I'm not. I do my research, and I insist on bargaining down from the "master class" price with even the most expensive women, and I understand the relationship between advertising and "manufactured desire," and the fact that it is NOT "need." How about the rest of you?
Well, sorry that this Adam Smith thing rang my chimes. We tend to say "free market according to Adam Smith" when what we mean is "free market according to Ronald Reagan's lies about Adam Smith." If Reagan could even pronounce "Smith" ...
To quote: "Are we similarly stupid consumers?" My answer: If refering to the general population is, unfortunately "yes". Just my own .02 on the subject.
I could expand the premise of "stupid" to include the manner in which people vote. I'm not refering to the Reagan reference at all...but try this as a test of your own sometime---Engage someone in a conversation about whatever issue you might chose. Don't pick someone you already know or who necessarily runs in the same social/business circles as you. Try to make the person as "average" as you can....see exactly how much they really KNOW about the subject at hand. It's irrelevant whether or not you agree with their conclusions (hence the way they would be likely to vote on such an issue), but evaluate as much as you can the thought process used to arrive at the conclusion.
Personally, I've found often enough that it's a bit disconcerting that I feel the opinions voice only to be representative of parroting what they've heard from our unbiased media or the spin put on things by our esteemed "pundits".
OK....I relinquish the soapbox to whomever wishes to claim it.
Greywolf, I thought I was the only person who played that game. In addition to your conclusion, which my "surveys" also confirm, I'm amazed by the number of people whose voting history is at odds with their actual stance on the issues. In other words, they should be an X based on their positions and beliefs, but they always vote Y. Apparently the historical voting pattern of families can continue for many generations w/o serious questioning, in much the same manner that religious beliefs taught in childhood rarely get re-evaluated as adults.
Personally I don't consider any of the prices you mentioned excessive. My favorite girl sets a very reasonable price, IMHO, at your top range, is worth every penny and works way too much. I am also setting up a couple of visits with your listed high end, for me that's still quite abit of money but worth it to see who I want to see. I guess my upper limit is about 5K/day but then I'm not sneaking around a wife or girlfriend who is taking some of my cash.
It's all about what you want from life. Personally, I want the best and am willing to pay for it.
DrX