Often debates are a healthy way of solving issues, other times debates aren't all they are cracked up to be. I'll let you be the judge of if this debate is solving issues. The community currently has a long struggle with determining the best way to value the rarest cards.
The saying goes "value is what the highest bidder is willing to pay for it." This is the first side of the debate at hand the value of the rarest cards. Many people will never be able to afford the top cards that go for $20,000+ routinely, and that means some people won't be able to complete their collections. This sounds like a problem for middle class people and an opportunity for the upper class people who are able to afford these cards. It's truly resembling the US economy and how it works, and it's pretty much the way in which we have accepted these things working.
The second side of the debate takes a much different view on the concept of value. The second side views more value more so as what the average person can afford. It's looking out for the smaller fish in the big pond, so to say. It's not really resembling the US economy but rather a socialist one such as China. This is more so looking for younger people looking to get into the hobby, because often younger people are going to have less money then those who are retired.
Which side do you think is the best for the community at hand? Does it depend on your situation yourself?
No comments:
Post a Comment