QxD %
Px
ECON 325 – Pricing Theory and Strategies
Outline One: Subjective Value and Demand – Where Do Market Prices Come From?
Sources used: Carl Menger, Principles of Economics; Jack High, “Marginal Utility” and Mario Rizzo, “Cost,” and Steven Horwitz, “Subjectivism,” in The Elgar Companion to Austrian Economics; Karen Vaughn, Austrian Economics in America; James Buchanan, Cost and Choice; Frank Shostak, "Marginal Utility Theory is Not Rocket Science;” and Frank Shostak, “Reality Gets in the Way: The Trouble with Demand Curves.”
First let’s review some basics:
What do economists assume about people’s actions?
What two basic problems do economists address?
1)
2)
What does opportunity cost mean? Provide an example by relating this to economic profit.
One of my favorite economists – F. Bastiat discussed the seen and the unseen as an application of opportunity cost analysis. A good economist looks at both – a bad one does not. Example?
And a good economist looks at the long run effects of policies and or events, not just the short run effects.
Where Do Market Prices Come From?
The short answer to that question is: the subjective value of consumers.
Consumers really determine prices in markets. This must be understood in any pricing decision. So let’s go back to the beginning . . . .
When making a pricing decision – you need to remember that people need to learn the “causal connection between things [or a service] and the satisfaction of their needs.” (Menger)
Once someone understands how something (or someone’s service) in the physical world can help satisfy a need – that person understands the causal connection. Then it is a matter of obtaining this thing or service.
But nothing will have value unless this causal connection exists.
“Value is therefore nothing inherent in goods, no property of them, but merely the importance that we first attribute to the satisfaction of our needs, that is, to our lives and well-being, and in consequence carry over to economic goods as the exclusive causes of the satisfaction of our needs.” (Menger)
This leads to Menger's value theory (of say “X”):
1. A human need (I would add want)
2. Causal connection of X to the human need or want
3. Knowledge of the connection
4. Command over X
If we add:
5. Insufficient quantity of X to satisfy requirements
Then we have scarcity and an economic good or service.
Only when the first “four requirements are present simultaneously can a thing become a good. When even one of them is absent, a thing cannot acquire goods-character, . . . “ (Menger)
Could a non-scarce good also have value? Example?
Would it have “exchange” value – that is, would it command a market price? Explain.
If something satisfies the first four properties above – but not the fifth – it is a non-economic good and is what economists today call a “free good.”
Imaginary goods:
Menger calls “imaginary goods” goods that are only, in the opinion of someone, able to meet a need but do not do so in some objective or physical sense.
So – someone might believe that drinking beer will decrease their chances of getting cancer. So to that person – beer does fulfill a need and therefore has value. But in reality (let’s say) there is no real causal connection between drinking beer and not getting cancer.
Imaginary goods (examples?):
In understanding markets, we don’t have to make judgments about how right or wrong actors are with respect to what they think the causal connection of a good is to meeting an end.
“All that matters is the subjective perception of the actor.” (Horwitz) That is what leads them to act the way they do.
“The actors’ mental state at the moment of choice is where explanation of price formation and market processes begin.” (Horwitz)
Back to Menger - When we add #5, we bring in scarcity and can ask how sufficient is the quantity of the item to satisfy the need? And now we have an economic good.
And of course, with changes in this relationship between a good and it meeting a need (according to the knowledge and thoughts of the actor), value arises and disappears. So something could be valuable one day and not valuable the next to an individual. Usually this doesn’t change so often – but it does change.
Examples?
Differences in the Magnitude of the Value of Goods
Here is where we can talk about understanding where a market price comes from. Why one good is more “valuable” than another. We must look at:
1. To what extent different satisfactions have different degrees of importance to us (subjective factor) and
Is satisfying hunger more important than satisfying amusement, for example? Is this different among individuals? Does it change over time? Or does how someone wants to satisfy hunger change?
2. which satisfactions of concrete needs depend, in each individual case, on our command of a particular good (objective factor).
Is someone able to obtain food to satisfy hunger? Is someone able to see a movie in order to satisfy amusement?
Note that #1 is getting us to DEMAND. And #2 is getting us to SUPPLY.
But be careful of the phrase, “objective factor” – this is not saying that the costs to supply a good are objective in some sense. He is saying that the amount of a good under our command is “objective.”
Let’s look at #1 – the subjective factor.
There are needs of different kinds. For example, most likely – for most people - we will first want to consider the maintenance of our lives. These needs are probably the most important. Then needs that increase our well-being. Then needs that just bring us additional pleasure, etc.
Let’s assume (as Menger did) numbers that represent “importance of satisfactions” – 10 being the highest (these are on what life depends, for example), then down from there and ends with 1. If something is less important to us – then the scale begins with 9, and so on.
Menger's Ranking:
|
Satisfaction I |
Satisfaction II |
Satisfaction III |
Satisfaction IV |
Satisfaction V |
|
10 (Food – 1st unit) (Life) |
9 |
8 |
7 |
6 |
|
9 (Food - 2nd unit) (Hunger) |
8 |
7 |
6 |
5 |
|
8 |
7 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
|
7 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
|
6 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
So basically, each of us – within our own minds – rank order needs. Then we also determine the causal connection of goods to these needs. So if maintaining life is our highest valued need – and we conclude that food will help us do that – then we will value food very highly
(Menger’s 10). Once we have satisfied that need with a particular amount (let’s call it a unit) of food, then another unit of food might satisfy a lower valued need – we would stay alive without it but would not be as healthy. The next unit of food, say, does not help us with either of these needs, but instead increases our enjoyment of life (it is chocolate cake, for example). So this unit of food satisfies a lower valued need, and so on.
So as we obtain a good, we first satisfy the highest valued need. Then the next and so on and so on. With each marginal need satisfied (and the marginal value of each need is falling), the value of the good doing the satisfying is also falling.
Here we have Diminishing Marginal Utility or diminishing marginal value.
Diminishing marginal utility (MU) or value:
Note the difference between this explanation and the explanation we find in most textbooks. The idea that as we consume more of something, the marginal value falls because of psychological (the second piece of chocolate cake isn’t as good as the first because you have already had one and therefore don’t like it as much – it doesn’t give us as much “utility”) or physiological reasons (we get full, for example).
This is not saying that. This is saying that we are valuing each marginal unit of the good less because it satisfies a lower valued need on our individual need scale. It isn’t that we don’t like the second piece of chocolate cake as much – it is that it is satisfying a need that is lower valued than the need the first piece satisfied. (More on this difference later).
Let's Review The Diamond/Water Paradox -
The diamond/water paradox asked why diamonds were of such high value (say, in terms of price), while water did not have much value (relatively low price) – yet water is necessary for life but diamonds are not.
As Adam Smith said, “Nothing is more useful than water, but it will purchase scare anything. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it.” (Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations)
The Classical economists tried to answer it with the labor theory of value -
but were never satisfied with their answers – and rightly so. There were obvious exceptions to this principle. Land, for example, commanded a price even if no labor went into its production. Non-reproducable goods, such as Rembrandt paintings, exchanged at prices that had little to do with labor.
Marginal utility theory (finally “discovered” in the 1870’s) reversed cause and effect with respect to this labor theory of value.
An expensive car does not command a high price because of how much labor went into its production. On the contrary – it is because it commands a high price that so many engineers and craftsman can be paid to produce it.
Imputation Theory:
The value of labor is imputed from the value of the final good it produces. Not the other way around!
Prices of consumer goods determine the prices of labor, land and capital.
But – we still have not answered: What determines the price (value) of consumer goods? Why are diamonds more expensive than water?
The answer was twofold:
1. we don’t compare the whole stock of a good with the whole stock of another good – focus on the relative units of the good. Or the marginal unit.
2. And the value placed on the goods is subjective in nature.
It is the least important or marginal use that determines the value of water to us.
If diamonds were so abundant that we could use them for shoe ornaments – they would not command such a high price. If the supply of water decreased substantially – to the point where we only had enough to drink – its price would skyrocket.
So consumers satisfy highest valued ends first as they command a good – then second highest valued, etc.
Consumer ends – e1, e2, e3 . . . end n.
X being a good that helps attain an end.
The MU of x is the importance that the consumer places on a unit of x. And this is imputed to the good from the least valuable end obtained by using it.
If a consumer has 3 x’s – then the MU of x is the importance she attaches to e3, since she can attain that end. If she loses one x, then the MU of x relates to e2 and so on.
Relate this to Pricing Strategy: This is why we can talk about some pricing strategies that relate to the idea that a consumer will not pay as high of a price for a third unit of a good that will satisfy a lower valued end that they would pay for the first unit that would satisfy a higher valued end.
Examples?
Satisfying Ends and Time: An end we want to satisfy in the future is less important to us than an immediate end (generally speaking). Therefore -- we might buy that extra (2nd) bottle of shampoo if the price is lower to us.
Careful: attaining e2 does not relate to the marginal utility in obtaining e3 for example in the same way that the theory is typically explained in economics textbooks which says that the MU from the first bite of chocolate cake will relate to the MU of taking the second bite. This is a different way of explaining diminishing marginal utility.
Opportunity Cost and Ends
Opportunity cost then is the end foregone when x is used for another end.
Consumer has one x. Uses it to obtain e1. She then forgoes e2 – her next highest valued end.
This is her opportunity cost.
So, for example, opportunity cost is usually defined as the highest valued alternative foregone. We might add a word: The highest valued alternative END foregone.
If Bob buys X instead of Y (which he would have bought if he had not bought X) – his opportunity cost is not Y – it is the end that he forgoes because he didn’t buy Y. Bob is giving up a subjectively valued end – not Y per se.
It is the ends of consumers that must not be forgotten when trying to determine what they will buy and at what price. What are they trying to achieve with what they are buying?
If someone buys a piece of chocolate cake instead of a glass of wine, the opportunity cost to the customer is not the glass of wine – it is the end that glass of wine would have satisfied.
Some ends can seem strange in very developed economies. Our ends change and can be more elusive: http://www.inc.com/inc5000/list/2016/
Diminishing Marginal Utility and Demand
As a consumer gets additional units of x, he applies them to less important ends – so the MU of x diminishes as the command over x increases (value of ends decreases). MU of x3 is less than that of x2 because the consumer places less importance on e3 than on e2.
We can relate this theory to a typical demand curve we see today (for an individual):
Individual Demand for x:
The first unit bought is applied to e1 – and therefore the consumer is willing (and we have to add able in here as well) to pay a higher price than for the second unit – which is applied to e2 (a lower valued end) and so on.
However – be careful. This demand curve is a snapshot in time.
But what about supply? That is – how many ends are satisfied depends upon the amount of the good people have command over – how many are supplied?
But what does that depend upon?
Guess what – subjective value!! We often hear that the supply side of a market is only based upon objective costs of production.
Let’s dig deeper.
Explanation of the Law of Increasing Marginal Opportunity Cost:
The law of increasing marginal opportunity cost corresponds directly to the law of diminishing marginal utility. In fact, it is just diminishing marginal utility considered from another angle.
Remember, if a consumer wants 10 units of x but also wants a unit of y more than the 10th unit of x. Given her budget, she buys y instead of the 10th unit of x. Her opportunity cost is e10 – the end she forgoes by not having that 10th unit of x.
If she gives up a second unit of x in order to buy another unit of y, her cost will be higher. She forgoes a more important end, e9, and so on.
This is ultimately the reason that as more of a good is supplied to the market, its cost will increase.
For example: Each time an additional unit of y is produced – resources are used that could have produced x. Therefore, the ends that x could have helped attain will not be attained.
Think of it this way: it costs Bob $1.00 to produce the whistles he sells. Usually, the economist stops there. OK, $1.00 is our objective cost of production.
But wait – where did the $1.00 come from? Why not $2.00?
Bob must buy his resources to produce his whistles. So when Bob buys say, a piece of wood to make his whistle – he is bidding that wood away from another use (the whistle’s opportunity cost). But of course, things do not have opportunity costs – only people do!
Whistles Produced (and ends met) Spoons Produced (and ends met)
1. e1 (e3 for spoons is forgone) 1. e1
2. e2 (e2 for spoons is forgone – higher valued end) 2. e2
3. e3 (e1 for spoons is forgone – even higher valued end) 3. e3
So the opportunity cost of the wood is actually the end that is foregone by people who are not able to buy, say, a wooden spoon because the scarce wood is used for the whistle instead. If this end is of high value to people (the end that a wooden spoon would help achieve) – then spoon producers will be bidding a pretty high price for the wood themselves (they would be able to because the consumers are willing to pay a relatively high price for something that would help them achieve a relatively high valued end).
In order for Bob to obtain the wood, then, he must bid at least as much as the spoon makers are bidding. This is what determines the $1.00 cost that Bob faces.
And remember – as more and more spoons are not produced – we move up the value scale of ends not met by those who would have bought the spoons. Therefore, as Bob produces more whistles – higher and higher ends are forgone by consumers and they will pay higher and higher prices for spoons. Spoon makers will then bid higher and higher prices of wood – increasing the cost to Bob.
This is the law of increasing marginal opportunity cost. And it all goes back to the same analysis that is used to explain diminishing marginal utility!! The subjective value of people’s ends!
The standard supply curve then is upward sloping because of this law. It basically reflects the opportunity cost of higher and higher valued ends not met when resources are pulled away from other production processes:
Supply Curve:
So that is why Shostak (your reading) suggests, “that it is consumer buying or abstention from buying that is the sole determining factor for the prices of goods.”
Why is this important? Knowledge!
Let’s return to Menger’s theory regarding an economic good:
His value theory (of say “X”):
1. A human need
2. Causal connection of X to the human need
3. Knowledge of the connection
4. Command over X
If we add:
5. Insufficient quantity of X to satisfy requirements – then we have an economic good.
1 and 4 above are statement of preferences and constraints. But what about 2 and 3?
Understanding both 2 and 3 though is the central ingredient of economic growth – which is knowledge!
This knowledge must be known by both the consumer and producer!
The consumer won’t buy something if they don’t have that knowledge.
How do they obtain the knowledge?
Ideas?
The producer is really guessing if what he is selling will actually help people satisfy ends. How do the producers find this out?
Let’s talk about this by using the basic demand and supply model BUT we have to include the entrepreneur/producer.
Someone “sets” a price – the producer. The producer does take into consideration his or her production costs (which come from opportunity costs as we have learned – including the producer’s own opportunity cost of his/her time).
But once the price is set – what happens? Either the producer sells the good at that price or he doesn’t. Or he sells some, but not as many as he produced.
Shortages and surpluses provide knowledge to producers.
Profits and losses provide knowledge to producers.
As this knowledge is gained, prices are changed.
Markets are processes – ever changing, knowledge generating processes.
Therefore, going back to the very “essence” of both demand and supply is important to understanding prices on several levels (although these are not mutually exclusive):
1. Understanding markets as social phenomena that come out of individual valuations of ends - understanding the process of price formation is key to understanding what markets really are – how and why they come about.
2. Knowledge – prices are full of knowledge about the ends that people value (but also knowledge about consumer understanding of the causal effect of a particular good or service). Prices then give knowledge to people – leading to changes in their behavior. So how this knowledge comes about and how changes in knowledge change outcomes for us is important.
3. Resource Allocation and Other Outcomes – With the understanding of markets and market prices – we can understand how and why resources are allocated in the way they are. This is directly related to knowledge as well.
4. Changes in Knowledge when Prices are “Distorted”- If either side of our market is changed by an “outside force” – meaning that a price does not simply reflect the subjective value of consumers (and their knowledge of causal connection) – but it reflects something else as well – we can have a better understanding of how that will change the outcomes in markets if we have an understanding of non-distorted prices. Examples:
a. Demand side: If an excise tax is placed on one good. This changes the relative prices of goods, changes the way people will attempt to meet their ends. This changes resource allocation – and has outcomes we want to try to understand.
b. Supply side: If the amount that a producer pays for a resource is in some way controlled (minimum wage law for example) – this will again, change the way by which resources are allocated and thereby change outcomes in markets. It is not simply that they will “create a surplus of workers” for example – but this distorts the information or knowledge that is embedded in a market wage. We no longer have a “market” wage determined by subjective opportunity costs but something else. Therefore – all decisions made based upon this wage will also be “distorted.” What are the implications of these distortions?
One More Theory to Review: Price Elasticity
Elasticity is a tool for estimating responsiveness of some dependent variable to a change in an independent variable.
Definition: Elasticity - The percentage change in a dependent variable brought about by a 1% change in an independent variable.
Intuitively, elasticity may be regarded as a measure of sensitivity.
If people are sensitive or responsive, we will say that they are elastic.
Therefore the change in the dependent variable is greater than 1% (the change in the independent variable).
If they are insensitive or not very responsive, we will regard them as inelastic.
Therefore the change in the dependent variable is less than 1% (the change in the independent variable).
What if the change in the dependent variable is = 1% (the change in the independent variable) – this is called unitary or unit elastic.
Let's first focus on the Price Elasticity of Demand -- How responsive or sensitive are consumers of X to a change in the price of good X?
Price Elasticity of Demand: The percentage change in Quantity Demanded brought about by a 1% change in the price of a good, or
Algebraically:
ED =
% QxD
% Px
Where (Delta)
means "change in." The larger the elasticity, the more responsive or sensitive
the demand for good X is to a change in its price.
Remember: Elasticity is always read as the absolute value. Since quantity demanded decreases with a price increase, the price elasticity coefficient is negative. Economists, being lazy, usually express the coefficient as a positive number even when its meaning is the opposite. Careful though – when dealing with other elasticity coefficients, the sign will tell us something – not about elasticity, but about the relationship that is taking place – more later.
Determinants of price elasticity of demand.
a) Availability of close substitutes: Demand is more elastic, the more substitutes that are available.
If your product has a lot of competition that is pretty similar, raising prices will most likely drive consumers away.
This is where convincing your consumers that your product is “different” can be very important.
For software (as an example), product differentiation is a lot easier than if you're selling vacuum cleaners.
Therefore, build integral features that are essential to the customer and that your competitors don't have.
Also – be aware of the switching costs that consumers might face. If they are really high – then elasticity won’t be as high.
Buying one brand of soup over another has very low switching costs. But buying a different brand of computer over what you have – the cost might be very high. Why?
Another example?
b) Price relative to income or proportion of total expenditures: Demand is more inelastic, the smaller price is relative to income.
You might sell some of the least expensive cars around, but even a cheap vehicle costs a lot of money with respect to someone’s budget. The higher the price, the more elastic it is. Some would say this is due to “psychological pricing” – that is, as the theory goes, a consumer might not even pay attention to how much a pack of gum costs so a price increase by few cents wouldn’t be a big deal.
But the consumer probably will know exactly how much that new car will cost them. Economists look at this more in terms of people’s income. Let’s face it – ability to buy is as important as willingness to buy!
If you rent goes up 50% -- you respond!
c) Time: Demand is more elastic, the longer the time frame (because there are more available substitutes, information, etc.), ceteris paribus.
You should ask: How long will this price change last? How long do I plan to keep this price where it is?
Goods become more elastic in the long run (but how to define that time frame can be difficult). Depends upon the product.
Need to consider: how possible is it to find substitutes or to learn to live without something over time?
The classic example is oil. If the price of oil rose tomorrow, people would grumble over breakfast for a couple days but still fill their tanks. In the long run, however, people might buy hybrids or smaller cars that use less gas. So even if you determine that your product is inelastic, be careful of what implications a price change could have down the road.
One study I looked at (June 2016), states the following:
“we obtain estimates of gasoline demand elasticity ranging from -.27 to -.35. These responses are nearly an order of magnitude more elastic than some recent (and commonly cited) estimates from comparable studies. . .. [These numbers] should be interpreted to reflect the short-run demand response that occurs over a period
of several months or years, rather than the longer-run demand responses that could occur
over decades (potentially capturing expansions in public transit or the development of more efficient cars).”
So for every 10% decrease in the price of oil, demand increases by 2.7% to 3.5%. What do you think the longer term coefficients will be?
d) Durability of the product
Possibility of postponing purchase
Possibility of repair
Used product market
This can relate to the “substitute” theory above. Are used products substitutes for your product? Can the product be repaired? Can the consumer do without your product for a period of time?
Applications. You should be able to make comparative statements about the elasticity of demand for various products:
a) What is more elastic: the demand for automobiles in general, or the demand for VW Bug? (Assume there is no brand loyalty to Bugs). Explain your theory.
b) What is more elastic: Demand for salt, or the demand for an automobile? Explain your theory.
c) What is more elastic: Your demand for pain pills at 3 a.m. at the 7-11, or your demand for pain pills in general for your medicine cabinet. Explain your theory.
d) How elastic is a clothes washer or other large appliance that is usually a large proportion of a person’s budget?
However:
With the clothes washer -- it might be more elastic because it might be repairable. So as the price increases, people buy less because they decide to repair or buy a used machine instead. So the more "durable" the machine is (see above), the more elastic demand will be with a price increase -- people will buy fewer machines because they postpone, repair or buy a used one.
A Graphical Interpretation of Price Elasticity.
Some demand curves could have a range of prices where demand is perfectly inelastic - what does this mean? (The elasticity coefficient would = 0). And . . .
Graph:
Would a demand curve be perfectly elastic? The elasticity coefficient would = infinity! And . . .
Usually we think of ranges of price as being relatively inelastic or relatively elastic. An individual demand curve could be perfectly inelastic for a range of prices but a market demand curve usually would not be - why?
Graphs:
Price Elasticity and Total Revenue
What can we say about the price a firm is charging for its good, given limited information. Say, only information about demand and perhaps marginal cost information. Some important inferences can be drawn only from information about elasticity.
Total Revenue (TR) is Price x Quantity
Elastic Demand:
Price elasticity of demand will be greater than one. A drop in price of 1% will lead to a greater than 1% increase in demand. So although selling for a lower price, still increase TR due to volume increase.
What about a price increase (assuming elasticity constant)?
Unitary Demand:
Price elasticity of demand will equal one (unitary). A drop in price of 1% will lead to 1% increase in demand. The lower price and increase in volume just offset each other - no change in TR.
What about a price increase (assuming elasticity constant)?
Inelastic Demand:
Price elasticity of demand is less than one. A drop in price of 1% will lead to a lower than 1% increase in demand. So the lower price is not made up for in volume sales and TR declines.
What about a price increase (assuming elasticity constant)?
Application Question: The elasticity of demand at Jones Co. is -.5. They are considering a sale. What can you say about the rationality of a price cut? Price increase? (ceteris paribus)
Application Question: Consider a firm selling plastic 3-sided rulers (inches, centimeters, and thumbs). Suppose that price elasticity was -.2. What can you say about the firms' pricing decision?
Cross Price Elasticity of Demand
What is the concept here?
Formula: EDxy
= % 
QxD
% Py
For example, if we suppose the price of chicken goes up by 20%, and as a result the quantity demanded of pork increases by 10%, at the premise that there is no change in the price of pork or anything else that would have influence on the demand for pork (such as quality, advertising, location, etc).
Then the cross price elasticity of demand for pork, with respect to the price of chicken, is 10%/20% = 0.5.
What factors would influence the cross price elasticity of demand?
The major determinant of cross price elasticity of demand is the closeness of a substitute or complement.
A high positive (+) cross price elasticity indicates that if the price of a certain good goes up, the demand for the other good goes up as well.
The goods are?
A negative (-) cross price elasticity tells us the opposite - that an increase in the price of one good causes a decrease in the demand for the other good.
The goods are?
A small value (either negative or positive) tells us that there is little or no relation between the two goods.
Would switching costs play a role here?
What else?
Applications
Substitutes:
For firms, it is necessary for them to know the cross price elasticity of demand for their products when they consider the effect on the demand for their products of a change facing with the challenging price of a rival's product.
If the quality and appearance is almost the same in the minds of consumers (regardless of the factors of location, and loyalty, etc.) but the price of Firm A is higher than that of Firm B, most consumers will choose the products of Firms B.
Complements:
However, for goods that complement each other, a firm is supposed to promote the sales of both the products and their complements.
If the price of petroleum is constantly high and people think it will continuously get higher in the near future - this is definitely not good for the automobile industry. Some of the automobile companies adopt the strategy of price reduction but they don’t get great feedback.
What affects the decision of a consumer is mainly the price of petroleum instead of the automobile. This may be true of a lot of complements.
In other words, we might get different cross price elasticity coefficients depending upon which price is changed. This can be true for substitutes as well.
Examples:
Some people may think that butter is a substitute for margarine but that margarine is not a substitute for butter.
When buying a printer – does the price of the ink cartridges play a larger role in the decision than the price of the printer?
It gets complicated, doesn’t it!!!
DO ICE THREE