Search results for query: *

If any shoe can bring some old heads from the 90s out, it’s possibly these white/red 12s (or a faithful version of the Taxis). No resale and no double and triple ups because etfs (vti, schd, voo, vt if you want some international exposure), are a much more intelligent way to spend an extra $500...

I remember camping out for these in 06. And bleed-gate here on Niketalk (speculation that the originally spec’d model with letters on the eyelets would bleed into the fabric). Wish I remembered my Niketalk handle from back then.

Edited because my opinion was a little gratuitous. But still do wish Stanley Milgram could see this.

I don’t post much and when I do it typically is prefaced with a reminder to be financially thoughtful and not buy 2-3 pair of shoes at resale, leveraged, at the expense of your future financial self (open a brokerage account instead and buy a share of vti, schd, voo rather than the idiotic...

What is the line of reasoning here? No diss, serious question. You had them originally, sold them recently, but would buy them again only to not wear them?

Understand completely. Tried to get them on snkrs and Jj. Didn’t work out. Bought a share of upst this morning instead with the money.

It’s never too late to begin investigating. Seize the opportunity in ‘22.

Smart move. Your tomorrow self thanks you.

Did you say it or declare it? :wink:

The shoe discussion - inasmuch as there is diversity of perspective about the shoes themselves - isn’t characteristic of an echo chamber but to be fair I never said that that part was.

I’ve never said it’s a bad idea to buy shoes or tried to discourage that. Just hoping folks are buying responsibly and balancing consumption with wealth creation avenues. Unfortunately many don’t. Mentioning finances is outside of the echo chamber here, but I think there is a place for the...

Certainly not doing trying to sway you from buying shoes, friend. It’s a little more nuanced than that. Have a happy new year and stay safe out there!

I appreciate these words more than you know. Thank you. Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to you!

Like I mentioned in my earlier post, it’s up to the person to determine if paying $500 - or 120% more than the retail cost - for a non durable good makes sense. But something you mentioned I want to address. Keep in mind 206 that paying $500 for the shoe and then selling them for $500 three...

Because you brought it up … the alternative is simple, you just don’t own the shoe. That might not be the desired outcome but it’s really ok to not own them. It won’t have any negative impact on you (or whomever) at all to just not own them if purchasing them is financially impractical or...

Saying they’re Veblen is a big statement. I think some of the characteristics are there. Except Jordans are not of substantially better quality relative to their counterparts. I typically associate that with a Veblen good. Still I think your point is well taken in that I think the interest...

Thoughtful post. Sounds like you’ve thought through collecting very budget-consciously and are staying away from impulsive decisions. Take care of yourself and stay blessed.

Both a straw man and a false choice fallacy. Remember, there is also the choice not to buy them if it’s economically unfeasible. If people are buying at resale prices and thinking “well they’re overpriced anyway, so why not just pay 100% over msrp,” I’d believe that their financial situation -...

Sounds like a very fiscally smart and responsible plan. Your future self in thanking you. Don’t pay the pirates. The shoes are not intrinsically valued at that resale price so it’s a questionable expenditure of resources to begin with. But also, buying at resale feeds the machine and makes the...

Or the third option: not paying 50% - 100% over retail for a shoe for which the price - even at $225 - is both set by Nike and justified only based on internet sentiment.