Boy, has this thread made a lot of people allergic to a lot of different things! First, there is money itself. Hate to burst anyone's bubble, but there will always be inequality. Yet there are 2 kinds of inequality. If you visited a factory in the Soviet Union and found that everyone had the same salary, the same status, and got the same rewards, you would understand why the Soviet workers had motivation to put away a bottle or 2 of vodka everyday at work and die at 57, as their plant and country crumbled. There's also another kind of inequality. Most people have absolutely no problem with type: It's guys like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, the Google guys, and the like - making huge incomes and creating vast wealth for themselves and tremendous productivity gains for those who use their products. (If you are allergic to this second kind of inequality, you better move to Cuba or North Korea, as this type of stuff is all around you, making you miserable every second of every day.) Now I do understand the allergic reaction to the inequality created when some companies and individuals get in bed with the politicians and get special favors / deals. But as long as there is nothing illegal here - and there is no evidence that any of the guys in the article are criminals, it is what it is. In the end, all we have are rich guys buying things, which is more productive to all of us (as the money makes its way through the economy) than the guy hoarding his money under a mattress.
The other main allergy attack seems to be "expensive is best". This has been argued out ad nauseum and seems to come up in every other thread. Here's my take on this: If you like the sound of a Nola or a Martin Logan, you can buy a model for $3k, $15K, or more. It's the same sonic signature from the same manufacturer. You will get more detail, extension, and fireworks by paying more. But no one is holding a gun to your head if you want to pay less. The key is to figure out which brand you like, and then spend as much or little as you like.
To me, the dealer here is no different than any other dealer, except he limits his market niche to the upper end. But if you walk into any dealer and tell him you are looking at the high end of the market, he will assemble a similarly priced system for you using the brands he sells. The guy in the article just has the advantage of marketing himself better because he only has "the best".
I guess the issue I have with the customer in the article has to do with how "involved he is". The article doesn't really state how many systems he has heard at that price range. If he has not heard too many, he may not be getting the optimal thing for him. Yes, he and his wife were into the music, but say he heard another brand, he may get absorbed even more. But on the other hand, the guy will probably be much happier with his system than most of us here on this site as he got something that satisfies his needs. By limiting his choices of gear, he will not be engaging in endless comparisons, his purchase process will not drag on for months, he will not be second guessing his decision, he will not be experiencing regret after purchase as he won't know something "better" may have come out at an upcoming show. Overall, he will have less anxiety and be happier listening to music rather than worrying about the gear.
i meant to comment on the WSJ article, the first thought that ran through my mind was "score for Gideonl!" our firm spends quite a bit to get articles printed about the co., broker profiles, done deals and case studies - any mention in WSJ would be a score in my book. Ive actually corresponed with him re the Rethm horns and he'll sell you a system or component well under 20k and he's more humble than the guy dipicted in the article.
