I get your point, but (a) it's wrong and (b) your example doesn't support it.
People don't make economic decisions the way you describe - nobody sets a price in stone for things like haircuts, houses, or iPads and then goes looking for something that fits their price. Even when people say they do this, economic research shows that people constantly moderate their willingness to pay a particular price based on context, on what's available, on the transaction costs involved in looking for cheaper alternatives, on the nature of the product they are buying, and the amount that the product costs. In other words, people's behavior doesn't match what they say they will do.
While consumption in the aggregate is dependent on price, it is not dependent on it in a way which is transparent to the consumer, even if he or she thinks it is.
Any grouch who comes along and says "I said I would only spend $200k on a house (or $10k on a car or whatever) and gosh darn it that's what I stuck to" ignores how they came up with that price in the first place, and ignores how they committed to buying one item within a general category ("a house") when this is about something specific (an iPad Mini, not just 'a tablet').
The fact that you say you currently won't spend $330 on this iPad Mini (before price or product are even announced, let alone for sale) but would spend $300 is insignificant. There's nothing reliable to be drawn from it.
EDIT: Ok, you roll eyes at the claim that $30 = $30,000, and then in your very next post you say "Of course they are equivalent". Did you think someone was interpreting you to mean that those two amounts were literally the same integer?
