Making a profit on eBay

[Caesar517]

There is an end of the chain between supplier and customer.

Yes, the end of the chain is when the consumer aquires the product.

Your father is the end supplier of the service/product. Do you think your father would object if when showing up at a cutomer’s house or business, the neighbor came over and said… My friend here wants your product but I want to make some money. So since you are here I will act as an intermediary. You will get your price and I’ll take a “service charge” of $1000 from your customer.

Will your father be happy? Maybe. He got his profit. The customer? “Well what the heck. My neighbor comes over and does this same ‘deal’ with all my suppliers. He’s only trying to make a profit and what’s wrong with that, right? I’ll just have to pay the price because he’s there.” (Sarcasm of course.) Please. The neighbor inserted himself imporperly in the stream of goods for ONLY his self interest, NOT the convenience of the customer.

If he otherwise had no contact with the consumer and he would still make a profit on the transaction, then he would absolutely be happy. What does this have to do with anything?

I will continue to state that if one takes advantage of a shortage (or manipulates supply, even by ONE unit, to create a shortage) to profit unreasonably, then it is immoral. There is not argument with the fact that Wii’s are in short supply. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be this profiteering going on.

I’ll use the example Jimmy Akin uses in his article. A hurricane hits a town and dopes serious damage. A hotel owner nearby instantly raises his prices. Do you consider that immoral?

There are over 1300 on ebay right now. While it is not “organized” and therefore not regulated, it is still forcing up prices by taking advantage of the ignorance or hardship of another.

You think having to pay a little extra or look a little longer for a luxury item qualifies as hardship?

Calling an alligator a “puppy” does not change the true nature of the alligator.

Gesundheit?

 

[Feste_1242]

Yes, the end of the chain is when the consumer aquires the product.

If he otherwise had no contact with the consumer and he would still make a profit on the transaction, then he would absolutely be happy. What does this have to do with anything?

I’ll use the example Jimmy Akin uses in his article. A hurricane hits a town and dopes serious damage. A hotel owner nearby instantly raises his prices. Do you consider that immoral?

You think having to pay a little extra or look a little longer for a luxury item qualifies as hardship?

Gesundheit?

http://www.council-of-elrond.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif Good post!

 

[newbetx]

http://www.council-of-elrond.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif Good post!

Yes, the end of the chain is when the consumer aquires the product.
And that happened when YOU bought it from the retailer. I’d say it was gluttony but you don’t plan to keep it or consume it yourself. However, you are preventing others from getting it without YOUR control. “Because I can.” doesn’t make it right. You can butt in line to get a ticket, but it doesn’t make it right. You have taken the rightful seat of someone already in line. And you may say that, OK, but what if I get there first. OK, then it is scalping which is illegal in most places. Why, because we don’t believe in free market? No. We do believe in a free market. It’s the scalper that takes away the free from the market. You are nothing more than a scalper if you do this.

What does this have to do with anything?

It explains how greed can blind some people.

I’ll use the example Jimmy Akin uses in his article. A hurricane hits a town and dopes serious damage. A hotel owner nearby instantly raises his prices. Do you consider that immoral?
If he raises his “Basic room Rate,” then yes. There used to be a notice on the back of the room door stating the “basic room rate” for the room. This, you would notice is a very high number. But typically, all rooms are sold at a discount except at times of peak demand. (special events, natural disasters, etc.) . And if he denies shelter to someone who would be in danger and can not pay, that too would be immoral.

You think having to pay a little extra or look a little longer for a luxury item qualifies as hardship?
Anything beyond basic food, water and a lean-to is a luxury item. Whether or not it is required to subsist is immaterial to this argument.

Gesundheit?
Mocking my analogy may make you feel smug but it does not refute it.

I’d love to follow you guys around and insert myself between you and the gas pump. I’d be able to retire real soon! And according to YOU, you would be happy to do it!

But I won’t. I don’t do “Do unto others, and then split!”

 

[Feste_1242]

I’d love to follow you guys around and insert myself between you and the gas pump. I’d be able to retire real soon! And according to YOU, you would be happy to do it!

But I won’t. I don’t do “Do unto others, and then split!”

We would? Weird, I didn’t know that. I was under the impression that I’d be happy to pay whatever price I thought was fair. In other words, I’d be happy to do my research and find out the price of every gas pump (those with and those without middle men standing in front of them). Then I’d be happy to decide if I’d rather go to your gas pump or another. And if I didn’t like any of the prices, I’d be happy to go without gas.

How is buying low and selling high “doing unto others and then splitting”? I see no connection.

He was mocking your analogy because it was ridiculous and meaningless. There was nothing to refute.

 

[newbetx]

We would? Weird, I didn’t know that. I was under the impression that I’d be happy to pay whatever price I thought was fair. In other words, I’d be happy to do my research and find out the price of every gas pump (those with and those without middle men standing in front of them). Then I’d be happy to decide if I’d rather go to your gas pump or another. And if I didn’t like any of the prices, I’d be happy to go without gas.

How is buying low and selling high “doing unto others and then splitting”? I see no connection.

He was mocking your analogy because it was ridiculous and meaningless. There was nothing to refute.

The problem that has been created is that there is NO gas pump without a middle man at it at some point in time for this case. Walmart, online, CC, BB, GS… all have SOME people scalping through them. No way to check. No research to do. If you happen to show up at the pump between the time the truck has filled the tank but before the scalper gets there, you are just lucky. If you have enough gas to drive all over town looking for a “free market” pump, fine too, by your analogy.

Padding YOUR pockets at the expense of others without legitimate means IS “Do unto others and then split.” You may be free to do this. It is neither charitable nor loving. Sounds like the road to Hell to me. I guess in the end, we’ll know for sure. Happy scalping!

Calling ones self a “service provider” (puppy) does not make the fact that they are a scalper (alligator) any different.

 

[Caesar517]

If he raises his “Basic room Rate,” then yes. There used to be a notice on the back of the room door stating the “basic room rate” for the room. This, you would notice is a very high number. But typically, all rooms are sold at a discount except at times of peak demand. (special events, natural disasters, etc.) . And if he denies shelter to someone who would be in danger and can not pay, that too would be immoral.

Then perhaps you are not well versed in basic economics. Have you ever taken classes in macroeconomics or microeconomics? It’s very cool stuff.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
This is a basic graph of supply and demand curves. If a natural disaster creates an increase in demand for hotel rooms, the entire curve labelled “demand” will shift to the right (all the points will move). This means that the intersect point will change. The intersection is the equalibrium. Market forces are restoring forces (always push towards equalibrium). This means that the price must increase. If there is a shortage and the price increases, it forces people to conserve (share hotel rooms).

Of course, if a person were going to die if he didn’t find shelter, the hotel owner should at least ofer him a place in the lobby.

quote=newbetx;4085143]Anything beyond basic food, water and a lean-to is a luxury item. Whether or not it is required to subsist is immaterial to this argument.
I disagree. If you were to monopolize luxury items and sell them at 10x the normal price, no one would buy them and you would go out of business. If you did the same with items of necessity, people would be forced to buy, even if it is in much smaller quantities. The former is not immoral, just stupid. The latter is immoral, because people don’t have the choice not to buy.

Mocking my analogy may make you feel smug but it does not refute it.

I just didn’t understand what you meant by it.

The CCC quote that has been referenced extensively here is speaking to the following two situations:

1. Taking advantage of the hardship of another:
   you are selling water for $10 a unit in the desert. A man who has been lost in the desert stumbles across your kiosk with nothing but $1,000,000. He will die if he doesn’t get water in the next five minutes. At that point, you could charge him $1,000,000 for one unit of water. He would have no choice but to pay it. To charge him more than $10 for a unit of water would be immoral.
2. Taking advantage of ignorance:
   You are selling video games for $50 a game. You see a flustered mother approaching who is looking to buy game for her son, but she plainly knows nothing about video games. You hide the signs that say “$50” and tell her the price is $70. She plainly has no idea what she is buying, but she buys anyway so she can go home. That is immoral because you knew she didn’t know what she was buying and you went out of your way to rip her off.

 

[Feste_1242]

The problem that has been created is that there is NO gas pump without a middle man at it at some point in time for this case. Walmart, online, CC, BB, GS… all have SOME people scalping through them.

Ok, so what if all the pumps have a middle man? It is almost impossible to get something directly from a manufacturer without going through a store. Is it immoral to own a store?

No way to check. No research to do. If you happen to show up at the pump between the time the truck has filled the tank but before the scalper gets there, you are just lucky. If you have enough gas to drive all over town looking for a “free market” pump, fine too, by your analogy.

How does the existence of a middle man prevent a buyer from doing research? Even if *every single *pump has a middle man at it, then I will still choose which pump to go to based on the price, convenience, and other factors. The research is still there. Still you fail to understand that the existence of middle men is *part *of the free market.

Padding YOUR pockets at the expense of others without legitimate means IS “Do unto others and then split.” You may be free to do this. It is neither charitable nor loving. Sounds like the road to Hell to me. I guess in the end, we’ll know for sure. Happy scalping!

But it’s *not *at the expense of others. The wonderful thing about trade/market is that both parties benefit. One person has plenty of cash, and is willing to sacrifice some of it in order to get a book he wants to read. Another person has many books, but no cash for food. If one buys a book from the other, both get what they want. See?

It isn’t necessarily charitable to sell a book. That does *not, *however, mean that it’s immoral. What I mean is that it’s a completely neutral act. There’s nothing wrong with it, but it isn’t a spiritually enriching experience either.

Calling ones self a “service provider” (puppy) does not make the fact that they are a scalper (alligator) any different.

So selling anything ever is scalping?

 

[newbetx]

Taking advantage of the hardship of another:

Hardship: A source or cause of privation or difficulty.
privation: A lack of basic necessities or comforts of life.

By your economic example, Nintendo should have raised the price a long time ago. They didn’t. Why? According to you, they are ignorant of economics. Please. They priced it at what they consider the proper value to the end customer to achieve their ROI.

You claim the Wii is a luxury and that it does not fall within the guidelines of the CCC. I would counter that movie, sports, or show tickets are luxuries too, and they are subject to scalping laws. “Basics” are protectect by profiteering laws. If it were not wrong, there would be no law. The scalpers and profiteers are well aware of your supply/demand argument. They use it for justification. The laws exist because scalpers take unfair advantage of many consumers.

Let’s focus on “difficulty.” If one is buying a Wii for the sole purpose of jacking up the price to someone else, this action contributes to the hardship of those who are wanting to buy it at the MSRP. It contributes to their hardship because 1) demand exceeds supply, 2) most people are not free to hang out at distribution points until the item comes in, or 3) not privy to inside information about when deliveries will be made or 4) reservations for popular items are not managed by the retailer.

Apparently, you don’t see it as “difficult” to constantly explain to your child that you’ve driven 20 times to the local distribution points and even Santa Claus won’t have enough this third Christmas for everyone. Apparently the cost, time sink, anxiety etc, is not your concern. No. Wait! The scalper IS the solution. He will happily provide one to the highest bidder! He is their hero! AND he can profit, too! Wow what a great and intelligent person he is! I just hope he doesn’t hurt himself patting himself on the back.

Then perhaps you are not well versed in basic economics. Have you ever taken classes in macroeconomics or microeconomics? It’s very cool stuff.

There is a great difference in the knowledge of how to do something and wisdom to do it or not. At this point you’re too smart for me. Enjoy the money you will make.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I remember macroeconomics and microeconomics. Remember the backward-sloping demand-curve? That was a tough concept to understand!

 

[Feste_1242]

Hardship: A source or cause of privation or difficulty.
privation: A lack of basic necessities or comforts of life.

We all know the definitions of these words. Why are you wasting your time with this when you could be addressing something that was just said?

By your economic example, Nintendo should have raised the price a long time ago. They didn’t. Why? According to you, they are ignorant of economics. Please. They priced it at what they consider the proper value to the end customer to achieve their ROI.

Can you back this up?

If it were not wrong, there would be no law.

http://www.council-of-elrond.com/forums/images/smilies/rotfl2.gif Really?

Let’s focus on “difficulty.” If one is buying a Wii for the sole purpose of jacking up the price to someone else, this action contributes to the hardship of those who are wanting to buy it at the MSRP. It contributes to their hardship because 1) demand exceeds supply, 2) most people are not free to hang out at distribution points until the item comes in, or 3) not privy to inside information about when deliveries will be made or 4) reservations for popular items are not managed by the retailer.

That’s ridiculous. Are *you *“contributing to the hardship of others” when you buy something, when you could have left it on the shelf for someone else to buy?

Apparently, you don’t see it as “difficult” to constantly explain to your child that you’ve driven 20 times to the local distribution points and even Santa Claus won’t have enough this third Christmas for everyone. Apparently the cost, time sink, anxiety etc, is not your concern. No. Wait! The scalper IS the solution. He will happily provide one to the highest bidder! He is their hero! AND he can profit, too! Wow what a great and intelligent person he is! I just hope he doesn’t hurt himself patting himself on the back.

What on earth are you talking about?