On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 12:05:01PM -0800, Eric J. Korpela (korpela_at_ellie.ssl.berkeley.edu) wrote:
> > On December 21, Aaron Nabil wrote:
> > > If I can offer advise, use the proxy system. Enter the amount maximum
> > > amount you are willing to pay. You have absolutely, irrevocably defused
> > > ANY danger of sniping.
> >
> > If the item is commonly available through other sources, sure, I
> > agree. [...] my definition of "maximum" is a very subjective thing...
> > and may have nothing to do with the "street value" of the item.
> > [...]
> >
> > . I'd pay several hundred bucks for a pdp11/34a in a
> > heartbeat on eBay. Why? Because I've been looking for one for a LONG
> > time [...]
>
> I don't think this invalidates the point Aaron made. In fact it validates
> it. Enter several hundred bucks for your maximum and you won't have to
> snipe. If it goes above that, well, it was more than you were willing to
> pay. What's the problem?
>From what I see, the problem is in finding a foolproof way in which to
determine that maximum. If I think that the market value of something
is, say $100, and I really want it, I might bid $200. If I come back
to look at the auction and see that it's $300, I might re-evaluate my
initial valuation based on that.
It's just another example of incomplete information, which becomes a
problem when the incompleteness is imbalanced between parties.
To fix eBay would be to find something that doesn't lead to these
imbalances (which lead to market distortion in one direction or
another, since the price-setters will be behaving irrationally).
-Rich
--
------------------------------ Rich Lafferty ---------------------------
Sysadmin/Programmer, Instructional and Information Technology Services
Concordia University, Montreal, QC (514) 848-7625
------------------------- rich_at_alcor.concordia.ca ----------------------
Received on Thu Dec 21 2000 - 14:11:54 GMT