On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Bill Dawson wrote:
> -> > > Aaron Nabil <nabil_at_SpiritOne.com>
> . . .
> ->
> ->
> -> And I'll make one up...
> ->
> -> Vendor X hauls a bunch of stuff down to VCF n, some of which he
> sells.
> -> People are interested in what he has, but aren't willing to pay what
> he
> -> thinks are reasonable prices. He has a warehouse of the stuff,
> realizes
> -> that there is going to be a VCF n+1 and that the same people will be
> there
> -> and the value of his warehouse of stuff will only go up. If he gives
> his
> -> stuff away, those will simply be sales he won't make next year, and
> he may
> -> be creating the impression that if you wait long enough everything
> will be
> -> "free" or "any offer accepted" at the end, thus driving down sales
> and
> -> prices even further. So he throws things in the dumpster, taking
> care to
> -> smash them extra hard on the way in.
> ->
> -> That's a prefectly reasonable rationale, and the Vendor X doesn't
> become
> -> any more "unreasonable" or less "sane" or "logical" becuase he didn't
> -> hand out a leaflet explaining what he was doing.
>
> This isn't a reasonable rationale at all. Again, with greed as the
> prime motivation here, what appears to others as irrational actions
> occurs. Just because the seller has a reason for his actions doesn't
> make it reasonable, rational or sane. The fact that he refuses to
> explain his actions is a clue that he also knows his rationale for his
> actions is unacceptable. His actions are no more justified than the
> other seller who claims he heard a voice inside his head telling him to
> blow up the VCF because every is plotting against him to ensure that he
> doesn't sell anything.
>
Some people make a living by buying and selling surplus. They are not
"classic computer collectors" and do not "owe anything to the
community". Theirs is hard and risky work with no guarantees, it
isn't "easy money". To dismiss their desire to maximize their profit (so
that they can do things like eat and pay the rent) as "being greedy" is
patently absurd and does not merit further comment.
--
Aaron Nabil
Received on Wed Oct 18 2000 - 23:29:17 BST