eBay vrs42?

From: vrs <vrs_at_msn.com>
Date: Sat Feb 12 10:50:21 2005

From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf_at_siconic.com>
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, vrs wrote:
> > From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf_at_siconic.com>
> > > On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, vrs wrote:
> > >
> > > > Now, if I came to you and said "Don't buy the Ford; let me buy it
when
> > > > it goes on half-price clearance, and I'll let you borrow it on
> > > > Saturdays", that would be more analogous, and not really fair to
Ford.
> > > > (Though certainly, there are worse sins.)
> > >
> > > Excuse me, but where in the Capitalist creed does it state that Ford
is
> > > entitled to sell a car to everyone and there's no sharing allowed?
> >
> > No creed involved. I never said the the thing you alledge.
>
> In so many words, that's what you are saying above. You're saying it is
> unethical for two people to decide to hold off buying a Ford, presumably
> to send them into stress and reduce the price by half, whereby one buyer
> then buys the car and they both agree to share it on weekends. Aside from
> being a ludicrous scenario, there is nothing unethical there. Ford is not
> entitled to the two people being required to do anything other than
> maximize their own interest.

Nope, that's not what I said.

Agreed, the scenario is somewhat ludicrous.

I never said anything about "Ford" being entitled to behavior. I mad a
value judgement (formed an opinion and stated it) about a behavior.

> > > This is such a terrible analogy and I can't believe you're arguing
what
> > > you are.
> >
> > You missed my point. It was the conspiracy to wait for half-price
clearance
> > (in a contrived context, where it was important that the total demand
and
> > supply were known) that was the dubious behavior.
>
> How is that a conspiracy? That's called smart shopping!

There is a fine line, in an inefficent marketplace, between "smart shopping"
and manipulating the whole market.

> > I have also consistently maintained that this behavior is "slightly
> > unethical". In my opinion, it is the inefficiency of the market that
> > makes this unfair to the seller, so generalizing that to some claim that
> > sellers are generally entitled to everyone's bid would be silly.
>
> Too bad for the seller. If they are smart they take this into account and
> adjust their prices accordingly.

Which we know would not be possible in the inefficient market example that
was given.

> > All I am really trying to point out is that deliberately creating a
market
> > inefficiency for personal gain is contrary to the spirit of fair play.
In
> > my mind, the notion of a fair playing field is as key to the long term
> > success of a society as the drive for personal gain.
>
> So what you are saying is that you want to regulate the market.

You brought up government, I didn't. I happen to believe that legal
"rights" have a very limited relationship to "doing the right thing". Can't
legislate morality, and wouldn't want to try.

    Vince
Received on Sat Feb 12 2005 - 10:50:21 GMT