On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, vrs wrote:
> > Would you also claim that this is unfair to the seller and the auction
> > house? This actually is known to happen in the Real World (tm), and
> > I've never heard anyone there complain that it is unethical, or that
> > it constitutes "manipulating the price".
>
> If, as a consequence, the Rembrandt goes for $1 (or any other rediculous
> price), I would say that was clearly unfair to the seller.
Unfair? It depends on what side you're on. Unethical or illegal? Not at
all.
> > I think a big part of the problem with the interpretation of bidder
> > cooperation as "manipulating the price" is that you're trying to
> > claim that an action one of the bidders DOES NOT PERFORM is the
> > one that is unethical. Yet all bids are voluntary; if it were to
> > be otherwise, something *very* unethical must be going on.
>
> No, it was the getting together of a monopoly consortium of the bidders that
> was the problem.
If this practice was unethical then everything we buy today would cost
about a million times more than it does.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
Received on Sat Feb 12 2005 - 13:42:27 GMT