eBay vrs42?

From: vrs <vrs_at_msn.com>
Date: Sat Feb 12 14:06:28 2005

From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf_at_siconic.com>
> 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.

OK, you lost me. How can fairness depend on which side you're on and still
be called fairness?

> > > 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.

Clearly you are *much* better at forming monopoly consortiums than I am.

    Vince
Received on Sat Feb 12 2005 - 14:06:28 GMT