🚀 go-pugleaf

Michael Adams <madams@atlcom.net> writes:
> 
> David Lee wrote:
> > 
> > I honestly don't understand what all the fuss is about someone trying to
> > get more than what he paid for a hot item. It's done all the time for
> > hot new products but the only time I hear of anyone getting any flak for
> > it is on the internet. For example, I read when Mazda Miatas first hit
> > the market they were being snapped up for $10,000 over MSRP. But you don't
> > see people picketing the dealers saying they're trying to rip people off.
> 
> ...
> 
> Amen.  Unfortunately, I've been trying to explain this in several posts
> and nobody listens.  The problem is that people are thinking with
> emotion rather than rational thought.  The supply/demand curve is often
> shifted in other products (such as grapes, baseball cards, etc) and
> nobody cares.  The fact that kids are involved and that it's Christmas
> time is dictating irrational responses to people that charge over $200. 

Well, perhaps they are bothered by the fact that this involves children
wheras Mazda Miatas do not.  This does not necessarily make it irrational.
There are many areas in which the involvement of children alters
the interpretation of social responsibility.  You may not be bothered
by the sale of pornography, whereas you would be bothered by the sale of
child pornography, for example.  (I hope you're bothered by the sale of
child pornography...)

The Christmas Materialist Feeding-Frenzy is based on the (dubious)
belief that children's lives are enhanced through the receiving of gifts.
Threatening this reciving is interpreted as increasing the likelihood
of some kind of trauma in children.  If you accept this premise
(which I personally don't) then arguably the social and economic
rules of trade, in this case, should be slightly nullified to prevent trauma
in children.  This is no less rational than outlawing child pornography
in order to prevent trauma in the children involved in its production.
(Although obviously, it would be a huge difference in degree.)

> Everyone should be required to study Economics, then they'd see the
> point we're making.  It's called capitalism, and I guarantee if it
> didn't exist, neither would the N64.

No-one is bothered by Nintendo making a lot of money on the N64.
No-one is bothered by shipping companies or toy stores (who add
value in this situation) making a lot of money on the N64.
People are bothered by scalpers, who add no value, making a lot
of money on the N64 by exploiting "the magic of Christmas".

If scalpers did not exist, the N64 probably would exist anyway.

Capitalism is not threatened by a lack of scalpers.
Capitalism is especially not threatened by a widespread dislike of
scalpers.

The extent to which scalpers represent capitalism is arguable anyway.
It's not like they're venture capitalists, whose contribution
of capital make the production of the product possible.


--Paul