The difficulty of selling a Wii

[Final-Fan]

Eomund said:

Final-Fan said:

Eomund said:

Final-Fan said:

Eomund said:

Eomund said:

choirsoftheeye said:

Let's say there's a lake in Flatland. (i.e. hypothetical two-dimensional world, as if on a sheet of paper.) People live on the edge of this Flatlake, and use the water for various things. Then the Flatlake shrinks. cdude is like an entrepeneur who offers, for a fee, to shift the Flatlake so that is is closer to one group of people -- and consequently further from others. cdude makes his profit, and some people "benefit", but that doesn't make him ethical -- and he does NOT benefit the market in general.

What you are not taking into account between your example with Flatland and Real Life is that there is always more supply being pumped out by Nintendo. I also disagree with your premise that he "offers, for a fee, to shift the Flatlake so that is is closer to one group of people -- and consequently further from others." He isn't shifting the entire flatlake, he is more carrying a bucket of water for someone else. Does the person buying that bucket of water EXPECT to get his service for free? Not if the person is rational.

I do not see how Cdude is not benefitting the market in general either. If someone will buy it then it is a good transaction. That benefits the market, no? When supply shrinks and demand is still high, prices by necessity will rise if they aren't fixed. In this manner supply may meet demand.

He's taking a bucket that would have gone to someone for free (in the example), and selling it to someone for a price. Just because it WORKS capitalistically doesn't make it A-OK. The fact that the Wii is not in a closed system doesn't make a closed-system analogy a bad comparison. As for how he fails to benefit the market, I explain this in the exchange I am having with cdude himself, although I also think that the example spells it out fairly clearly.

And hey, I'll even make the Flatlake a perfect analogy for the Wii. The full flatlake is "Wiis in stock in stores", smaller Flatlake is "Wiis available to people who get there soon after shipment arrives". The Flatlake grows at a steady pace until it reaches full size, but the Flatlanders are currently using more than it replenishes. cdude's "bucket" is the Wiis he deprives People A on the west lake shore to sell to People B on the eastern shore. My analogy is now perfect to the Wii situation in the USA, or close enough for any reasonable purpose in this discussion.

Your premise in Flatland is still flawed. You are comparing a needed resource, Flatlake, with a luxury item, a Wii. There is no problem with him selling a bucket of water in Flatland either, in fact he could start a small business doing just that, would that be scalping in that case? Also, "Just because it WORKS capitalistically doesn't make it A-OK." is flawed because it DOESN'T MAKE IT WRONG EITHER! People are personally insulting him, that is what is not A-OK. He can sell them for a profit and he will be perfectly within the bounds of ethical business.

He provides a service to those who will pay. In essence his service is to hold the Wii until someone needs it. The retail stores are bound to a fixed price. He however isn't. He can raise the price so people who do not value a Wii at that price will not buy it. He is holding it until someone that values a Wii at the price he is asking purchases it from him.

Fine: Flatlanders don't need to drink it, they just want to water their lawns. You have only criticized my analogy, not my argument; do you concede that I am right in that arena?

But thank you nonetheless for criticizing my analogy; I am much happier to have made such a good comparison of something I came up with on the fly.

People's insulting him is bad but does not make him any closer to being in the right; otherwise Bush would be the greatest leader on the planet.

HE IS A PARASITE ON THE MARKET EVEN IF INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS WILLINGLY DO BUSINESS WITH HIM. Just as a monopoly could charge whatever the hell they want for, let's say, deoderant. It's a luxury item -- you can be stinky or bathe more often or use some traditional remedy -- but that doesn't mean that the fact that tons of people would keep buying $50 deoderant sticks turns it into a legitimate business practice. Viability =/= legitimacy.