How is suggesting that if you don't understand a simple concept you need to learn up on it insulting your intellegence? If i made false assumptions about astrophysics and someone suggested i take an astrophysics class they wouldn't be insulting my intellegence, they would be telling me what classes i would need to understand what i was talking about.
If you can't understand it as I stated it then you obviously lack the backround on economics to argue it. It's not an insult, it's a fact.
The difference between you and starbucks. (What makes you a leech and starbucks not.)
Anyone can go out and get coffee... anywhere. It's not supply constrained. If everyone who wanted a Wii could go out today and buy one for 250 but instead paid you 300 for it. Then you would have a point.
However it isn't. No one is trying to argue that it isn't "a consequence of marketing".
However it is an unethical buisness practice. Not immoral (though it is), but unethical which is a different concept as far as economics go.
You are basically seeing a product that is in demand and short supply and buying it to sell more. It's profiteering, which is looked down opon in the ethics of buisness.
