The difficulty of selling a Wii

[Final-Fan]

A "trader" takes an item from one market, where it is cheap ($X), to another market, where it is expensive ($Y), and sells it for $Z (where X<Z<Y).  This benefits both the trader, who profits, and the customers, who save money (they have to pay less).  

A "scalper" takes an item that is sold in short supply at a fixed price (Wii) or is sold out (tickets) and sells that item in the same market he obtained it in for profit. This benefits the scalper, who profits, and allows sufficiently desperate individual customers to obtain the item; however, the customers in general are hurt by this process (they have to pay more).

The trader adds value to the first market.  He also adds value to the second market.  The scalper, however, adds no value except to his own wallet.  Note, however, that the market clearly accomodates scalpers, since some customers do see sufficient value in the item in question to allow themselves to be scalped.  So the scalper functions in exactly the same way as any other purveyor of goods, on the level of the individual customer; it is only in the context of the market as a whole that scalping is identified.  

As I have demonstrated, "scalpers" and "traders" are clearly distinct and separate. The ultimate difference between them is that the trader enjoys a symbiotic relationship with the markets he serves, whereas the scalper is a simple parasite.  Nevertheless, scalping, in modest amounts, is tolerated as a natural function of imperfectly capitalist societies, as long as the scalpers are neither too numerous nor too greedy.  

You, sir, are a parasite to the market. And since you are a natural function of our imperfect capitalist system, we accept that as long as you don't suck too much blood or deny your parasitic nature.