cdude1034 said:
Final-Fan said:
And just because I like my lovely Flatland, here's the revised edition:
Suppose there's a lake in Flatland. (Flatland is a hypothetical two-dimensional world, as if on a sheet of paper. Therefore, the lake is not defined by three-dimensional boundaries but is more like a puddle of water on a table.)
People live on the edge of this Flatlake, and use the water for various nonessential things such as watering their flatlawns. The rate at which the Flatlake replenishes to its natural maximum comes to be exceeded by the Flatlander's rate of water use, so the Flatlake shrinks. The Flatlanders now have to walk a certain distance in order to obtain their water.
cdude1034 is like an entrepeneur who offers, for a fee, to shift a portion of 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 only by costing others their own access in equal proportion. He is taking a bucket that would have gone to someone for free and selling it to someone for a price.
The Flatlake is analogous to the Wii thusly: the full flatlake is "Wiis in stock in stores", while the reduced Flatlake is "Wiis available to people who get there soon after shipment arrives". The Flatlake's rate of replenishment is obviously shipments from Nintendo. cdude's lake-shifting is the Wiis he deprives People A on (let's say) the west lake shore to sell to People B on the eastern shore. I believe that my analogy is close enough to the Wii situation in the USA for any reasonable purpose.
|
What it doesn't take into account however is that it's not a limited supply of water. More water gets pushed out at regular intervals, so there will never be a shortage for those willing to look. |
Except people have to wait for it to replenish. Which is where your arguement in general fails. You are just Price Gouging pure and simple.
The only arguement against this being unethical in a free market is that some people argue that having some prices cost more in times where supply is constrained will convince other buisnesses to make more. For example, there is a shortage of Bread because Milbrook bread so they start selling bread for 10 dollars a loaf so the local farmer decides to start making loafs of bread.
Since the local farmer can't start making Wiis... and only Nintendo can... and your price gouging is doing nothing to increase the flow of products into the market you are doing nothing but unethically taking advantage of the US economic system. (Which isn't a Free Market, even the US is smart enough to know that a total Free Market society would cause havoc.)
The amusing point being... you'd have more of an ethical leg to stand on if you were actually overselling food to starving people. Since it's a luxuary item you have absolutely no leg to stand on ethically.
