BrainBoxLtd said:
Because they bought it fair and square, it’s their property, they’re free to do whatever the hell they’d like with it? This “robbing a child’s Christmas” stuff is annoying as well. By the same (lack of) logic can we not assume that someone buys a Wii for their own personal use might be some spoiled ass brat who plays it once and then spends the rest of his time bitching about it collecting dust on GameFAQS while the guy behind him was an eBay seller who could of sold it to a family that would appreciate it far more even at an inflated price. You can spin hypothetical scenarios of what would end up where if it weren’t for who all you want but it’s hardly the grounds for an argument on why or why not buying luxury products for the sole sake of reselling them is immoral and parasitic. Why not accuse the stores of the same immorality? They only buy them to resale for the sake of profit, some of them sit on their stock just to wait for more foot traffic in hopes of you buying more things while hoping to get a Wii, and some go one further and only sell Wii’s in expensive bundles. How bout the ones who do lotteries to see who even gets to buy one and ignores who strived hardest to get there first? Wii’s aren’t hard to find because of eBayers, they’re hard to find because they’re in obscenely high demand. This guy mentions he resold iPhones and PS3’s at their respective launches, and made money, (Commenting how easy it was to get iPhones even while they were selling for inflated prices) but he’s not doing that anytime after because they’re demand plummeted in comparison to their stocks. It's a hot product in short supply. My family bought an extra Wii as a future gift for another family we knew only for them to find one of their own so we ended up selling the extra one on eBay. Person who bought it seemed very happy to get ahold of it even if it did sell over retail price. That make me immoral and parasitic? |
Mine wasn't a hypothetical. The mention of it being treated as the same person is an example to make it easier to understand how it's parasitic. You treat consumers of the same type the same to show this. Without the ebay seller the transactions would be the same... minus his "finders fee".
The wii would of been bought anyway, and the person who would of bought it would not have had to pay the "ebay" fee.
Your example is wholey different because you did not plan to sell it, it was meant as a gift and then you had no one to give it to. Had you bought it with the intent to sell it, that would of been an immoral parsitic action. In your case it was just basically parasitic.
As for stores... it's called legitamite supply chain management. They got it from wholesalers who are not meant to sell it to the public. Ebay sellers got it from stores. Who are meant to sell only to the public. You can't see the difference?
How would people react if Wal-mart bought Wiis from target, then started charging 300 for them? They'd be pissed.
