Final-Fan said: Eomund said: Final-Fan said: 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. Don't stray into the Political arena, that is not this topic (Though I understand what you meant). Your argument that Cdude is taking away a bucket of water from the people on one side of Flatlake to give to the people on the other side is still incorrect. Cdude did not go out of his way to buy a second Wii, he saw it and decided to invest in it for a profit. In your analogy he saw a small puddle next to the lake and and decided to take it. The other problem with your argument is now that the people of Flatland no longer need to drink the water, and they only use it for watering their lawn, people now must decide if they want to water their yard today. If they don't then they yard may get a little brown, but they must decide if they want to keep the yard green by watering it or letting it start to wither. Since the supply of the lake is now not meeting demand, people who want to keep their yards green will pay (more) for it. Some people like green yards what can we say? Anyways if he has a bucket of water and some people will already not have water for their yards today, shouldn't the bucket of water go to the highest bidder? I will agree that when you are dealing with a monopoly the rules change. However if there is room in the market for small businesses or entrepenuers then they will exist. Cdude is not however operating as a monopoly. He is acting as a holding service.   @ TheBigFatJ: Being a nice person isn't really relevant to my point. He isn't creating some product, this is true, but how are any retail chain doing anything different from him, expect they are bound to rules saying they can't raise a price like he can. He IS however creating a service for people who would otherwise be inconvenienced by standing in line or hoping to find a Wii at his local Wal-Mart. The service is worth something. In my analogy, he takes a bucket away from one side of the lake to sell to the other for profit. In RL, he takes a Wii away from the store to sell on craigslist for profit. Your objection that he "did not go out of his way to buy a second Wii, he decided to invest in it for profit" is very stupid and frankly disappointing; cdude has specifically stated that he bought the Wii with the sole intention of selling it at great profit and, moreover, intends to apply that revenue to doing it AGAIN with MORE WIIS. The Flatlake analogy is doing better than ever, thank you very much; with the Flatlake at low levels only people willing to walk to the new lake boundary (i.e. go to the store early) are going to get what they want; cdude's actions cause the people in the area he is taking water from to have to walk further (someone at that store was SOL and will have to keep searching). Again, cdude is depriving people in one place of a resource in order to sell it at profit in another place; he essentially takes a resource hostage and ransoms it to the highest bidder. He is therefore a PARASITE -- but his parasitism is an acceptable loss to any sensible capitalist, and all I ask is that he admits to his parasitic nature.

 HAH! That is a laugh! Thanks for a good laugh... I also remember he said that he was in a store and saw one, so he bought it, blah blah blah... I do agree that he bought it for the sole intention of selling it, but my point is...

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH DOING JUST THAT!

You and I simply disagree because of our differring world views. I am in favor of a Free Trade Market. You apparently do not agree with me. 

About Flatland: The new lake boundary will keep decreasing until it simply becomes a spring. People will still want the water, but there won't be enough to go around regardless if Cdude gets an extra bucket of water. He is simply getting the water for someone else who wouldn't have gotten to the spring in time. While it might have taken water from the general pool that means nothing, as it replenishes automatically. Also who is to say that the person who doesn't get water because Cdude got an extra bucket couldn't barter with Cdude for the water? 

If you want to call him a parasite, its not my business. I simply do not see his actions as parasitic. 

And you are welcome for helping you define a new Flatland universe. Go make some money off it! hehe. ;) 

He took advatange of people to gain personal benefit, of course it isn't illegal, but he is still a complete asshole because someone could have enjoyed that.

Basically, you're buying a product that would have otherwise sold for normal price.

Demand is high, so someone who would have bought one in a store, but isn't there because you bought it, ends up buying it from you at a higher price.

Yes, that's how it works, and who can blame you for wanting to make some money...but I wouldn't expect to get any love and kindness from gamers or gift-buyers who would have rather you didn't do any of this and left the Wii on the shelf.

BenKenobi88 said: Listen. I know how demand works, I'm not an idiot. I'm just speaking as a gamer, one who thinks that if nobody did this selling Wiis secondhand on eBay, there'd be more Wiis in the stores for people to buy at regular price...and as a gamer, I think it'd be good if more people could buy it at the regular price. All these people buying to simply resell are taking away that initial opportunity from many people. It's an acceptable loss to go buy a Wii on eBay or Craigslist...but it's not a service. You're taking Wiis that someone else would buy, and selling them for profit...creating your own demand. Nothing illegal about it...it's just annoying to me and many others.

I agree with you. *GASP*

I will agree that it is annoying and I wouldn't ever pay more than MSRP for a luxury item like a Wii. Now don't get me wrong because I love my Little Wii.

My point is that it is his freedom to do this. If there were no "parasites" (as Final-Fan calls them) there would be a few more Wiis to go around. Doesn't mean that those few Wiis will meet the overall demand. That is my point.

When it's Nintendo stockpilling units for Christmas, it's bad for the consumer.
When it's a random dude holding them hostage for the highest bidder, it's helping the consumer out.

BenKenobi88 said: Basically, you're buying a product that would have otherwise sold for normal price. Demand is high, so someone who would have bought one in a store, but isn't there because you bought it, ends up buying it from you at a higher price. Yes, that's how it works, and who can blame you for wanting to make some money...but I wouldn't expect to get any love and kindness from gamers or gift-buyers who would have rather you didn't do any of this and left the Wii on the shelf.

I can accept that.

@dtewi - Someone else will enjoy it when they buy it. Or they may gift it to someone who will. Who knows? I know not the fate of this Wii who I'm holding at gun point.

Well they could have enjoyed quicker and cheaper if you didn't hoard it.

I hope you see the moral wrongs of your ways.

dtewi said: Well they could have enjoyed quicker and cheaper if you didn't hoard it. I hope you see the moral wrongs of your ways.

Morals are relative. Apparently as is hoarding. I bought one (1) Wii.

So that is (1) less person who could have enjoyed it.

Hawk said: cdude1034 said: Final-Fan said: OK, up to now you've been pretty intelligent, so I have to wonder if you're deliberately misunderstanding me.  Unless, of course, you have just enough conscience to need to rationalize this kind of bullshit answer.  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).  Scalping, in modest amounts, is tolerated in capitalist societies; however, large markups are seen as equally large douchebaggery.  And scalpers who belch platitudes about "helping the customer" are hated with a passion. You ARE misunderstanding my argument, by which I mean your response COMPETELY IGNORES the argument I made and instead talks about how the monetary system is like a bartering system, which it's NOT. My definitions of "scalper" and "trader" 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. 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. But, I provide a service/product to someone who needs it, who in turn, gives me the money I desire. That by definition also makes me a symbiote. So you provide a service/product that was already there, for someone who needs it, but add extra cost. Hmmm, what school teaches that is a symbiote?

symbiosis: ... 4. any interdependent or mutually beneficial relationship between two persons, groups, etc.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, there's the definition. I provide a product for someone in need, they provide me money. There's no other getting around that one. Yes it's at a higher price, but they'll only pay if the demand is great enough.

YES THERE IS A GOD DAMNED MISUNDERSTANDING.  You refuse, apparently, to see that you are a parasite on the MARKET even if you are not a parasite to any INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMER.  This is at least the third time I have made this point and I demand that you either rebut my argument or accept it instead of F^@%ING IGNORING IT. 

(bold emphasis has been added to the post history to selected passages)