I'm done playing this game with you. Painting me as a selfish bastard who's taking joy from children and eats babies for breakfast. Your opinion will be your opinion.

My beef is with Final-Fan now. *plays showdown music*

You are buying something that someone else would buy at the 250 it is sold at universally to use and selling it for over that amount to make a profit. 

That's the definition of being a parasite of the market.  If you can't figure that out you really just need to take a Buisness Ethics course, or atleast some basic economics courses.

If Nintendo increased the price of the Wii or started auctioning them, most people here would be going berserk and threatening to boycott them.

But somehow, if it's someone else jacking up the prices, someone who didn't even contribute to the development of the console, then some people think it's fine?

"Take a class blah blah"

Yes yes, insulting someone's intelligence is a good way to get your point across. Congrats.

And I tell you what, I'll even give you this, I was talking about being a parasite in the biological sense. I guess in Economics you have a different definition. So be it.

Anyway Final-Fan, here it goes.

Actually, I can't see the full post history, this is a place holder

Edit: ok, read everything.

I'm not a benevolent businessman. I'm someone out to make a buck. What I disagree with is people saying I'm taking the sunshine away from some poor child because of what I'm doing. I won't pretend to be this savior for someone looking for a Wii.

You can I do disagree on our economic and (maybe) political ideals, and that's ok. The name calling has to stop though as it doesn't contribute to the conversation.

Regardless, I wasn't trying to brag, I wasn't trying to sell my Wii with my thread, I was just trying to ask a couple of questions and all of a sudden these deep questions such as "Is it moral to do what I'm doing?" came up. If you define it in terms of the capitalist, yes, it's perfectly acceptable. If you look at it in the sense of "is it for the greater good?", then no, as it benefits me slightly more than it benefits someone looking for a Wii.

Here's the deal though, people pay for convenience. Why do people pay $4 for a cup of coffee at Starbucks? Because they're too damn lazy to make one for themselves. I don't care about the argument about them having different kinds of coffee, because regardless of what they actually buy, they're still willing to pay a ridiculous amount for it.

These people are my customers.

People pay for the convenience of having power locks and windows on their cars, regardless of the fact that they're perfectly capable of rolling down the windows themselves.

People are perfectly capable of finding a Wii for themselves. Some choose not to. This is who will buy from me.

Everybody has their own sob story about why they can't get one. Do the stores care? No. Does Nintendo care? You can bet your macchiato they don't.

This is the consequence of economy in America.

You're insulting your own intelligence by saying that you were talking about biology when this thread is clearly about economics.

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.

wow...is this thread still going on?

cdude...congrats...this must be your longest thread.

Hopefully there aren't any really hurt feelings from all this....I stopped reading on page one.

So are you going to update the thread when you sell the Wii....maybe we can take bets on how much it will fetch and when it will sell. It can be the CdudeWii Prediction League.

My bet is on $435 right around December 13th.

Putting aside for a moment the fact that the main problem with what you're doing is that you're satisfying a necessity that you yourself and others like you have helped create, you can bet Nintendo and the retailers do care about what you're doing. They may not care if I don't get a Wii myself, but be sure they will care if I don't because a douch like you got it instead.

There's a reason companies like Nintendo set MSRPs, and retailers are expected (and often times compelled) never to sell above the MSRP. If they didn't care, they wouldn't set them in the first place. And after having been compelled to respect MSRP, you can bet retailers will also care. Neither Nintendo nor retailers want to leave $80 of their profit in your pockets, you can be damn sure about that. That's why retailers like Amazon go out on a limb to implement policies to inconvenience people like you. You should try and conduct this business of yours in a retailer's parking lot sometime.

Scalpers, like most parasites, are tolerated (and never condoned) only as long as they aren't widespread.

Update:

I have taken my Wii off Craigslist and am now selling it on eBay. Predictions?

I'm selling it with Wii Play, and an extra nunchuck.

I'm expecting $380-400