 | | Re: which threads, ethics (was: Re: Mini Auction - 6273 - Rock Island Refuge) —Steve Scott
|
| | | Ok, I've slept on it and am less angry than I was last night. Apologies for getting personal with the "parasite" comment, but I was annoyed as you clearly expected that I would be. Even in your own words, you "took a liberty" and that is the basis (...) (26 years ago, 5-Mar-99, to lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: which threads, ethics (was: Re: Mini Auction - 6273 - Rock Island Refuge) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) Some sales have been run this way. I believe it is called a 'reverse auction'. Steve (26 years ago, 5-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | different types of auctions (was: Re: which threads, ethics ...) —Charles Eric McCarthy
|
| | | | | (...) I think this sort of a reverse auction is a great idea. There has to be a large enough number of sellers at any given time for it to work, though. Eventually I think there will be. Even better, IMO, is where sellers could register sets that (...) (26 years ago, 5-Mar-99, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: different types of auctions (was: Re: which threads, ethics ...) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Yup, reverse auctions (not to be confused with reserve auctions! :) are mentioned in the second paragraph here: (URL) Another thing, the charter of this group is: (...) Definitely. At least, it fits perfectly into the category of discussions (...) (26 years ago, 14-Mar-99, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: which threads, ethics (was: Re: Mini Auction - 6273 - Rock Island Refuge) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) This is a specious argument as this is a real, actually used, and extremely valid auction format. I've done it myself as a buyer. Just as a seller's auction is good for scarce things, a buyer's auction is good for plentiful things. It is (...) (26 years ago, 5-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: which threads, ethics (was: Re: Mini Auction - 6273 - Rock Island Refuge) —Steve Scott
|
| | | | | | -----Original Message----- From: Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> Newsgroups: lugnet.off-topic.debate Date: 05 March 1999 23:07 Subject: Re: which threads, ethics (was: Re: Mini Auction - 6273 - Rock Island Refuge) (...) I take your point that (...) (26 years ago, 6-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: which threads, ethics (was: Re: Mini Auction - 6273 - Rock Island Refuge) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | (...) First, why would that be a problem? Second, I doubt it. Third, if the market is such that this _could_ happen, I might say that it _should_ happen. (...) Yes, let's. (...) Excellent! So the sellers (remember, Larry said this was a situation in (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: which threads, ethics (was: Re: Mini Auction - 6273 - Rock Island Refuge) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | Thanks, Chris. You explained it better than I had time to... There is always (beneficial) "chaos" in a free market. If a buyer or a seller prefers an unfree market, I prefer not to deal with them. (...) (26 years ago, 10-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: which threads, ethics (was: Re: Mini Auction - 6273 - Rock Island Refuge) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) Steve, could you go into a bit more detail here? I don't understand what you mean by restricting auctions to a single seller. Do you mean restricting auction threads to a single poster (the seller)? (...) Chaos maybe in terms of sifting (...) (26 years ago, 14-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: which threads, ethics (was: Re: Mini Auction - 6273 - Rock Island Refuge) —Steve Scott
|
| | | | | | Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) That was the idea, yes. Problem is, in the interim period since my original post I'm not so convinced that it was a good idea. It now sees to me that this type of system would prove restrictive to the (...) (26 years ago, 15-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: which threads, ethics (was: Re: Mini Auction - 6273 - Rock Island Refuge) —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) AKA: A Dutch auction. Why is this bad? (And I'm not just saying that because I'm Dutch, damnit! ;-> ) Jasper (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: which threads, ethics (was: Re: Mini Auction - 6273 - Rock Island Refuge) —Steve Scott
|
| | | | Jasper Janssen wrote in message <36e75d14.42911029@l...et.com>... (...) It's not bad, my post was a bit unclear. The point I was trying to make was that if a standard auction is "siphoned" then it could turn into a Dutch auction. Cheers (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: which threads, ethics (was: Re: Mini Auction - 6273 - Rock Island Refuge) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Point taken. A standard auction can turn into a dutch auction if market conditions change. Why is that bad? Those calling for "orderly markets" are usually just about to do something stupid like slap price controls or tariffs or unrealistic (...) (26 years ago, 10-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
