Subject:
|
Re: Fair Auction? (Was Re: Honest Capitalism)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 02:30:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1391 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.theory, Mike Stanley writes:
> > This is true, which is why I think a statutory 5-10% profit should be
> > standard on such a system. That way sellers won't lose money, but they also
> > won't feel guilty or profiteering by making a small amount.
>
> Who says 5-10% profit is even WORTH doing anything? So I'm supposed
> to buy $500 worth of closeout Lego after Christmas, spend literally
> weeks sorting it with my wife, then auction off the bulk of the parts
> I don't need for a lousy 5%?
It would be your choice, and no-one would pass judgement upon you either way. I
don't think that both systems are mutually exclusive, and I think each has its
uses.
> Sorry, but you seem awful fond of that word profiteering. I'd like
> for you to tell me straight up if you think what I, Todd, Gene, Naji,
> Matt, and others do is profiteering, or if it is doing anything but
> providing a service for our community.
The names that I know probably make profit, but I don't believe that they are
profiteers. You can provide a service for the community and make a profit,
there is no intrinsic conflict in that.
> > The way the proposed system works is that you start of with a small amount of
> > credit, but have to auction items on the system to recieve more credit.
> > Therefore you wouldn't have the problem of lots of buyers but no sellers.
>
> Ok, but unless you could wave a magic wand and literally force
> everyone to participate in this, there would always be those who
> wouldn't, because they'd be interested in making more money (which
> isn't a bad thing, btw).
I haven't cast a moral judgement on people who wish to make a profit. I also
wouldn't expect everyone to participate as not everyone would want to. It
doesn't need any control-freak total participation. People like me (if there
are any :) ), could choose to use it if they wanted to auction items without
profit with the knowledge that they wouldn't be ripped off by the recipient
selling it for a larger profit elsewhere. This is because the recipient would
have had to sell at least the same amount on the system to gain enough credits
to win the bid.
> But I gotta be honest, this whole thing smacks of wealth
> redistribution, with just a nice pretty "to better the community" face
> put on it.
By 'wealth redistribution', are you talking about the system where Lego-Fans
have the same opportunity to get the same sets regardless of who has the most
money? It's not forcing anyone to do anything. I think it's just an alternative
to the current system that does force people to pay the highest price.
> Now I set aside some of the money for buying sets, and the rest goes
> into our down-payment fund. Call it profiteering if you want, but if
> I end up funding my downpayment with the time we spend doing Lego
> auctions, well, then I'll get to say my house was built by Lego.
That's cute, and I wish you good luck!
> Or do you mean for items like 4558? Prices will be sky-high for
> those, as they should be. 10 year old 10 years from now can't afford
> one? Tough, I couldn't afford all the rookie baseball cards I wanted
> back in the 70's when I was collecting as a 10 year old either.
> College student can't afford a $300 monorail because Larry decides he
> needs another one? Too bad, let the college student study a little
> harder, or get some practical experience working someplace, then let
> him get out into the real world and earn some money so he can be Larry
> 20 years from now.
I think that this is the crux of the debate - if you think that the above is
fair, and right.. then you probably have no interest in a low-profit system at
present. I say at present because I believe that as the numbers of de-closeted
Lego-Fans increases on the internet there will be roughly the same number of
rare Lego items and greater prices will be paid for them.
I also think that if that is the crux of the debate, then it has less to do
with the proposed system, than it does with personal ideology.. and I'm not
here to change your mind, just to explain my idea.
Sadly I think I've hit a few too many raw-nerves on this thread, either because
people have misunderstood me, or because they understood me. Either way, a few
lines of constructive criticism was all that was hoped for. Sorry if anyone
took offence.
Richard
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Fair Auction? (Was Re: Honest Capitalism)
|
| (...) Who says 5-10% profit is even WORTH doing anything? So I'm supposed to buy $500 worth of closeout Lego after Christmas, spend literally weeks sorting it with my wife, then auction off the bulk of the parts I don't need for a lousy 5%? I'd have (...) (25 years ago, 14-Sep-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
52 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
