Subject:
|
Re: trading
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:43:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3204 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.theory, Kerry Raymond wrote:
> > I find trades to be a fair bit of work and I find myself doing them less and
> > less. The advent of automation at sites to aid buying and selling tilts it even
> > further in that direction. IMHO anyway.
>
> Personally I never understand why anyone bothers with trading.
>
> The whole point of inventing the concept of money was because one-on-one
> bartering (trading) isn't scaleable because it depends on finding the person
> who not only has what I want but also wants what I have. By using money as
> the intermediary, I can split this into two transactions, each of which is
> much easier to carry out, so overall it is less effort to obtain what I want
> and dispose of what I don't want. Given the centuries of experience with the
> use of the money concept, I think we've road-tested it pretty well and found
> it an excellent tool for the exchange of goods and services.
That's all well and good, but if you *do* find someone that has what you want
and wants what you have, trading can be both a positive experience *and* an
efficient way to do the deal. And sites that seem to be biased towards cash
transactions often can easily be used for trades too - I only recently completed
a very satisfying trade with a Bricklink store in another country and Paypal got
exactly $0 in fees.
> I often wonder about people who "only trade". How did get their Lego in the
> first place? Offer to mow the lawn at the Lego factory? Swap some home-grown
> tomatoes? Why is it OK to pay money to Lego the company to buy their
> product, but not to pay money to other Lego fans to get some in the
> secondary market?
Ummm maybe they originally got it as gifts? Or maybe it's all second hand and
they *did* trade other stuff for it all.
While using cash (or the plethora of other cash-like options available these
days) may be convenient, trades still definitely have a place in the LEGO
community.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: trading
|
| Some thoughts: While using cash is a pretty efficient way of doing things, it does have a cost. Surre, the cost is often pretty minimal, but nevertheless there is a cost. Of course a trade has its own costs. TANSTAAFL - There Aint No Such Thing As A (...) (19 years ago, 11-Jan-05, to lugnet.market.theory)
| | | Re: trading
|
| (...) Um, don't you mean "CLOSE to 0"?? If you did a trade with a BrickLink store, you surely did it via buying stuff from that store. (washed by that store buying stuff from yours to even it out or close to it) To do otherwise (to set up a side (...) (19 years ago, 12-Jan-05, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: trading
|
| (...) and (...) even (...) Personally I never understand why anyone bothers with trading. The whole point of inventing the concept of money was because one-on-one bartering (trading) isn't scaleable because it depends on finding the person who not (...) (19 years ago, 11-Jan-05, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
