Subject:
|
Re: No really - a rational discussion of people selling via eBay?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 May 1999 17:00:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
664 times
|
| |
|
|
Janet Zorn wrote:
> In general, to economists, scalper is not a meaningful term./1/ People
> have things that others want more than they do and they want to get as
> much as they can for those things. What they can get is determined by
> how much people want them. Do you have to sell at cost not to be a
> scalper? How much profit can you make before you are labeled a
> scalper?
>
> So, your initial comment really didn't make sense to me. To help me
> see
> your side I'd need to hear what makes someone a scalper, not just why
> you are not one.
WHat I find objectionable (and what I think most people are actually
complaining about) is hoarding not scalping. I think it is wrong for
someone who has big pockets to go into a market and buy up all of some
item, and then turn around with one's effective monopoly and jack up the
price.
In the larger buisiness world, we regulate this by not allowing big
companies to buy just any smaller company.
I have no problem with someone who discovers some old sets lying unsold
in an obscure place, who purchases them, and then puts them up for
auction. They are performing a real value add service. I also have no
problem with someone deciding they no longer need an item they had
bought, and re-sell it. I have no problem with someone who has 6 season
tickets to a venue because they usually invite friends to use up those 6
seats, who then re-sell some of the seats when they aren't using them
all. I also don't have a problem with people like Todd who buy a ton of
sets and break them down to sell parts, again, there is a value add,
which costs the seller significant extra effort. If the effort was low
enough to be able to sell individual pieces at a price which wouldn't
drive people away, and all that, Lego wouldn't sell sets. They would
sell parts packs and idea books. And we would all be much happier.
Unfortuanately, it is almost always cheaper to sell complete kits
because there is a real cost for each part number caried in the catalog,
and each transaction. I wonder how many of the parts packs Lego sells
are actually created to increase the production volume of those parts,
or some other economic reality, rather than altruism.
Of course some of the problems with collectible toys could be resolved
by the manufacturers and retailers running the auction. Of course the
hoarders might still buy up all the toys and then turn around and
re-auction them one at a time.
One problem with "free market" economics is that there is no such thing
as a "perfect" free market, except possiby in very small, specific
markets, which however are still large enough to support multiple
producers.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
20 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
|
|
|
|
