Ah, Evan et al, another country heard from, the Purity of Topic Police!
I'm just a bit troubled with the concept of price gouging in what is sort of a situation where actions are relatively free and many alternatives exist.
If we were discussing the price (and this may sound vaguely familiar) of some substance required for life, say salt, which is used as a classical example of innelastic demand by econ 101 profs then I'd have to agree regarding the charge of price gouging provided the seller in question had the only Prius for sale. That criterion not met, I can't.
Provided there are plenty of tickets to go around (perhaps well in advance of an event the popularity of which perhaps increases significantly subsequent to the availability of tickets sharpely declining) then if a ticket holder chooses to auction off his/her ticket at a price well in excess of his purchase price, then is this a despicable low act?
If a 10 year old boy catches the baseball of the winning homer of the world series and gets it autographed by the batter (this idiom is understood in Japan!) and subsequently sells it for a price well above the cost of even a new league play baseball, is he a cur or perhaps just exercising his perogatives within our society.
Surely, buying a legal product in a legal manner and then offering it to the highest bidder is legal where it was done (accomodating international realities). This leaves a couple potential bases on which to complain: 1. on moral grounds, 2. because someone isn't doing what some party personally wants them to do.
Lets investigate the morality... If the seller had done something sneaky or underhanded to "corner" the Prius market then we might jump on the "burn him, burn the witch" bandwagon. I think from the post I read there are no facts in evidence that the seller did anything but sign up and buy a Prius. Maybe some folks are just too "sensitive" to anyone having the audacity to invest their time and money in a way to turn a potential profit.
If the seller had a bro-in-law funneling Prii to him to sell on this "GREY" market and the legitimate folks who were signed up at THAT dealership were missing out on their buying opportunity, then again, I'd fault the seller B U T no facts of this sort are in evidence.
At most border crossings between Mexico and the US there are young Mexican children selling Chicklets and the like at prices inflated above "store" prices. Is this moral decay or free enterprise capitalism? It is $ for convenience, just as the eBay auction is.
In the case of the eBay Prius auction, who is harmed? If a buyer wants to pay $ to save time, a pretty standard tradeoff practice, who is harmed. Who is the victim?
I am certainly willing to listen to any logical argument that can make a case against buying and reselling legal goods at a profit.
Look at the ripoff prices of popcorn in the movies! Way above what it might sell for next door from a deli. Should we barricade the streets and take up pitchforks against the injustice of expensive popcorn in movies. Well, probably Y E S BECAUSE there is no available competition in the selling of popcorn in the movies. It is an artificially controlled environment with trade restrictions and is clearly price gouging.
In the case of the eBay Prius there are no such restrictions imposed by the seller. If someone has a beef with anyone over this Prius auction, they should take it up with Toyota for severely underproducing Prii.
I try to keep an open mind but just can't seem to fathom a legitimate basis for castigating the seller. Let us see... what motivations are left for complaining aout the seller's actions? Jealousy, for not having thought of it a lot sooner and been there first? Probably not in this case but I listed this case for the sake of completeness. OK, what is left? Correct me if I have missed any obviously good reasons but all I see that is left is some sort of variation on the theme of, " I don't like it, so it is wrong!" This sort of whimsical denigration in the absence of supportable facts has been the source of much mischief! (See Salem, trials, witch) It takes a better rationale than "just because" to make a case against a legal act. Sure there are examples a plenty of legal acts that were morally reprehensible but there is always a victim who likely would have prefered to not have been done unto. Who but an uninvolved third party onlooker, who chooses to cry foul, is harmed. Is the onlooker harmed or doth he protest over much? (Sorry Bill S.)
Who is the victim? Is society victimized? Is buying and reselling at profit somehow foreign to our society and likely to initiate grievous moral decay?
Hopefully this ON THE TOPIC post will atone for my earlier sin of trying to use humor to defuse a disquieting awkward moment when emotions were apparently interferring or about to interfere with manners.
Again, I'm inviting moral instruction from anyone who can make a logical argument against buying and selling legally. If this were in fact, a Cabbage Patch Doll, would anyone have ripped the seller? (I might have made fun of or impuned the intellect of the buyer!) If not then why so in the case of the Prius? Have Prii achieved some cult religious status among certain of our numbers? Are there any formally pre or proscribed rituals we should know about to prevent giving the appearance of not properly observing religious tollerance and speaking freely on a taboo topic?
Respectfully,
Pat
