3 ms·

> So is Amazon You lost your entire argument right there. Amazon doesn't price gouge, and buys with the express intent to sell with reasonable margins to custo

> So is Amazon You lost your entire argument right there. Amazon doesn't price gouge, and buys with the express intent to sell with reasonable margins to customers. They provider valuable services, like customer service and fast delivery. Scalpers provide jack shit value other than trying to rip off customers because they got something first, while offering no other value to customers. > they provide liquidity No, they don't. They steal liquidity, and sell items at markups while offering no other value to customers. None. Zero.

kbenson 5y ago
> Amazon doesn't price gouge I didn't say they did. But by the argument of the GP, they are often (depending on the product) "needless middlemen in a market that already sells direct to consumers", which is what I was responding to. > They steal liquidity They offer stuff for sale in markets which would have nothing for sale at other times (because if supply didn't outstrip demand, there would be no profit to be made). That is liquidity where it might not have existed previously. I understand not liking scalping. I don't necessarily like it (I would prefer there was enough supply to satisfy demand). But there's a difference between not liking something and not understanding it and denying the reality of it. You can't stop it without understanding what makes people buy things to resell at a profit, why others are willing to pay that extra amount, and why there aren't enough of that thing to go around in the first place which allows it to happen.
- tomnipotent 5y ago
  And you didn't provide any argument against them being "needless middlemen". Many middlemen are not needless, like Amazon, where a value is provided that benefits manufacturers, distributors, warehouses, sellers, and buyers. Some asshole buying tickets or PS5's specifically to resell with massive price hikes is not a valuable middleman providing a valuable service. They're a leech, forcing themselves into the middle of a transaction they didn't belong in the first place to steal value from both sides of the marketplace. HBO was a perfect example of this. Cable companies acted as the middlemen, because HBO didn't have the staff or inhouse expertise to operate a direct-to-consumer facing product. Now they do, but cable companies can still offer services that make their participation as middlemen sustainable and desirable for some consumers. > That is liquidity where it might not have existed previously. It did exist, only it was stolen by scalpers. They're not creating value out of thin air. They're not redistributing assets geographically to make them more accessible, or offering secondary insurance or warranties that make choosing them a smart option. They're stealing opportunities from actual customers looking to purchase a service or good, but instead are forced to secondary markets because of rent-seeking parasites.
  - VMG 5y ago
    Scalpers only exist in markets where somebody is selling products below value. Without scalpers, the product is distributed by sheer luck like a lottery, or being well-connected and knowing somebody who has early access to the product. You can argue that a lottery mechanism or being well-connected is more fair that having the necessary money. There are a lot of people in planned economies where everything from food to housing to transportation works that way, and they would probably disagree.

kbenson 5y ago

> Amazon doesn't price gouge I didn't say they did. But by the argument of the GP, they are often (depending on the product) "needless middlemen in a market that already sells direct to consumers", which is what I was responding to. > They steal liquidity They offer stuff for sale in markets which would have nothing for sale at other times (because if supply didn't outstrip demand, there would be no profit to be made). That is liquidity where it might not have existed previously. I understand not liking scalping. I don't necessarily like it (I would prefer there was enough supply to satisfy demand). But there's a difference between not liking something and not understanding it and denying the reality of it. You can't stop it without understanding what makes people buy things to resell at a profit, why others are willing to pay that extra amount, and why there aren't enough of that thing to go around in the first place which allows it to happen.

tomnipotent 5y ago
And you didn't provide any argument against them being "needless middlemen". Many middlemen are not needless, like Amazon, where a value is provided that benefits manufacturers, distributors, warehouses, sellers, and buyers. Some asshole buying tickets or PS5's specifically to resell with massive price hikes is not a valuable middleman providing a valuable service. They're a leech, forcing themselves into the middle of a transaction they didn't belong in the first place to steal value from both sides of the marketplace. HBO was a perfect example of this. Cable companies acted as the middlemen, because HBO didn't have the staff or inhouse expertise to operate a direct-to-consumer facing product. Now they do, but cable companies can still offer services that make their participation as middlemen sustainable and desirable for some consumers. > That is liquidity where it might not have existed previously. It did exist, only it was stolen by scalpers. They're not creating value out of thin air. They're not redistributing assets geographically to make them more accessible, or offering secondary insurance or warranties that make choosing them a smart option. They're stealing opportunities from actual customers looking to purchase a service or good, but instead are forced to secondary markets because of rent-seeking parasites.
- VMG 5y ago
  Scalpers only exist in markets where somebody is selling products below value. Without scalpers, the product is distributed by sheer luck like a lottery, or being well-connected and knowing somebody who has early access to the product. You can argue that a lottery mechanism or being well-connected is more fair that having the necessary money. There are a lot of people in planned economies where everything from food to housing to transportation works that way, and they would probably disagree.