3 ms·

Scalping groups have setup sneaker/ps5 bots to get them as they are so profitable. All the bots now support the major retailers. Idk who needs them so badly t

by rdtwo 4y ago

Scalping groups have setup sneaker/ps5 bots to get them as they are so profitable. All the bots now support the major retailers. Idk who needs them so badly to pay these prices just use a different board

salawat 4y ago
The problem is that you have people with these bots at all, and it should be clear that in the absence of mitigations, these networks of bots can be trivially retargeted. Speculation, and artificial scarcity through predatory automation is the issue. No one wants to concede that though, because that'd put a giant spotlight on what is a disproportionate part of the finance industry, and start prompting serious questions around whether or not this type of thing is desirable behavior worthy of tolerance from them.
- rahimnathwani 4y ago
  "artificial scarcity through predatory automation" It's not artificial scarcity, though. The number of Pis or PS5s that get into the hands of end users is determined by the manufacturers. The scalpers only affect the allocation. Rather that the devices being allocated randomly among folks willing to pay the sticker price, they go only to the ones willing to pay the most.
  - rdtwo 4y ago
    That’s true but these major scalping operations often ship internationally. The ps5 would get bundled and go to Asia and the Middle East. I think the market for these scalped goods state side is shallower than you would expect.
  - salawat 4y ago
    Ergo... Artifical scarcity (of Pi's at MSRP) created by (non-practicing) scalpers (arbitragers, as they like to be called) reestablishing a price point, far in excess of what is reasonable, basically undoing the actual feat of engineering that resulted in such a cheap system in the first place. Obligatory, and apropos: https://xkcd.com/1499/ https://xkcd.com/1499/ The bit people don't realize, is finance draws in people like this, and does the same thing, day in, day out. No value extraction opportunity left unexploited lest one "leave money on the table". These people are a significant contributor to why we cannot have nice things.
    - rahimnathwani 4y ago
      You've chosen to redefine a common word (scarcity) rather than engage with my point. I have nothing more to say.
      - salawat 4y ago
        How have I redefined scarcity? At most I have set the subject being modified to (Pi at MSRP) from what you were operating on, (the Pi, no price included). The conjunction of Pi at a pricepoint, was the endgoal of the engineering process. Nothing about the meaning of the word scarcity has changed. What you seem to object to is that I don't accept the practice of decoupling the price point from the output as being morally desirable/defensible to have from the original intent of the engineering process. If someone builds a thing and stands by that price point for the express purpose of making that available at that price point, going the ideal market way you suggest is essentially socially parasitic. They set out to make a $15 bundle of compute. Jerks with automation come along, clear out that unit of compute at $15 and plop it at a price point greatly in excess of the original intent. I do not hold that one that does so is immune from being called a burden, because they read an economics book once. Your point, if granted, is bollocks. It admits it is perfectly fine to take things priced at cost, and jack the price up sky high despite the fact we nailed the engineering to make it that cheap. I am not willing to concede that. I'm sorry. Your point is rubbish. Even if most of the market operates that way, we'd almost universally be better off if everyone just stopped doing that. Left unaddressed, the pattern of behavior siphons capital from those just trying to get by plying a trade, to those looking to capitalize on someone else leaving money on the table. Which is again, as previously stated, rubbish. If you've got nothing more to say, that's fine. It's just another case of a potential Sinclairism. It being hard to get a man to understand something his livelihood is dependent on them not understanding. But don't try to say I redefined anything. I most certainly did not.
- q-big 4y ago
  The existence of such scalpers rather shows that the price set by the producer is too low for the given rate of production (i.e. there is more demand than supply for the given price). In an ideal market, the producer would increase the price and get more profit. But since this action is not taken by the Raspberry Pi foundation, other market participants (scalpers) appear that attempt to profit from this price difference between then price set by the producer and the price that can be achieved on the market. Thus, the existence of scalpers is rather a symptom that shows that the producer could set the price higher (and thus balance supply vs demand).
  - salawat 4y ago
    Your ideal market, of course, proving why we cannot have nice things. As the moment somebody puts in the work to engineer a package so hella cheap that anyone can afford it, and start to actually do so, ideal market theorists pour in undoing the entire thing, lest money be left on the table. Demand that outstrips supply does not necessitate a price increase must happen. Sometimes, the entire point of such an arrangement, is to render something accessible to individuals otherwise priced out. Let us not trouble ourselves trying to justify economic's desperate attempt to legitimize greed as a virtue.
    - q-big 4y ago
      > As the moment somebody puts in the work to engineer a package so hella cheap that anyone can afford it, and start to actually do so, ideal market theorists pour in undoing the entire thing, lest money be left on the table. The problem is that if you sell things insanely cheaply, the demand increases a lot, i.e. not everybody who would like to get one, is able to - this is called scarcity. There exist two approaches to this problem (mixed solutions between these two approaches are also possible): 1. increase the production rate such that there is sufficient supply for the given demand - this is the solution that you, I think, wish. 2. increase the price of the product and be happy that producing cheaply and selling more expensively makes you a lot of money In other words: the lesson that you miss in your post is that it does not suffice to engineer a package so cheap that anyone can afford it, but you also have to ensure that you have sufficient production capacity that you can fill the demand which comes from this cheap price.

by rdtwo 4y ago

salawat 4y ago

The problem is that you have people with these bots at all, and it should be clear that in the absence of mitigations, these networks of bots can be trivially retargeted. Speculation, and artificial scarcity through predatory automation is the issue. No one wants to concede that though, because that'd put a giant spotlight on what is a disproportionate part of the finance industry, and start prompting serious questions around whether or not this type of thing is desirable behavior worthy of tolerance from them.

rahimnathwani 4y ago
"artificial scarcity through predatory automation" It's not artificial scarcity, though. The number of Pis or PS5s that get into the hands of end users is determined by the manufacturers. The scalpers only affect the allocation. Rather that the devices being allocated randomly among folks willing to pay the sticker price, they go only to the ones willing to pay the most.
- rdtwo 4y ago
  That’s true but these major scalping operations often ship internationally. The ps5 would get bundled and go to Asia and the Middle East. I think the market for these scalped goods state side is shallower than you would expect.
- salawat 4y ago
  Ergo... Artifical scarcity (of Pi's at MSRP) created by (non-practicing) scalpers (arbitragers, as they like to be called) reestablishing a price point, far in excess of what is reasonable, basically undoing the actual feat of engineering that resulted in such a cheap system in the first place. Obligatory, and apropos: https://xkcd.com/1499/ https://xkcd.com/1499/ The bit people don't realize, is finance draws in people like this, and does the same thing, day in, day out. No value extraction opportunity left unexploited lest one "leave money on the table". These people are a significant contributor to why we cannot have nice things.
  - rahimnathwani 4y ago
    You've chosen to redefine a common word (scarcity) rather than engage with my point. I have nothing more to say.
    - salawat 4y ago
      How have I redefined scarcity? At most I have set the subject being modified to (Pi at MSRP) from what you were operating on, (the Pi, no price included). The conjunction of Pi at a pricepoint, was the endgoal of the engineering process. Nothing about the meaning of the word scarcity has changed. What you seem to object to is that I don't accept the practice of decoupling the price point from the output as being morally desirable/defensible to have from the original intent of the engineering process. If someone builds a thing and stands by that price point for the express purpose of making that available at that price point, going the ideal market way you suggest is essentially socially parasitic. They set out to make a $15 bundle of compute. Jerks with automation come along, clear out that unit of compute at $15 and plop it at a price point greatly in excess of the original intent. I do not hold that one that does so is immune from being called a burden, because they read an economics book once. Your point, if granted, is bollocks. It admits it is perfectly fine to take things priced at cost, and jack the price up sky high despite the fact we nailed the engineering to make it that cheap. I am not willing to concede that. I'm sorry. Your point is rubbish. Even if most of the market operates that way, we'd almost universally be better off if everyone just stopped doing that. Left unaddressed, the pattern of behavior siphons capital from those just trying to get by plying a trade, to those looking to capitalize on someone else leaving money on the table. Which is again, as previously stated, rubbish. If you've got nothing more to say, that's fine. It's just another case of a potential Sinclairism. It being hard to get a man to understand something his livelihood is dependent on them not understanding. But don't try to say I redefined anything. I most certainly did not.
q-big 4y ago
The existence of such scalpers rather shows that the price set by the producer is too low for the given rate of production (i.e. there is more demand than supply for the given price). In an ideal market, the producer would increase the price and get more profit. But since this action is not taken by the Raspberry Pi foundation, other market participants (scalpers) appear that attempt to profit from this price difference between then price set by the producer and the price that can be achieved on the market. Thus, the existence of scalpers is rather a symptom that shows that the producer could set the price higher (and thus balance supply vs demand).
- salawat 4y ago
  Your ideal market, of course, proving why we cannot have nice things. As the moment somebody puts in the work to engineer a package so hella cheap that anyone can afford it, and start to actually do so, ideal market theorists pour in undoing the entire thing, lest money be left on the table. Demand that outstrips supply does not necessitate a price increase must happen. Sometimes, the entire point of such an arrangement, is to render something accessible to individuals otherwise priced out. Let us not trouble ourselves trying to justify economic's desperate attempt to legitimize greed as a virtue.
  - q-big 4y ago
    > As the moment somebody puts in the work to engineer a package so hella cheap that anyone can afford it, and start to actually do so, ideal market theorists pour in undoing the entire thing, lest money be left on the table. The problem is that if you sell things insanely cheaply, the demand increases a lot, i.e. not everybody who would like to get one, is able to - this is called scarcity. There exist two approaches to this problem (mixed solutions between these two approaches are also possible): 1. increase the production rate such that there is sufficient supply for the given demand - this is the solution that you, I think, wish. 2. increase the price of the product and be happy that producing cheaply and selling more expensively makes you a lot of money In other words: the lesson that you miss in your post is that it does not suffice to engineer a package so cheap that anyone can afford it, but you also have to ensure that you have sufficient production capacity that you can fill the demand which comes from this cheap price.