3 ms·

If the original intent was to stop scalper (which I agree with), the agreement could have said “you’re not allowed to sell it for a profit. If you sell it at or

If the original intent was to stop scalper (which I agree with), the agreement could have said “you’re not allowed to sell it for a profit. If you sell it at or below cost, you’re fine”.

kobalsky 2y ago
then some would sell at the same price they bought plus their profit under the table.
- antisthenes 2y ago
  Is that really the most pressing problem we should be tackling in the consumer law? Some people willing to pay more than retail for things they really want?
  - multimoon 2y ago
    This creates artificial inflation for the cost of the product which does nobody any good. Look back to the launch of the PS5 or the switch for a great example of what happens.
    - josephcsible 2y ago
      Sure, they raised the price, but I wouldn't call that artificial inflation. Isn't it more like, the launch price was artificially low, and the scalpers brought the price to the true market price?
      - ffsm8 2y ago
        By your logic, buying all food in a region, monopolizing it and then reselling it at a 1000% margin is fine, after all, that's the real market price now. I get where you're coming from, but it's a morally bankrupt viewpoint, honestly. These kinds of actions are usually called profiteering, and while it works and is absolutely highly profitable, it's also easy to leave your humanity behind. While this article (car) isn't quiet es problematic if scalped as it's essentially a luxury product, the argument you made to justify it would also apply to everything else, and that should tell you that the action itself is at the very least morally questionable.
        josephcsible 2y ago
        > By your logic, buying all food in a region, monopolizing it and then reselling it at a 1000% margin is fine, after all, that's the real market price now. The market price wouldn't go up like that if you did that. Other people would import food into the region for a much smaller margin than that, and you'd be left with nothing but empty pockets and a lot of spoiled food.
        ffsm8 2y ago
        Oh boy do I have news for you: It does work, and has been done before. It's just illegal now. It's also a lot harder to pull of in today's hyperconnected world with easy travel between towns etc in the context of food, but the strategy works.
        antisthenes 2y ago
        > Oh boy do I have news for you: It does work, and has been done before. It's just illegal now. It's also easier to impose limits on purchase now, in the digital era. Both online and physical stores tend to have limits on in-demand items (not sure if these are imposed manually or automatically, based on demand), so you're unlikely to be able to purchase anything but a few % of the total available inventory, at least not without significant time investment and involving other people.
  - jbombadil 2y ago
    Yes. Signed: anyone who wants to go see Taylor Swift live. (Serious answer: yes, but only when supply can’t keep up with demand to avoid people with capital abuse their position to create artificial scarcity. Examples: Tickets from certain artists, some particular consumer goods, houses being bought out by insurance companies, etc)
    - josephcsible 2y ago
      How are they creating artificial scarcity? Wouldn't that only be if they lowered the total number of Cybertrucks, or the total number of seats available at the concert?
  - kobalsky 2y ago
    No need to tackle the law in this case, Tesla saw it coming and solved it themselves. If you don't like how anti-scalping provisions affect you, make sure the car fits in your garage.
    - muppetman 2y ago
      Masterful Gambit, Sir.
wbshaw 2y ago
The secondary intent is to crush the real market at any price to keep Tesla customers from competing with Tesla.

If the original intent was to stop scalper (which I agree with), the agreement could have said “you’re not allowed to sell it for a profit. If you sell it at or below cost, you’re fine”.

kobalsky 2y ago

then some would sell at the same price they bought plus their profit under the table.

antisthenes 2y ago
Is that really the most pressing problem we should be tackling in the consumer law? Some people willing to pay more than retail for things they really want?
- multimoon 2y ago
  This creates artificial inflation for the cost of the product which does nobody any good. Look back to the launch of the PS5 or the switch for a great example of what happens.
  - josephcsible 2y ago
    Sure, they raised the price, but I wouldn't call that artificial inflation. Isn't it more like, the launch price was artificially low, and the scalpers brought the price to the true market price?
    - ffsm8 2y ago
      By your logic, buying all food in a region, monopolizing it and then reselling it at a 1000% margin is fine, after all, that's the real market price now. I get where you're coming from, but it's a morally bankrupt viewpoint, honestly. These kinds of actions are usually called profiteering, and while it works and is absolutely highly profitable, it's also easy to leave your humanity behind. While this article (car) isn't quiet es problematic if scalped as it's essentially a luxury product, the argument you made to justify it would also apply to everything else, and that should tell you that the action itself is at the very least morally questionable.
      - josephcsible 2y ago
        > By your logic, buying all food in a region, monopolizing it and then reselling it at a 1000% margin is fine, after all, that's the real market price now. The market price wouldn't go up like that if you did that. Other people would import food into the region for a much smaller margin than that, and you'd be left with nothing but empty pockets and a lot of spoiled food.
        ffsm8 2y ago
        Oh boy do I have news for you: It does work, and has been done before. It's just illegal now. It's also a lot harder to pull of in today's hyperconnected world with easy travel between towns etc in the context of food, but the strategy works.
        antisthenes 2y ago
        > Oh boy do I have news for you: It does work, and has been done before. It's just illegal now. It's also easier to impose limits on purchase now, in the digital era. Both online and physical stores tend to have limits on in-demand items (not sure if these are imposed manually or automatically, based on demand), so you're unlikely to be able to purchase anything but a few % of the total available inventory, at least not without significant time investment and involving other people.
- jbombadil 2y ago
  Yes. Signed: anyone who wants to go see Taylor Swift live. (Serious answer: yes, but only when supply can’t keep up with demand to avoid people with capital abuse their position to create artificial scarcity. Examples: Tickets from certain artists, some particular consumer goods, houses being bought out by insurance companies, etc)
  - josephcsible 2y ago
    How are they creating artificial scarcity? Wouldn't that only be if they lowered the total number of Cybertrucks, or the total number of seats available at the concert?
- kobalsky 2y ago
  No need to tackle the law in this case, Tesla saw it coming and solved it themselves. If you don't like how anti-scalping provisions affect you, make sure the car fits in your garage.
  - muppetman 2y ago
    Masterful Gambit, Sir.

wbshaw 2y ago

The secondary intent is to crush the real market at any price to keep Tesla customers from competing with Tesla.