To me, the differentiator is that mom and pop are still selling the cokes for market value and not inflating it. I would have no problem with someone going and buying a thousand PS3’s and gaining a volume discount for that and then selling it for retail price. I’m not sure why I have a problem with doing it elseways, but I do. I guess it’s too much like the dot bomb days…prices artificially inflated causing a severe problem when they correct, costing me a boat load of money.

Anyways, to end this, we’re probably not gonna agree on this particular issue ever…it’s like music downloading and movie piracy…just things I can’t get past and bring myself to do.

Until then, someone is selling something, to someone, at sometime, at some price they are willing to pay. It’s how things work. If someone wants a PS3, and won’t go stand in line, then their cost is whatever you’re willing to pay to get it. Since the price is dictated by bidders in an auction, you’re not inflating the price. They are inflating said price. The asking price is what you paid for it. The extra is the opportunity cost born by the buyer to have it. Plus, the receipt is always included with the purchase, disclosing the real cost, warranty, and proof of purchase. The principals of Economics are at work.

What if a friend asked me to go stand in line, and he was willing to buy me dinner? He’s paid something over the cost of retail to have said PS3. Under these circumstances, that should be wrong as well.

So back to pop and chips. Mom and Pa buy a flat of pop for 25 cents each, and marks it up to $1.00. Is that bad? If we take what you’ve said and applied it, we should killem’all! Seriously! I mean, if selling things for a markup of any sort of price was bad, we’d both be criminals!

I’m not a SONY fan by any means, and I don’t condone their supply tactics, especially since they think it is OK to do this as evident by some recent interviews, but everyone has a price, and people are willing to pay. Just because you or me doesn’t want one at an inflated price, doesn’t make it wrong for the person that wants to pay the inflated price to get it.

In order for this to be an ethical dilemma, it would have to pass the test in more than one scenario than the PS3 scenario. So if it is still OK for Mom and Pa to buy chips and pop to resell at 4 times what they paid, then it is OK for PS3’s to be bought and sold at the price the market is willing to bear. It just means that fewer people will own PS3’s, and more people will own a Wii or an Xbox 360. SONY is shooting themselves in the foot for doing this, but I don’t really give a crap about SONY.

That’s where I am with dat

First off let me say that by poor kid I didn’t mean “poor” as in short on cash…i meant poor as in he didn’t get one. I know what the PS3 is worth. Secondly, your comment about supply and demand and capitalism as it applies here is very enronian….capitalism is good and completely defensible if it means YOU make money? Sooo…by your argument arms dealers are ethical? Drug dealers? Pimps? They must be…i mean…it’s supply and demand, right?

The manufacturers have a supply chain. To be part of that supply chain you have to fulfil certain obligations; you know that from your previous life. Now guess what…you are bypassing that. Not only bypassing it, but bypassing it for profit AND at the expense of someone else.

I believe that one of the reasons people will have to stand in line to buy these is because of the scalpers. Sure Sony will plan in a certain shortage…and that shortage will be grossly exacerbated by exploitave people (underhandedly) taking advantage of marketing and hype and human nature.

I stand by what I say; buying something solely for the purpose of re-selling it at an inflated-over-retail price rubs me the wrong way; the only person who really wins is Sony. You force an upswing in the street value of the product which ultimately hurts consumers. If you want to be a Playstation vendor, get a license and buy them at dealer cost from Sony.

If you’re cool with being a gear scalper, all power to you. Personally I wouldn’t be…so we agree to disagree. Doesn’t change my respect level…it’s a philosophical discussion in my mind and I hope you take it as such. A drawback to text based communication is that a part of the context is missing: the tone of voice.

At the end of the day, I guess, to me it’s kind of a rhetorical argument anyways cuz I’d never buy a PS3. Or a Wii.

At $699, it is hardly a KIDS TOY and to be perfectly honest, my kid, if I had one, would never have a gift this expensive, unless they bought it themselves. If they did have the means to buy it themselves, they’d be in line with me anyway, and they’d be lined up a day before. No kid is going to get screwed out of their PS3.

Second, our society is based on capitalism, supply and demand, and all that other good stuff that gives us our way of life. So we’re all slimey…

The opportunity cost for someone to stand in line to buy a PS3 on launch day is to have their time compensated for. Some people will keep it because they want one. But some will buy it to flip it. Now you say that by doing so, and let me correct you, “privileged child” has a parent with the means to purchase said item. But that parent isn’t going to stand in line to do that. So we have a supply and demand situation. On one hand, someone stood in line for a few hours to get one. On the other hand, we have a parent that is not willing, or cannot stand in line. It’s really a self fulfilling prophecy.

On eBay, the parent of the privileged child is quite happy to whip out the credit card in the comfort of their own home, with a hot cocoa, and buy it online. If your wish of no scalps came true, this parent would not be able to get the PS3 at all, and there is your “poor Kid” that has been screwed out of their PS3.

Poor kid with no PS3 = BS: Poor Kid my ass! It better be stolen!
Kid with Rich Parents with no PS3 = Possibly: Butler was on Holiday.
Kid with Rich Parents who lined up to buy PS3 = Unlikely: Seriously!
Kid with Rich Parents that buy it on eBay = WINNER: They didn’t have to stand in line, but they can tell people they did, and they get the machine.
Kid buys it himself = Runner UP: They’ll be right there lined up anyway.
Terrorist buy a bunch to build missile guidance system = UNETHICAL: There’s your answer if you are looking for ethics.

So you might not be willing to go this far to get a PS3, but don’t tell people that they are unethical for standing in line to buy one, no matter what it’s for. Seriously!

Sorry…here is one time where I’m gonna have to call BS on you chief….you know I have a lot of respect for you overall, and I guess I’m a bit disappointed to see that line. I don’t if it is uproariously funny or incredibly sad and lame. I also don’t which part is funnier or lamer…that you plan to screw some poor kid out of his christmas gift to make a few bucks or that you want a Wii. People who consciously buy new products in order to “scalp” them…well let me just say I hope that Sony over-produces. Of course we all know they won’t; that’s how demand is created.

It’s an ethical question to me; sure go buy yourself a PS3…buy a couple for your friends and family and absentee games reviewers even…but to go buy multiple units just to count on some eBay profits seems a little light on the integrity to me. Of course, like any philosophical disagreement, arguments can be made…so I welcome you to convince me that it’s not slimey.