resale on ebay - Page 6

[JohnnysGirl]

Originally Posted by Boobiemama

Seems to me you guys are putting WAY too much thought into something petty.....

I agree--but hey, one of my fave MDC mamas asked for a discourse, so I'm trying to comply!

[JohnnysGirl]

The primary seller is free to sell to/distribute her goods however she wishes. Her choices dictate who the pool of primary buyers consists of. For example, fluffymail occasionally chooses to open up their stocking to everyone via ebay auctions, but usually stocks their regular store or offers custom slots as an instock available items so that it's "first come/first serve". Laura of el bee has thusfar only offered her diapers for sale via a custom order waiting list that was open to anyone for many months (maybe more than a year? not sure), save a few select offerings to her yahoo group and very few diapers via ebay.
To the secondary buyer who wishes they were a primary buyer, that's sad and all, but not unfair that the WAHM hasn't made a primary purchase available to that individual. The other primary buyers are not the ones who control who gets to be primary buyers, that is dictated by the primary seller's choices in how she wants to distribute her goods. The intentions of any primary buyers are irrelevant and do not play a role in who else gets to be primary buyers.

[JohnnysGirl]

I disagree, and stand firm that it is the choices of the primary sellers that dictates who gets to be a primary buyer.

If they choose to sell the items in a situation which would give those with the fastest internet connection a huge advantage, and they see their items being immediatly resold on the secondary market at higher prices, then it is up to the primary seller to reconsider if this is okay with them. They can raise prices, sell via auction to truly give everyone a shot, do a lottery drawing to see who gets to buy, or anything else they wish.

[JohnnysGirl]

But it is the choice of distribution that the WAHM makes that makes it possible in the first place for these would-be 'scalpers'( : ) to follow through with their intentions. She can easily make different choices that would eliminate that from ever happening. The secondary market is visible to everyone, and the WAHM can choose how to offer her goods in the future based on what happens there. In your example she chooses to let those with the faster internet connection get the goods, and if that system proves to have flaws (e.g. 'scalpers' behaving as re-distributors that are perhaps unwanted by the primary seller as well as secondary buyer in your example), the primary seller can choose to sell her goods another way to prevent it from happening. WAHMs have the freedom to make those kinds of decisions in order to maximize benefit from their time/labor, and however they choose to distribute their goods is their prerogative and is not 'unfair' to those who did not manage to become a primary buyer based on those decisions.
Clear as mud? :LOL

[ustasmom]

Could you imagine how the fur would fly around here if a WAHM refused to sell an item to somone? I know that most of them have that as policy, but still.

[kblue]

Originally Posted by Joannect

If I remember correctly that thread was about asking more than retail for a dipe on the TP, not on ebay. Ebay is a whole different game, the price is driven by the buyers, not the sellers. Even if the person listing the dipes on ebay was hoping to make a ton of money off of them, the only people who can guarantee that she does is the person bidding. If people weren't willing to pay $80 for a dipe then they wouldn't sell for $80.

I personally would never spend $80 on one dipe and it's not because I can't afford it. I just think it's way too much money for something that gets pooped in. :LOL Appearantly there are people out there who will. Good for them it's their money and they should be able to do with it as they damn well please.

Yup, I started that thread and that was what it was about, thanks! I was referring more to people buying something JUST to resell for a profit.

[Sustainer]

You know, I always wondered why on earth people didn't ask more than $25 or so for El Bees or other hyena dipes on the tp, and the reason is now painfully clear.

[averymybaby]

OK Holli and Angelica, I'm trying to follow, but I'm a little :LOL

[jessicaSAR]

I was going to stay out, but I just can't....


Angelica states:
"There can never be anything unethical about selling a luxury item at market prices. (Ethics come into play only when pricing necessity items, and then too only in rare ‘special cases’.)"

"There can never be anything unethical about selling a hand made cloth diaper on a free market for any price; whether the price a voluntary buyer is paying for it is $70 or $700 or $7000. Period"

"This line of thought boils down to a communist ideology where everybody is obliged to do give what they have or can produce according to ability and everybody is entitled to the same material goods (and eventually essentially nobody gets anything)."

"it is the choices of the primary sellers that dictates who gets to be a primary buyer.

If they choose to sell the items in a situation which would give those with the fastest internet connection a huge advantage, and they see their items being immediatly resold on the secondary market at higher prices, then it is up to the primary seller to reconsider if this is okay with them. "



Ok, this is one ethical standpoint, but, while persuasively stated, it is not the only one. In order to accept that there can never be anything unethical about sellling luxury items at market prices, one must also assume that the existence of said luxury items in no way impacts the existence/quality/availability of necessity items. If drug companies are busy producing viagra because there is a great luxury market for it, they are not investing in the production of drugs for aids or diabetes or cancer etc. So the line between luxury items and necessity items is not as clear cut as Angelica's perspective suggests.

Second, saying that something is the eqivalent of a communist/socialist ideology is not in and of itself an argument against it. One must explain why such an ideology is undesireable.

Third, what is the meaning of "fair market value?" What makes "market" value better than "use" value, or the value of labor and materials? We are often told it is because the market is not biased. It is the "invisible hand," and hence not subjective in the way that other determinations of value might be. But, the market does not exist in a vacuum. Markets exist in real worlds with real inequalities and injustices, and inevitably reflects those injustices. There is nothing sacred about the market. It is only as fair and just and valuable as we make it. A "market" requires an infrastructure of buyers and sellers (ours happens to be characterized by extremes of wealth and poverty), it requires rules of the game to govern its operation, and it requires a way to generate demand for items (such as a discussion forum where hype can create artificial demand). All of these things are subjective and biased. Ebay, for example, has rules against bidding up one'e own item. According to Angelica's ethics, this rule is unnecessary. As long as the buyer "voluntarily" (and we could also debate the meaning of voluntary) puts in her bid, why should it matter if the seller is jacking up the price by bidding on her own item?

Finally, perhaps it is worth thinking about why it is that acts of charity can raise someone's standing in a community. Presumably we honor such acts because we see value in placing the preservation of communal ties (and the mitigation of poverty, inequality,and injustice that strong community requires) above mere self-interest. It makes perfect sense for a community or nation to cultivate such a communal attitude by developing an ethical perspective that discourages avarice and greed.

Ethics are typically pretty context dependent and require a bit of thought. It may not always be the case that selling an elbee on ebay is indicative of avarice or greed. Perhaps the seller is in a difficult financial situation and needs to make some money. In that case perhaps they would choose to do something (sell on ebay) that they would not normally do. We might alter our ethical stance if we take these mitigating circumstances into account. But, that does not mean that under normal circumstances the seller would choose ebay. Claiming that you are selling on ebay due to unusual circumstances just underlines the fact that under normal circumstances you would probably not make that choice. We all know that you can recoup your entire investment for an elbee on the TP, so choosing to sell on ebay is a choice to get as much as possible. I would define that as greed and see no reason why a community shouldn't discourage such an attitude under normal circumstances.

Angelica, I do appreciate your very thoughtful comments. I think this is exactly what the op had in mind. I do not think this thread is ridiculous (or at least it is no more ridiculous than debating the merits of velour v sherpa). I clearly disagree with your perspective, but I wish we could have more such discussions. I have truly enjoyed reading the entire thread. Now, I need to pick my middle aged boobs up off the floor and get the babes to bed!

[MissSugarKane]

Originally Posted by jessicaSAR

. We all know that you can recoup your entire investment for an elbee on the TP, so choosing to sell on ebay is a choice to get as much as possible. I would define that as greed and see no reason why a community shouldn't discourage such an attitude under normal circumstances.

Okay I thought I was done with this thread but then I read that statement and once again I am all fired up

What I don't understand is how can you call that greed when you do not know what is even being done with the money? What if a person is going to give the money to charity and here you are assuming they are greedy.I think to judge a situation you know nothing about is wrong.

Okay my auction is not even above retail but let's pretend it is.Last month I went a little overboard in my holiday charity and spent more then I had to spend on other families.Now I am trying to sell some things to make up for the money I overspent so that I can take care of myself and my son.But under you rational of if you list an el bee on ebay you are greeding way of thinking then puts me in the box of greedy.I know I am far from greedy.Irresposible with money , yes , but not greedy.Now of course I really don't care if you think I am a greedy person but I am trying to show how your judgements of people by one action is way off.

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by jessicaSAR

choosing to sell on ebay is a choice to get as much as possible. I would define that as greed and see no reason why a community shouldn't discourage such an attitude under normal circumstances.

How can anyone criticize someone for getting the top dollar for their property?? How can that be considered greedy?? If you knew that there were people willing to pay you $200k for your house, should you be expected to sell it for $100k? Should you be expected to sell your car for $1k when you know there are people willing to give you $2k for it? If so, WHY? If not, how are diapers different? I totally agree with Butterflymom: if someone sells something for less than they could get for it, they are engaging in an act of CHARITY which they are under no ethical obligation to do.

[jessicaSAR]

But, I specifically said in the sentences above that the very actions you describe I would not define as greed? I was suggesting that circumstances do matter.

[kblue]

Originally Posted by MissSugarKane

Okay I thought I was done with this thread but then I read that statement and once again I am all fired up

What I don't understand is how can you call that greed when you do not know what is even being done with the money? What if a person is going to give the money to charity and here you are assuming they are greedy.I think to judge a situation you know nothing about is wrong.

I had nodded and agreed with you before, but deleted to try to stay out of it. :LOL But what the heck...

[Jennisee]

Wow, I could really go for a big Libertarian group hug right now.

[MissSugarKane]

Wanted to add I am no angel.I am not trying to come off as a saint.I am not greedy about money but have been known to be about certain diapering items in the past :

[AngelBee]

I don't find people greedy for selling dipes at high prices. I am poor. I can afford pf and all sorts of covers, PUL or wool. I can also afford used dipes that are not hyena gear. That does not make my experience cding any less than all of the hyena moms.

I just can't afford the same stuff. Does that make me jealous? Sometimes because I wish my finacial situation was better. Does that make them greedy? Absolutely not! They are mamas who are financially better off. No big deal.

Is this an issue just because not everyone can afford it? Would it be bad if I bought a cover for $4 and it sold for $5?

It is an auction people. You have a choice of whether or not to bid. The seller is not "selling" it at a higher price. We, the bidders, are bidding at a higher price. If any thing, that would make those of us who are bidding the bad guys. KWIM?

[jessicaSAR]

Please read the whole paragraph and don't just quote one sentence. My point was that ethics are tricky. Sometimes people are selling because they need money, and that is different than just selling to make as much as possible. I think I am being misinterpreted here.

[Ok]

Jessica: Well said! (from another middle-aged Mama w/ droopy boobs )

I think in general I have opted into the more communal aspect of the diapering world, which is one reason I like MDC so much. There are certain diapering items I'll never own, and thats OK. I actually could afford a piece or two of them in the literal sense, but just not in my family's sense of economics. But I enjoy seeing the beautiful art. And in the world-economy, I'd much rather see money switching hands between WAHMs and Mamas than Proctor-and-Gamble & the Masses.

However, that doesn't mean I deny the existence of different attitudes-- nor judge them as deviant. Its just a different attitude. I do understand that the competition for certain items does drive that WAHMs business in very positive ways at certain levels.

I still definitely prefer the economy of scale we're working with in our little diapering enclave. And I have to agree that how other family economies work is none of my business (as long as its legal )

[tuffykenwell]

I don't personally see anything wrong with getting whatever you can for an item. The way I see it is lets say that hyena "A" is purchasing hyena diapers for the purposes of reselling...we all know how fickle hyena's can be so hyena "A" is still taking a risk by purchasing the product. If the hyena's are caught by some new fancy then the resale on the item will fall and they may or may not get their money back on the item.

So since they are willing to take the risk I think they are entitled to the profit (or lack thereof) which the market will bear...If you want some examples of what I am talking about how about the HoneyBoy's made by Jodi that sold for huge amounts just a couple of years ago...think anyone could get over $100 for a HoneyBoy regardless of the maker now (I doubt it because the hyena's have moved on). Ditto that for Sugar Peas (still well liked but no one is paying insane amounts for them any longer because they are readily available).

So lets say Laura could hire a team of seamstresses and pump out enough El Bees to satisfy everyone...the price people were willing to pay for the item would ironically fall as the cost of making it rose...thus the reason why so few WAHMs ever make it really "big" because you have to be able to purchase your materials in large enough quantities to make up for the increased cost of having your product manufactured and few WAHMs can make that leap.

Of course I don't have many hyena items and those that I do have I tend to use into the ground rather than sell LOL so I have no real world experience to speak of here

Steph

[MissSugarKane]

Can I just say that if I make any extra money on my auctions maybe I had better put it towards sigi advertising because having that always kept me in line. Without it I am a loose canon

I have no hard feelings towards anyone.Even those who are so wrong by not seeing things the right way..my way :
JK