Hi Ted. I don't know whether I believe the arg, but in any case I think you may have missed its thrust. I believe that the arg is that the seller "used" ebay in order to protect against low bids (by setting a reserve) and fish for high bids (by setting a very high reserve). Setting a reserve costs $, however, and if the reserve is met you pay an additional commission of a few percentage points. The seller can avoid paying the commission and concomitantly avoid selling the bike for what he feels is an unreasonably low price by setting the reserve too high and then negotiating after the fact with one of the high bidders should that bidder have offered what the seller actually thought the product was worth in the first place (in other words, what the reserve should have been).
If the arg accurately characterizes the seller's plan -- and note here that I am *not* saying/implying that it does -- then I can't see how one could claim that free enterprise was served. Contracts are essential to the appropriate functioning of a market economy since they reduce transaction costs, generate trust, create compliance mechanisms, and so forth. At minimum a seller who "uses" the reserve to play around is violating the spirit of the service/contract of reserve pricing, and if such behavior became rampant I think it would cause ebay tremendous problems.
Jon
Jon Cowden Ithaca, NY
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 TW406@aol.com wrote:
> Gee, I thought this was America? Seller has a right to set any price they
> believe their item to be worth, no matter how unreasonable. Conversely, a
> buyer has a right to pay how ever much they like, no matter how absurd. The
> market will decide the outcome.
>
> What scam? Don't like what something is bringing, stop bidding.
>
> Geez.
>
> Ted, just my opinion; happy to be a part of the free enterprise system.