This is my last comment on this, I don’t want to belabor the point and I think I’ve said everything I wanted to say.
No one is forcing me to do anything. But if I really love the wine, someone may be forcing me to pay more for it than is necessary if I want to buy it. I’m not saying you don’t have the right to do it, and I’m not saying it’s an indictment of the capitalist system. But to the people who say it doesn’t harm anyone, I’m calling BS. There are people who love the wine who have to pay twice as much for it because it’s being held hostage by the people camped on the lists. And there are people who love it but can’t buy it at twice the price.
If someone were to buy up the publishing rights and every last copy of my favorite book, and were then to charge $1000 to borrow a copy for a week, I’d think “that really sucks, what a crappy move”, and I might never read that book again. Do I really have to read that book again? No. Is anyone forcing me to pay $1000? No. If I really wanted to read the book badly enough, could I pay the $1000? Yes. Would that still be a really crappy move? YES.
I hope nobody takes this personally, I certainly don’t. I’m on all the lists I want to be on. When I wanted some Carlise before I was on the list I bought it at auction. I don’t know if I bought it above or below release price, it was the right price for me at the time, so I don’t care.
I have total respect for Serge to come out and say “I don’t care what people think about it”. The thing that got me to respond to this was the people trying to convince everyone that flipping is all part of capitalism and that we shouldn’t judge the people who do it negatively. Let’s just be honest about it.
Ostracism apparently can offer a useful social deterrent in certain settings.
The name is derived from the ostraka, (singular ostrakon , ὄστρακον), referring to the potsherds or pieces of broken pottery that were used as voting tokens. Broken pottery, abundant and virtually free, served as a kind of scrap paper (in contrast to papyrus, which was imported from Egypt as a high-quality writing surface, and was thus too costly to be disposable).
Each year the Athenians were asked in the assembly whether they wished to hold an ostracism. The question was put in the sixth of the ten months used for state business under the democracy (January or February in the modern Gregorian Calendar). If they voted “yes”, then an ostracism would be held two months later. In a roped-off area of the agora, citizens scratched the name of a citizen they wished to expel on potshards, and deposited them in urns. The presiding officials counted the ostraka submitted; if a minimum of six thousand votes were reached, then the ostracism took place: the officials sorted the names into separate piles, and the person receiving the highest number of votes was exiled for ten years.
The original question was whether selling a wine at twice the original price a year later, eg, was flipping or not. I think it’s flipping, whether or not the orginal intent was to flip (and I think the seller always recognized the potential to flip). Whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing is a different question.
It’s hard for me to call this a purely free market transaction if it’s a highly allocated mailing list wine. It’s analogous to states that don’t allow direct sales to consumers, but force the wine to go through a retailer or distributor plus retailer. The flipper is just taking advantage of a restrictive distribution system to make a profit.
I also think that many (most?) of the flippers are not conducting legal transactions. I’d also guess that most of them are not paying tax on their profit.
I agree, original intent makes all the difference. For example, I have tried some wines from a list I was added to recently that is hugely flippable. So far, I have not been wowed by anything I have had like I was with the bottle I tried originally that led me to join the list. If I continue not to be wowed, I am going to give up and drop my coveted list spot. But, I will sell whatever I have left, and I wouldn’t call that flipping, because I originally wanted nothing moe than to drink and enjoy them. Which so far I am not.
I am trying to picture you at a Universal Studio theme park . . .
This water bottle gambit is true at many other venues now such as concerts and sporting event.
Not really related, but goofy: At Mets games, after you pay $5 for that 18-cent bottle of water, they take the cap off and keep it. They claim it’s something about people throwing the caps, but I think it’s because they’re afraid you’ll want to stock up at $5 each! [suicide.gif]