27 May
2013
27 May
'13
8:44 a.m.
On 27 May 2013 16:33, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
On 05/26/2013 09:37 PM, Tothwolf wrote:
I can't see Mr. Hatfield willfully agreeing to sell the Apple I in question
for only $40,000 if he had known in advance that it had the potential to sell
for more than $600,000, working or not.
[And for the record, the above reply from Richard makes is very glad I
plonked him some time back since he apparently still thinks I'm going to
somehow be reading his personal attacks. Richard, grow up.]
I dunno. For some reason (I must be feeling generous today) I can't really
fault Richard for his point of view on this. He firmly believes in the new
definition of capitalism ("anything goes, as long as you make a buck"), and
has no problem with people getting bilked. Let the buyer (or seller) beware,
etc. This does make some sense in a way, as the poor old codger really
should've done his research.
Indeed, the company he (Richard) worships has made a very successful
(financially, if not technically) business out of bilking people regularly.
That's why I don't like them...Richard has no problem with it.
Perhaps he just wasn't raised with that particular set of teachings. I
think it's just as simple as that.
What I personally would've done is said, "Hey look, this is worth a LOT
more than you think it is...I know how to get that money, howabout you let me
do that and we'll split it?" ...THAT is capitalism. Screwing anyone in any
way possible to make a buck is not. That's called "Sleazy".
This is not some "new definition of capitalism". Hadfield made /forty
thousand dollars/ for an old, dead computer that he paid under $700
for. He made SIXTY TIMES what he paid for it.
There is *no* possible definition of being "bilked" for this. That is
like a decent lottery win or something.
Look, last year, I sold a UK101 that I got off my local Freecycle
group for just over ?200. I sold it as dead, sight-unseen, because I
didn't know, don't have the skills to fix it and don't want to learn
them. I was /very/ pleased with the price. I was and remain absolutely
delighted.
The guy that bought it - and I delivered it, carried it in a snowboard
bag, complete with CRT monitor, right the way across London, well over
an hour on the train, at my own cost - was also delighted.
He told me, straight out, that he planned to repair it and get it
working and if he did so it would sell for at least 50% more - he
suggested ?350+ as a fair price for a working one. Mine had manual,
receipt, demo cassette and original monitor as well, so probably
rather more.
I didn't want to fix it. I didn't even try it, in case I did damage. I
never even plugged it in.
He may, for all I know, have fixed it and sold it. If he got twice as
much, good, go him.
If he got 10? as much, I'd be /very/ surprised.
This Apple 1 went for well over twice what the last Apple 1 went for,
and that went for nearly twice what the previous one went for. This
cannot continue.
But /nobody was bilked./ Nobody has been robbed. Both parties got a
/very very good price./ Hadfield made a bigger profit as a factor of
buying price than the reseller.
Where is your problem? Lay it out, describe it, because I have not
seen /anyone/ in this thread /justify/ their argument.
/Why/ should the buyer/reseller have made less profit? Why should he
have shared the profit? He laid out FORTY K for a dead piece of 35y
old electronics. That is /generous./ Why should he have offered to
split the money? In what universe would doing so be rational or sane?
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
This is bullshit.
Indeed it is.