18 Oct
2000
18 Oct
'00
9:23 p.m.
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Bill Dawson wrote:
-> > -> > > Aaron Nabil
<nabil(a)SpiritOne.com>
-> > . . .
-> Some people make a living by buying and selling surplus. They are not
-> "classic computer collectors"
But where is their market? CLASSIC COMPUTER COLLECTORS.
-> and do not "owe anything to the community".
But with the childish attitude described here, which shows total
disrespect towards the intended market, how can they expect to develop a
relationship with their intended buyers?
People who buy and sell surplus have a much wider market than "classic
computer collectors" or they are out of business. If anything, the
collectors are the fringe weirdos who hang around the warehouse
sniffing about the dumpsters and making absurdly low offers on
things. Ie, me.
-> Theirs is hard and risky work with no
guarantees, it isn't "easy
money".
While this is true for all vendors of vintage equipment, a vendor with a
"business ethic" of "If I can't sell it for what I want for it,
I'll
destroy it." had just better give it up and find another line of work
(and perhaps a good shrink, also).
A more accurate rendition would be "If I can't get the minimum price
I want for it, I won't sell it to you for less even though I might end up
throwing it away later." Which seems perfectly reasonable to me. I trust
sellers are sufficiently motivated by pressures like "eating" and "paying
the rent" that they will always accept a truly reasonable offer.
-> To dismiss their desire to maximize their profit
(so
-> that they can do things like eat and pay the rent) as "being
-> greedy" is patently absurd and does not merit further comment.
I detect an attempted diversion here. No one can be faulted for
maximizing their profit, if it is done ethically. I know that the
destruction of vintage equipment just for the reason that it did not
sell for the asking price is well outside the ethics of the majority of
us in the vintage computer field.
Well, one problem is what you are defining as "vintage" and as "unethical
to dumpster" might be what the vendor defines as crap. There is a wide
range of what people consider "vintage" (certainly most of the computers
being discussed on this list fall more into the "crap" category than
"vintage" in my mind, but that's just my personal tastes). The list
reports of "Ooo! I just rescued a Radio Shack COCO from Goodwill!" seems
only an fraction less silly to me than someone reporting that they
"rescued" a 15 inch VGA monitor from Goodwill. So to you it might be a
"precious piece of computer history", to the vendor it's a "piece of
crap
some crazy people might think is valuable". And the dumpstering of it,
from your point of view, is "destruction of this
country's computing
heritage" while to the vendor it's "getting
rid of the garbage the freaks
wouldn't buy". To the vendor it isn't a ethics question but a logistics
one.
The destruction of vintage equipment
in a belief that this will somehow increase the value of the remaining
is "patently absurd" and certainly does deserve comment. What other
motive can be ascribed to an action such as this? Greed (and
selfishness) certainly fit.
The problem is that it does "somehow" increase the value. The somehow was
detailed in chapter 1 of your Econ 101 book.
If you want to label the desire to maximize profit as "greed and
selfishness" you are welcome to but it's not a very realistic way of
looking at how the world works.
For example: I own a rare S-100 CP/M system of which
there are known to
be only 10 others at the most in existence, none in the hands of
collectors. I locate the others and destroy them, knowing mine now
becomes not just rare, but the only one left. Did I increase its value?
Sure. Driven by greed? You bet. Would _I_ do this? Hell, no.
Another example: I'm Joe Seller. I have no interest in collecting. I
just want to make the big bucks. I found a warehouse full of PDP's from
the 1960's. I bought them all for scrap prices. Should I scrap most of
them and keep just a few to sell, reasoning that I don't want to flood
the market and drive my prices down? In your example and given
rationale, your seller likely would. Reason? Greed, driven by a big
helping of foolishness and faulty business sense.
Well, he might do that. More power to him. I wouldn't call that "greed",
and without analyzing the numbers I certainly wouldn't be in the position
to call it "foolish" or a "faulty business sense". If he maximizes
the
return on his investment by scrapping most of it and selling the best
bits, then that's what he should do. What is foolish is second-guessing
other people when you aren't in their place.
I feel that any seller who is known to trash and/or
destroy equipment
that doesn't sell, especially when reasonable offers have been made,
should be banned from future selling whenever possible. If they can't
sell it, they won't buy it. If they don't buy it, it will be left for
someone else to find, someone with hopefully a more responsible
attitude. If it ends up in a landfill because it wasn't "found", it
_is_ a loss, but what's the difference? The difference is that we won't
have to associate with those sellers who just don't understand ethics
(and really don't sell much anyway).
Sounds like a plan to me. Good luck. ;)
No field of collecting tolerates this behavior and we
shouldn't be any
different.
Bill
Aaron Nabil