27 May
2013
27 May
'13
8:14 p.m.
On 27 May 2013 20:10, Toby Thain <toby at telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
On 27/05/13 1:22 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
I got that people think it's unfair. I also share the feeling that
unrestricted anything-goes laissez-faire capitalism is a bad thing.
But making ?40K seems pretty good to me. So it sold for way more than
Apple 1s generally do. Big deal. The reseller did not /know/ that it
would. He could have got double his money, meaning he made back his
whole investment over - pay $40K, sell for ~$80K, make $40K.
If he was lucky, he might fairly have thought, it might have gone for
twice that, maybe 4? that.
Actually, it went for 10? that. He got lucky.
It just appears that for some people, you're allowed to make /some/
money but not /lots/ of money - with no clearly-defined line between
"some" and "lots", but you cross this undefined, invisible line, then
you're suddenly a scum-sucking maggot.
That seems irrational to me.
--
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
...
*Why* is this unfair?
Rather than this particular transaction, I suspect Dave was more concerned
about, as I am, the reflexive posture - which rears occasionally on this
list - that "anything goes" under the mantle of "capitalism".
His reply makes that very clear, doesn't it?