Actually, no. But it is exactly the false dichotomy you present that causes young people to say they question capitalism itself rather than simply calling for it to be regulated and tempered with a strong safety net.
As for the rest many more people would be prosperous if not for the few at the top actively shirking their taxes with one hand while holding the other out for corporate handouts and bailouts. Many more actively take advantage of difficult economic times to pay less than a reasonable cost of living for full time (minus an hour) employment.
One way to tell is have two people try to buy the same game from a seller. If both get a copy, it's scalping. If one gets a copy and the other gets "sorry, I sold it already", then it's likely a circumstantial reseller.
As for the condition offered, what, other than "new" would you call a game still in it's original shrink wrap? It certainly wasn't used.
It's also a lot of pure luck. Starting out halfway there gives you a lot more shots at it, but for every success that's celebrated, there are still 10 or more failures nobody ever heard of that were just as smart and worked just as hard or harder, but didn't get lucky.
That's a terrible thing to hang the ability to get decent healthcare and a reasonably comfortable life on.
None of those systems (including unconstrained capitalism) are particularly good.
It's also what happens when the only thing that trickles down is urine. If the big winners in capitalism don't want the game to end, they'd best make sure to spread the wealth a little better.
The income disparity is exactly why it is NOT working for a lot of people. Sure, it works great for the top of the pyramid, but that could also be said of feudalism. Communism also worked well for the top of the pyramid in the USSR. Kim Jong Un is doing quite well for himself, it's everyone else in N. Korea that's having a problem.
But you DO if you want better than a grade school understanding, which will show you that the summary is being VERY general and that there exists a more specific case that scalpers very much fit.
No head spins here because I realize that the same action can have different results in different circumstances.
Keep reading and you'll see that artificial scarcity (what the scalper does) can also cause a shortage. Of course, a more nuanced understanding of gouging eliminates anti-gouging as a cause of shortage. For example, if, after a disaster it actually costs me substantially more trouble and I have to pay for a substantially more expensive mode of transportation, I haven't ACTUALLY price gouged if I charge substantially more for gasoline than I did before the storm and subsequent emptying of my storage tanks.
OTOH, if I have full tanks and I double the price immediately after the storm, I am price gouging.
If I buy out the other 2 stations in the area then charge 10 times as much for gas, I am gouging AND scalping.
The scalper has two fists full of tickets for multiple concerts and sells for substantially above retail because he and fellow scalpers created a shortage. The circumstantial seller has 4 or less tickets and may sell for a bit above retail mostly because he's offered above retail.
The video game reseller can't get above retail because you can still just buy a copy retail. But the 'scalper' will still have fists full of multiple titles while the circumstantial seller will have one each of a few titles at most.
Slashdot Mirror
Both.
The experts also recommended that all smokers switch to vaping immediately.
Actually, the researchers agreed and, in fact, recommended that all smokers should switch to vaping immediately.
Somehow, that part didn't make it to the headline.
A coffee cup could also be considered a drug delivery device, so what?
Any evidence for that?
Social programs were implemented to head off open revolt. That'll be needed again.
Actually, no. But it is exactly the false dichotomy you present that causes young people to say they question capitalism itself rather than simply calling for it to be regulated and tempered with a strong safety net.
As for the rest many more people would be prosperous if not for the few at the top actively shirking their taxes with one hand while holding the other out for corporate handouts and bailouts. Many more actively take advantage of difficult economic times to pay less than a reasonable cost of living for full time (minus an hour) employment.
One way to tell is have two people try to buy the same game from a seller. If both get a copy, it's scalping. If one gets a copy and the other gets "sorry, I sold it already", then it's likely a circumstantial reseller.
As for the condition offered, what, other than "new" would you call a game still in it's original shrink wrap? It certainly wasn't used.
It's also a lot of pure luck. Starting out halfway there gives you a lot more shots at it, but for every success that's celebrated, there are still 10 or more failures nobody ever heard of that were just as smart and worked just as hard or harder, but didn't get lucky.
That's a terrible thing to hang the ability to get decent healthcare and a reasonably comfortable life on.
None of those systems (including unconstrained capitalism) are particularly good.
How do you explain the rest of the western world and their socialized medicine or the U.S. providing grants for research?
It certainly seems attractive to the 0.1% now.
More likely, it's because they can't afford a house even when they work harder than their parents did when they bought a house.
At one time, a single income couple where the breadwinner held a blue collar job could buy a house in their 20's.
Getting sick is also blisteringly expensive these days.
That's because that system has been corrupted and is now pushing people back into poverty.
If you don't fix it, it will be replaced. Act accordingly.
It's also what happens when the only thing that trickles down is urine. If the big winners in capitalism don't want the game to end, they'd best make sure to spread the wealth a little better.
The income disparity is exactly why it is NOT working for a lot of people. Sure, it works great for the top of the pyramid, but that could also be said of feudalism. Communism also worked well for the top of the pyramid in the USSR. Kim Jong Un is doing quite well for himself, it's everyone else in N. Korea that's having a problem.
But you DO if you want better than a grade school understanding, which will show you that the summary is being VERY general and that there exists a more specific case that scalpers very much fit.
See this section The first and fifth bullet points just about sum it up.
The Forbes article was talking about a pre-order artificially limited by the original seller, not scalping.
Perhaps you should READ the links you post to me first.
It would be enough that the courts and prosecutor would WANT to find you guilty, but they'd still be stretching.
I'm not the one asserting some sort of benefit. I have looked it up, and I got more hand waving from cheerleaders.
No head spins here because I realize that the same action can have different results in different circumstances.
Keep reading and you'll see that artificial scarcity (what the scalper does) can also cause a shortage. Of course, a more nuanced understanding of gouging eliminates anti-gouging as a cause of shortage. For example, if, after a disaster it actually costs me substantially more trouble and I have to pay for a substantially more expensive mode of transportation, I haven't ACTUALLY price gouged if I charge substantially more for gasoline than I did before the storm and subsequent emptying of my storage tanks.
OTOH, if I have full tanks and I double the price immediately after the storm, I am price gouging.
If I buy out the other 2 stations in the area then charge 10 times as much for gas, I am gouging AND scalping.
Contributing to the delinquency of a minor, such as encouraging them to hack the real page, would be a crime. Suggestions?
Because scalpers first create an artificial shortage and then gouge. It's called rent seeking.
Your attempted justification rings no more true than the shop lifter that claims the stores overcharge anyway so he's just balancing the books.
The scalper has two fists full of tickets for multiple concerts and sells for substantially above retail because he and fellow scalpers created a shortage. The circumstantial seller has 4 or less tickets and may sell for a bit above retail mostly because he's offered above retail.
The video game reseller can't get above retail because you can still just buy a copy retail. But the 'scalper' will still have fists full of multiple titles while the circumstantial seller will have one each of a few titles at most.
Scalping is a bit different from someone making a one off sale of a single copy that they bought and never got to use for some reason.
Unfortunately, because court is a bit like roulette with a multi-thousand dollar buy-in, they'll likely get away with it.