Sea-to-sky-games wrote:The point here is that eBay's policy has nothing to do with protecting buyers. It has to do with maximizing profit.eBay tries to put in harsh wording so that the expense of the buyer will be borne primarily through the bid price (where they get their money) and not through shipping fees (which they can't get their hands on). But everyone knows it is impossible to determine whether are not these "added" fees somehow worked into the s/h are not reasonable. In any event, the final cost of the good doesn't change, so buyers are indifferent. If s/h are low, then the bid price goes higher. If the s/h are high, the bid price goes lower. It's basic supply and demand.
I never suggested they could. Try to pay attention, please. You're missing some really high-quality stuff. I said that sellers aren't permitted to take undue advantage of buyers. You certainly can and should charge reasonable shipping and handling fees. Reasonable. It's not an entirely subjective term, as you've implied. We all know there is a distinction between the reasonable and the outrageous. We don't agree on precisely where that line is drawn, but we all agree within about an order of magnitude. A $100 s/h fee on a single module is outrageous. A $10 one might be reasonable. A $1 one is generous. Therefore, a $100 s/h fee is taking undue advantage, whether explicitly stated in the auction or not.
Yes, they do get their hands on the shipping fees, with Paypal and the final selling price, not once but twice! Once, when you sell it and again when a buyer pays you. Which, by the way, makes eBay in violation of their own policy, reguardless if its one of their 'other' companies that they 'claim' they do not directly control.
Clarkie seems to be summing it up well . . . in the REAL World sellers are frequently accountable for buyer mistakes. If someone buys the wrong size outfit, tries it on, returns it to the store and asks for a refund . . . the store takes a loss. Maybe they can restock it again and sell it for the same price . . . odds are not. Plus they have to staff a person(s) to take returns and all sorts of other paperwork, expenses involved with it.
Sea-to-sky-games wrote:This accountability is voluntary.. and they do so to increase profits and stay competitive with other firms.
Sea-to-sky-games wrote:I don't know any firm in the world (by my limited knowledge) that would refund the cost of buying something because they forgot to factor in the shipping and handling charge.
deimos3428 wrote:Nortel. IBM. Samsung. Dell. (Just naming firms I see on my desk, actually.) Any sufficiently large and reputable firm has an "If you're not completely satisfied for any reason..." guarantee. As well, most firms this large will invoice. There's no refunding involved at all on such returns.Smaller firms don't have the luxury of being so accomodating. But the customer is always right -- even if they are stupid. You shake your head, negotiate and come to an agreement, or you lose the sale and quite possibly the customer.
I think the biggest problem that you have with trying to prove this statement is to show that most buyers are intelligent enough to really take this into account for each auction they bid on. If you are trying to say that every buyer will go and do comparative shopping on Ebay to find the actual cost of shipping for each particular item they are interested in and then determine what a going rate for that item is and finally bid accordingly based on these two numbers - then I think you are crazy! This idealism really sounds like someone who has taken a couple of economics courses and learned to use a spreadsheet. No offence but in the real world textbook models such as this just don't work.
When you go into a store and buy something, do you expect to be charged extra fees such a couple of bucks to pay the cashier to take your money or the janitor to clean up the mess your shoes brought in, or for having someone help you? How many times have you even left a tip for these service people? My guess would be NONE! What I don't understand in your argument is why do you feel types of fees are legitimate in an Ebay auction? They are clearly not fees related to shipping.
Nortel. IBM. Samsung. Dell. (Just naming firms I see on my desk, actually.) Any sufficiently large and reputable firm has an "If you're not completely satisfied for any reason..." guarantee. As well, most firms this large will invoice. There's no refunding involved at all on such returns. Smaller firms don't have the luxury of being so accomodating. But the customer is always right -- even if they are stupid. You shake your head, negotiate and come to an agreement, or you lose the sale and quite possibly the customer.
Just to add something else on to this "conversation" is the fact that although we do live in a capitalist based society and governement, we do not live under a system of pure capitalism, in case our new postered hasn't discovered this yet. Therefore, all those pure capitalist theories that continually keep getting cited as reality suddenly come into question for those exact same reasons....
Sea-to-sky-games wrote:This accountability is voluntary.. and they do so to increase profits and stay competitive with other firms. [Yes they take occassional losses, but overall they make tons more by having a strong reputation as being easy on costumers].There is certainly no law that states seller need to refund someone for buying something that doesn't fit et al.You do see online sellers be accountable for mistakes ("oh, this item was in far worse shape than I thought").. but again, it is voluntary. It is not that they must, but in some cases it makes good business sense to do so. I don't know any firm in the world (by my limited knowledge) that would refund the cost of buying something because they forgot to factor in the shipping and handling charge.
Sea-to-sky-games wrote:When the Soviet Union existed, the fundamental law of demand applied. Price goes up, people buy less. If price is kept artificially low (or free), lineups and shortages occur.I respectfully think you are conflating economic systems with economic theory. The latter, I'd argue, is a fairly decent way (not the only way) to understand human behavior.. regardless of environment.
Can we all just agree that BadMike summed that up perfectly? If I were to guess he's also a little bit drunk
We do not live under economic theories, we live under economic systems. The further away from a pure capitalistic system we are, the less applicable theories that you continually cite here based on pure capitalism become. Since we do not live under a purely capitalistic society those exact same theories of pure capitalism that you continuosly cite here to prove your are right are become less relevant based on that fact alone.
Sea-to-sky-games wrote:In the Soviet Union you had shortages of everything and long lineups.. and this was precisely because the goods were free. People would buy more than prices were ultra low.Just as in the US, when we imposed price controls on gas in the 70s, you had to weight around the block to buy some.These are all cases of the law of supply and demand working perfectly. I don't think I've used other theories.. but if so, what other "theories" have I used that don't apply?
Thats said, because of these factors the theory behind supply and demand are not as applicable because of these controls in place.
Sea-to-sky-games wrote:No worries. We have just 100% different understanding of what constitutes the theory of supply and demand. All I've ventured is that people are price sensitive. Simple as that. That won't change wherever you are, or whatever system you are in.
deimos3428 wrote:Can we all just agree that BadMike summed that up perfectly? If I were to guess he's also a little bit drunk, but that's not an insult coming from a Canuck.