Quote:
Originally Posted by RodKnock
Brilliant dissertation on economics, BTW, I love the "there are no unlimited markets" comment (  ), but two things:
1. I mentioned on TWO occasions in this thread that: a) there's no evidence of collusion in the Cobra industry and b) that I'm not accusing anyone of collusion. I was responding "in theory." So, if someone wants to call me juvenile and irresponsible, if you were referring to me, behind their almighty keyboard, then I think they should go find themselves better reading comprehension skills.
2. Markets are imperfect. One of many examples. The stock market has an issue right now with High Frequency Traders that allegedly manipulate stock prices. And as Bill (MrMustang) mentions, S happens in the car sales and auction business. So, bury your head in the sand, if you desire. |
The rant was not aimed at you Rodknock (embarrassed, I forgot your real name) or Bill. It was aimed at the other posts that suggested, without evidence, a conspiratorial nature in the pricing practices of our community. I actually don't have any argument with either your position or Bill's. My issue is with the suggestion of collusive pricing practices.
Suggestions about collusive pricing practices for which there is no evidence is just not responsible. It is the equivalent of someone saying I heard that so-in-so is a bad guy without any accreditation as to the source or its own credibility. Statements without accreditation should be as offensive to us as readers as they are to the accused. By pushing back on that sort of behavior we not only discourage and discredit it but, we also discredit those who choose to traffic in that sort of misbehavior.
Don't misunderstand the argument. I am wholly in favor of calling someone out who has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Shucks, they don't even have to take a bite out of the cookie! As long as they were caught with their hand in the jar or in the act of removing the cookie from the jar, they are fair game and should be woofed on.
Ed