Ah yes, the supply vs. demand argument. My favorite.
[x] only exists because it is underpriced relative to market demand.
A great question to ask after this is "would i be okay subjecting my child/mother/father to this experience?"
For example, there are 2 tennis courts available on a first come, first serve basis at a park in SF. Because they are free to reserve, and there's more demand than supply, people will bot all the courts at all given times during the day and scalp players for the free reservations.
Or, a car is available for [x] msrp price, plus a 25% "market adjustment" fee. Is this ethical for every dealer in the country to do the same?
It's in stock. You can't afford it though unless we're being charitable by assuming you're richer than the whales that such an economic practice being pervasive creates.
Modern laissez faire capitalists don't care ethics.
My memory of learning about "Wealth of Nations" style capitalism is there was an idea that people produce goods and services that other people find useful. So when they trade, both buyer and seller benefit. As opposed to scalpers, who interpose themselves between the two to the detriment of both the buyer and seller, and benefit only to the scalper.
Modern capitalist don't care if they make everything worse, only that someone is making money.
There are opportunity costs to decreasing production. There are points where you are achieving economies of scale for your suppliers that allow you to negotiate lower prices. Scalpers could be seen as a perverse source of marketing. I am not going to pretend though that I have a very strong understanding of luxury streetware firms.
I appreciate you attempting to introduce some nuance to a discussion about goods. I would imagine that Supreme’s marketing team would be pretty savvy and know how to hit the mark.
My point is more about their determination to run obsfucated code on their users computers and the intersection between that and google’s vision for the browser.
