Inf Supply: Idle Speculation

There's no "manipulation" going on, unless you define it as "buying low & selling high", which renders the term meaningless.

Nonsense.

Re-read my post then check back here when you find the gigantic, gaping hole in your statement.

hint: you're ignoring an entire half of what successful flippers do.

Apparently not as I'm overly successful. I did clarify a thought that flipping is a part of manipulation but not the entirety of it. Maybe that helps and if not, meh. Its results that truly count. If you are going to still say there is error, when there is overwhelming success, then I can't argue farther than that, as you're logic would seem to be at a crossroads at that point. Me = insane profits, actually proven. You = you cant do that. Me = but I did it.

Simplest thing I'm trying to say is this:

Can the market be manipulated for profit ? Yes. A LOT of profit.

Can it be done consistently ? Yes.

Have I done it ? Yes, yes, and oh my yes.

I just laugh. It's like going to Kennedy Space Center to hear a talk on "Why powered flight will never happen"

This example is incorrect. He raised the low end to three million and change. So by your standards he's raised the lower bound by less than a million and lowered the upper bound by between 5 and 0 million

I believe that would be a net lowering of the price

Your conclusion, emphatic as it may be, only logically follows if we equate flipping with manipulation. I do not see many people, other than AF and yourself, who seem to fully "buy" that position. I have also made ridiculous fake moneys on the market doing exactly the things you describe, and I do not agree with your conclusions.

There is a difference between manipulating the market to consistently make items more expensive, and taking advantage of naturally occurring volatility to make a profit. Consistently making the item more expensive removes (or at least reduces) the profit potential. Remove the profit potential and the marketeer slits his or her own throat.

You made a lot of fake money flipping. Grats! Me too. If you want to define that as market manipulation, though, recognize that you may be in a somewhat lonely (and frequently ignored...) club.

.
You make the assumption that there is a continuous stream of items listed just above the flipper's purchase price. This is FALSE.

Its pretty easy to see why, if there is a continuous input of items into the market at just above the flippers buy price they will never sell their item.

Hmmm kind of like Warren Buffet ?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business...ry-talk-taxes/

Oh you probably were shooting for something less valid and complimentary.

You will be excluded from the mutual admiration society, your accomplishments will be disregarded and you will be ostracized from the fold in general.

Discussion forum or a cult ? Hard to tell.

False really? Everything is supplied eventually, Im not a "buy it nao" person, so unless we're talking about something that is no longer produced your statement is incorrect. The floor is still 3million unless theres some arbitrary time frame youve decided on.

I understand its semantics really....but I think all your arguments are predicated on perspective and what you get so vehement about is just seeing things from a different vantage point....

In that case you have spent time instead of inf. Either way he has raised your price.

Personally I value my time more than I do my inf.

Here's the bit you either didn't read or failed to grasp, with the relevant lines in gold:

So no, flippers aren't "just" driving up the price- that's complete rubbish.

If you're going to pretend flipping is "manipulation", then so is buying and selling.

When you broaden definitions to that degree they cease being useful or meaningful terms for informed conversation.



Given your comically broad definition of "manipulated" this information is value free.

The trick here is to create a sufficiently narrow definition of flipping so that any activity that drives up price is excluded.

You also have to define manipulation as : Any attempt to change the price structure of the market that does not result in a profit.

That way if someone is making money doing it, its not manipulation and all manipulation is ultimately doomed.

Fair enough...if thats the way you look at it then then I understand your definition of "manipulation" is anybody doing anything on the market at any time for any reason and I concede you've won the entirety of the discussion.

Well and good. If you feel that altering the price structure of an item to make it harder to buy at low price in a timely fashion is not manipulation, and you personally don't mind waiting months or years to buy things there is no manipulation.

Yes, any scenario where there is finite supply and a sale is made that is not at the exact price equilibrium, at the exact time that the purchaser wishes to purchase it is in fact market manipulation. If thats the definition you are shooting for then I concur 110%

You know, it seems disingenuous when I type it out.

Amazing

That none of your other posts did.

But here is a freebie for you.

Seeing as you never said, What is your definition of market manipulation ?

Seriously, pick some random numbers out of thin air and that proves your point? I can create hypothetical examples too, but it doesn't serve a purpose.

Short answer: you really have no clue.

Short answer I do that with an item. Pardon me if I don't tell you which.

But if you like why don't you show examples of your flipping that lowers the price.

Edit: And once again a delta 4 launches, while the market forum goes on about how it can't be done

All I'm really trying to say is manipulation is real. I have done it extremely successfully. A LOT of others have done it successfully as well. I see this thought as being contested in a number of posts. When in fact making profit through manipulation is real. Simple.

It seems that what a few of you are fighting with A_F about is how much of an effect this has on buyers. I dont care about that end of the discussion.

I am simply throwing in with the thought that manipulation is real, it can be done, and it can be done profitably. And on that thought I see an awful lot of agreement. Is this not something we can all agree on ?

You clearly state that the price goes up. Sure there is some more effect you want to clarify in your statement. However as you state the price go up. That is what you have said and agreed to.

Question & Simplified (but real) example :
- A low volume item. 10 Present on the market.
- You buy them all between 8 and 15 million.
- You relist at 35 million each.
- Someone decides they need one at that moment. Pays 35 million.
- They have now paid ~25'ish million more than they would have before you acted.
** You just changed the price on that item for that person. The price was increased.

A lot of factors can and will be involved. But there is a lot of ways to play them. Sure its not always "buy at x" straight to "sell at y" every time, depending on what you might have to contend with. But profit can be made. The more savvy you are, the more profit you make.

So, are you saying this does not work ? Have I not manipulated (aka, influenced to create a situation I desired) ? Has someone not paid more than they would have otherwise.

Based on a lot of posts in this thread alone, let alone numerous examples in other threads and posts over time, this has been proven to work. It would seem there are an awful lot of "YES" answers.

If using the relevant definition versions of manipulation:
"to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage"
"shrewd or devious management, especially for one's own advantage"
"behavior that influences someone or controls something in a clever or dishonest way"

Then I am in fact manipulating. Though what I'm doing can be seen as "unfair, insidious, or dishonest", its not actually my goal to be that way, lol. But I am influencing and controlling, and my goal in that respect is profit.

The definition is quite broad. As its stated in the dictionaries. What you are saying is YOU have created a different definition of the word manipulation that I dont seem to be adhering to. Therefore because you made up something or have misused a definition, that "I" am somehow wrong ? That says a LOT about your statements right there.

Im playing in a virtual reality. You are playing in virtual confusion. It would seem because you are assuming others know YOUR definition of manipulation, which is by example different than the dictionary version, that you are the one providing "value free" information. You should fix that.

Disingenuous, but real.

Ahhh, is that how it works. See above, lol.

On a more straight forward thought - is all this really just a definition problem most of us understand how this all works, but we are fighting because terms are being used that are being defined and viewed differently ? That's funny, and so typical, rofl.

Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless.


THE PRICE FLOOR GOES UP.
THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A GENERAL PRICE INCREASE.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS VERY SIMPLE POINT?

No it isn't.


Cool story, bro.
Totally irrelevant to the current discussion, but cool.


You and AF make such a smashing couple I'd feel bad not adding you to my ignore list. Have fun in there ignoring clear statements in favor of spinning your own fantasy conversations.

To think, I was accused of being "Vehement" and not being able to see other people's viewpoints.

Well the post really doesn't need me to Fisk it. But letting people in on the joke is so much fun.

Mathematically raising the lowest prices, without lowering the highest prices is exactly that. Really if you do it well you can actually raise both the bottom prices and the highest prices. But doing that would be wrong

Dont forget Im not debating whether or not manipulation happens, Id wager it happens often but in short chunks.

I think part of the problem is I see a difference between affecting the market, which by your definition would be manipulation and Manipulating the Market.

For example, I recently purchased several dozen Kinetic Combats for my own purposes. I went slightly higher than the going rate and sold back a handful at a modest profit....I affected the market but didnt manipulate it at all, just took advantage of a natural price swing based on steady demand and variable supply.

I think any discussion of Market Manipulation must include consideration for intent and scope, and I honestly dont know exactly where that line is. I think Im going to borrow a concept from the Supreme Court

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.]
—Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers.

--Thank you Wikipedia

Was your example indicative of market manipulation? I believe it was, but dont forget I questioned it based on whether or not it had any real effect on the price not on whether I would define it as manipulation. Assuming its something in relative decent supply, the answer is still no. The floor only shifted a little bit....all you really did was put a tax on the impatient.


--Frog