Why Does Everyone Get So Salty about People Reselling Items for a Profit?

takutox on 29/09/2020 - 13:12
Last edited 29/09/2020 - 13:12

I've noticed throughout the years that everyone on here gets extremely angry and salty whenever someone resells items for a profit, regardless of what item it is. Whether it be a item won from a competition (you won this Pizza Hut voucher and want to resell it? HOW DARE YOU!!) or sold at higher than RRP (you want to sell a PS5 that is no longer available worldwide at more than RRP? HOW DARE YOU!?). Why do you get salty and what are your thoughts on this topic?

Capitalism dictates that we have the right to buy and sell and the market dictates what the value is. The buyer is happy to pay the price and the seller is happy to sell for that price. The items in question are nowhere near "necessities".

My question is, what's the problem with buying low and selling high? Let's not talk in terms of legality as there are dozens of countries where scalping is completely legal. In fact it is legal in Australia besides ticket scalping, which is a law I vehemently disagree with and goes completely against capitalism. It should be on the onus of the seller to run adequate verification measures, but they give zero shits as it does not affect their bottom line (sold out is sold out).

Put differently, what's the difference if you decide you don't want the item anymore? If you buy one, you don't want one anymore, would you sell that item at RRP? Or it's market value? And why is this not scalping? Why is there an arbitrary rule that you must sell something at the price you bought it for? That is not capitalism and goes heavily against our freedoms.

Also, lets not use the high quantity or bot arguments, since even if you buy one legitimately and want to sell it for the market price you are shunned by the community.

I'd like to hear your arguments as to why you feel you are on such a moral high ground compared to people who sell non-necessities in a free market.

General Discussion

Comments

      • Aerith-Waifu on 29/09/2020 - 16:39

        That’s my take too, in general lego retire each product in 2 years. If people don’t buy them in 2 years and then complain they are now paying more. Well then they should pay it more because they had 2 years to make up that decision

      • [Deactivated] on 29/09/2020 - 22:09

        How long before scalper $ is considered investor $?

        • sakurashu on 01/10/2020 - 10:56

          However long people feel is a fair chance for people to have purchased it

          • [Deactivated] on 01/10/2020 - 20:55

            @sakurashu: Who decides that?

            • sakurashu on 03/10/2020 - 18:43

              @[Deactivated]: That's like asking who decides the definition of a "reasonable person" in our laws - in theory we all do and I'm this case by general consensus of treating the scalpers like they are scum

              • [Deactivated] on 03/10/2020 - 19:21

                @sakurashu: Wouldn't that encourage discord as we'd be calling each other scum based on our different definitions?

  • burningrage on 29/09/2020 - 16:37
    +5

    OP, since you have been around from 2013 in this community, I would have thought you would know the demography (and the politics) of many of the posters here.

    But let me sum it for you since it's not obviously clear. Don't get me wrong, I am not here to flame you.

    This community does not like people bragging about being able to sell x for 300% or 400% or 500%. It is not the act of selling for profit is what drives this forum crazy (or at least for those who bothered to flame you), it's the act of bragging about it. Think of Broden.

    Therefore it goes without saying that when you asked your question about people getting salty about selling for profit, what do you think people are going to say?

    The fact of the matter is there are countless examples of people are happy to take advantage of businesses' incorrect pricing (I give example of Google Nest Hub MAX which can be had for $188 because Good Guys confused the Max and the non-MAX version) but when it comes to private selling, suddenly different rules apply. To me, they are the same but to many people, it seems its ok to profit vs business but NOT ok vs individuals.

    So my advise for you is this. Don't ask. And do what Nike always says.

    Having said that, I believe people can do whatever they want with their goods, including selling for profit but the flipside is, the other people don't have to buy it at that price.

    I'll leave it at that.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/09/2020 - 16:52

      I've never seen anyone bragging about selling a ps5 for 5x the price. I don't want a ps5 but the act is still disheartening to see.

      • [Deactivated] on 29/09/2020 - 16:56
        +4

        Of course not. 6x the price? Now that's worth bragging about.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/09/2020 - 17:22

          i wouldn't even be mad

        • burningrage on 29/09/2020 - 17:47

          That's the spirit!

          I'd like to see if it really sells tho….

          Whoever buys it gets the Ozbargain Achievement "Desperado".

      • xuqi on 29/09/2020 - 17:09

        I thought that's what reddit is for.

        Take some cheesy photo hold'n $ an a PS5 box, screaming of the $$$m@d3$$$.

  • Brick Tamland on 29/09/2020 - 16:42

    Just because its not illegal doesn't make it right.

    Consider our Australian values and generally accepted ethics in this country. One of our most fundamental values is a spirit of egalitarianism that sees that most Australians expect fair play and have an expectation of an equal go at things. Buying six PS5's with the intention of flipping for a profit is literally unaustralian. This behaviour is also discouraged by retailers who have charged larger deposits like EB games $200 deposit.

    Its against the values of Ozbargain which actual purpose is to foster a community for sharing specials, not for people sourcing inventory to resell.

    • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 18:10

      Who said it not being illegal makes it right? If anything in the OP I said let's not discuss legality as legality doesn't matter

      • Brick Tamland on 29/09/2020 - 19:06

        Who said it not being illegal makes it right?

        But isn't this your argument? You are saying I can flip product for a profit because I am not otherwise restricted from doing so.

        What I am saying yes you can do this as you are legally allowed to but that doesn't make it right. You are still bound by the communities values and moral norms. Some communities may judge these behaviours more harshly. I am saying that the Ozbargain community where people share deals with no reward apart from the appreciation of others will probably look at flipping products quite dimmly.

        • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 19:12

          No, I never said that, ever.

          I said in the OP let's not discuss legality, for example it's legal in Aus and many countries, BUT I'm not using the legality as a point as to why it's ok or right. A country could just as easily treat it illegally, but it wouldn't matter. Nowhere did I link that back to whether I thought reselling was OK or not. Appealing to legality is a logical fallacy.

          This is why its annoying when people keep attacking points that were never brought up.

          • Brick Tamland on 29/09/2020 - 19:27
            +2

            @takutox: OK I am just gonna say I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

            You asked

            Why do you get salty and what are your thoughts on this topic?

            My answer is that I believe living in a community is more than an economy and there are social obligations imposed on every active participant to determines a baseline norm for behaviours. As I stated in my original post egalitarianism is a strong common value and I don't believe that flipping products for your own benefit at the expense of others sits well with the majority. Especially in the Ozbargain community where people share deals for the benefit of others for no compensation. So when someone abuses that intention its not a welcomed behaviour.

    • petry on 29/09/2020 - 20:22

      'Australian values' - the country is now a yank banana state - there aren't any left.

      read the antics of our pm, and the lavish 'gifts' to his funders - from airport land to votes paid for by grants….. valueless more like.

  • giventofly on 29/09/2020 - 16:47
    +5

    Called morals. What we could achieve if we thought of our neighbour.

    • xuqi on 29/09/2020 - 17:15

      This attitude hasn't worked for millennia.

      The smallest of occurrence and the whole planitary $hit$how grinds to a halt, morals are thrown out the window, and its every man for himself.

    • TheBird on 29/09/2020 - 20:31

      What we could achieve if we thought of our neighbour

      Some would rather think of his wife ;)

  • whooah1979 on 29/09/2020 - 17:12
    +2

    My question is, what's the problem with buying low and selling high?

    There is nothing with buying low and selling high (or buying high and selling low). Profiting on margins is how people make money. Anyone that says anything different is lying.

  • Timm on 29/09/2020 - 17:32
    +4

    You keep dropping the word capitalism as if that justifies everything.

    A lot of people don't agree with every facet of capitalism, and capitalism isn't an excuse for shitty behaviour.

    • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 17:49
      -1

      I only wrote the word capitalism once in the entire post, as a passing mention. Literally everyone else keeps harping on about capitalism like I said it's great because capitalism (hint: I didn't). I can prove I only mentioned it once, all other replies were replies to people who talk about capitalism.

      My responses were just responses to their sidetracking of the topic to be about capitalism, if you actually read properly.

      I mentioned it in passing because a lot of people here like capitalism and are willing to engage in capitalistic behaviours such as price errors or finding bargains (of "things you don't need") or buying investment properties and selling at inflated prices. They then turn around when they are not the one benefiting and call foul. I want to understand why. Is it just some weird cognitive dissonance, tall poppy or is there a legitimate reason.

      On top of that in the West we primarily run on a capitalist structure with some aspects of socialism. You say that you disagree with this specific point of capitalism. Do you think that people should be limited in how much they can sell non-essential items even though they own and worked hard for the means to afford it? I would not want to live in a society such as that which limits my freedoms to that degree (you can only ever sell x item for y price), but you might beg to differ. Do you think people should be limited in only buying items in limited quantities at set prices and only if they arbitrarily "need" a non-essential good? I disagree again.

      It's silly that I probably agree with you but with skew and logical fallacies it seems that you've proven me wrong somehow

  • jackinyourbox on 29/09/2020 - 17:44
    +1

    I wouldn’t care. Ignore

  • vinni9284 on 29/09/2020 - 18:04

    It's been happening for years.
    Used car sales is one of the best examples.
    The difference is that the seller is not an individual however a company

  • PopCounty on 29/09/2020 - 18:14
    +1

    Sure this seems troll post when OP isn’t open to listen to ideas and suggestions. Sad part OP is senior here. Still.

    • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 18:19
      -4

      How am I not listening to ideas / suggestions?

      If I state clearly in the OP that the PS5 is nowhere near a necessity, then you proceed to say "so you're saying that we should limit necessities like medical supplies and food", a complete strawman, why do I have to concede my position and personal morals if I agree with the person but it has nothing to do with what I said? I think if anything it's the other way around that people are attacking me. Check out the highest voted comments here, they're just personal attacks.

      • it's ok to have different opinions and agree to disagree, you don't have to change each other's initial opinions nor does it have to be the goal of a discussion
      • it's not ok to start talking about limiting medical supplies, oxygen and food as if the OP thinks that's ok when the OP starts talking about PS5s and directly mentions they're not a necessity.
      • positive votes don't mean you are more correct, nor do negative votes mean you are wrong
      • Bjingo on 30/09/2020 - 03:06

        Isn’t restricting it to non necessities just a no true Scotsman?

        Rather then just saying it’s a straw man explain why the concept is fine regardless of necessity or non necessity. It’s all in essence buying low when stock is abundant then selling high when your actions have successfully restricted stock. What you do it with really doesn’t change what is happening.

        • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 03:13

          No true scotsman implies that I ever spouted a universal generalisation. I did not, I particularly pointed out PS5 as an example and noted that it was nowhere near a necessity. I literally mentioned "NON-NECESSITIES" in the last and first paragraphs of my opening post. Pulling out random fallacies doesn't make sense when they don't even apply to the situation whatsoever, not sure what you're smoking lol.

          My point was never that it is fine regardless of whether it is a necessity or non-necessity. In fact with how I mentioned non-necessity in my last sentence I disagreed that they were in the same category.

          1) I did not universally generalise that all scalping is ok on every item. The fallacy here is on your side by bringing up a completely bullshit fallacy.
          2) I did not ever say it was completely fine and whether it was a necessity or not has no bearing on whether it is ok to do. I'm saying it does!!! Why the hell would I argue a point I don't believe in and never brought up?

          • Bjingo on 30/09/2020 - 03:35

            @takutox: Universal generalisation - “Capitalism dictates that we have the right to buy and sell and the market dictates what the value is.

            Counter example -“necessities”

            One true Scotsman - “The items in question are nowhere near "necessities””

            Excluding the counter argument to protect the universal generalisation

            • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 03:49

              @Bjingo: 1) wtf, that is NOT a universal generalisation. Nowhere did I say because that's what capitalism dictates that it is morally correct. In fact, I did not say anything. You literally quoted a few words where no point or generalisation was made, only a single fact about what capitalism dictates (private property rights and the ability to freely do what we want with that property) which was NOT a generalisation

              2) thus, you don't even have a universal generalisation to start off with

              3)

              I'd like to hear your arguments as to why you feel you are on such a moral high ground compared to people who sell non-necessities in a free market

              This was exactly what I said my man. It is actually the core question and the very last sentence of the post.

              4) I seriously have no idea wtf point you are trying to make anymore except to prove me wrong somehow lol. You are pulling this out of nowhere and on no real basis.

              • Bjingo on 30/09/2020 - 09:43

                @takutox: I wasn’t trying to prove you wrong just illuminating the hypocrisy of calling the comparison of necessity and Non necessity as a means illustrating the issue with scalping nothing but a straw man.

                Perhaps my previous writings have been poorly done basically. Let me try again

                Writing off necessities removes a core of the of the free market discussion. Because whether it is liked or dislike scalping does not only apply to non necessities. If you only want to know why people don’t like Scalping “non-necessities” there is no point in mentioning economic systems as it has no place in that discussion due to an entire segment of the issue being off limits.

                • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 13:52

                  @Bjingo: You're illuminating hypocrisy by bringing up completely false accusations that I'm using no true scotsman.. uhuh

                  Yeah go rewrite your previous post because you're attacking a point I never made. I never made the universal generalisation that scalping is good regardless of the item because capitalism.

                  Thats some big BS you just spun out of thin air and are trying to continue weaseling out of. Next time maybe actually read the question, which does not talk in terms of generalities and SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS NON-NECESSITIES.

                  You're basically like the idiots who take a point out of context. For example, someone says "selling goods at the price you want is ok, as long as it's not selling and feeding poison to 2 year olds*. Then you go and say "so you're saying that selling poison and feeding it to 2 year olds is ok?". OMG u r using no true scotsman if you say no LuLULULu!!! Your point can't have any exceptions even though it was part of your original question u r no true scotsman LULULULlU,!!!!!!"

                  • Bjingo on 30/09/2020 - 15:01

                    @takutox: Okay, what I am saying is, specifically mentioning only wanting to discuss what's wrong with profiteering from scalping non-necessities , which you did, and justifying it using economic theory, being, the free market theory. What you then did is disallow applying the free market theory to other aspects of the market.

                    By narrowing the discussion on the free market principle to only non-essentials you are essentially asking us to disregard a large aspect of the economy when discussing an economic theory. This prevents any real discussion about said theory from taking place. If you want to use the free market principle as justification you need to accept people applying the same principle to other aspects of the same economy.

                    If you just wanted to discuss why people don't like others scalping non-necessities that is not an economics question that is an ethics question, in which case your justification should also be ethically based rather than based in economics. I think I made the mistake of considering this an economics discussion when it seems to be an ethical discussion.

                    If we are framing this to the aspect of ethics this whole thing becomes just opinions, for example I consider myself to be a utilitarian which in this situation means I follow the ethical philosophy of utilitarianism, and with that in mind scalping perpetuates more negatives among the individuals involved than positives so it is ethically the incorrect thing to do. Others believe different things and thus their answers would be different.

  • srr on 29/09/2020 - 18:18

    In Soviet Russia goods owned you :)

    Jokes aside every item for sale in USSR had price stamped in on it during manufacturing. You would go to jail for selling something at higher price for profit. This hasn’t ended well. Please don’t go that way here.

    Generally just say no to all people who trying to bend your moral compass from their high horses. You will be blessed.

    • xuqi on 29/09/2020 - 18:24

      And look how well that's turned out for all involved?

      Now if you disagree with their point of view, they do away with the cost/hassle of jail, and poison you.

      • srr on 29/09/2020 - 18:32

        We only know about things outside our immediate circle via media. You are what you’ve been told unless you consume a considerable variety of sources, especially the ones you don’t want to consume because they don’t comply with status quo in you. More to that, you will need to spend enormous efforts to analyse and to build a more diverse picture.
        Hence the best way to not be a subject of propaganda is just to take into consideration only something you personally know through your experience. Easy.

  • subywagon on 29/09/2020 - 18:33

    tall poppy syndrome.

  • [Deactivated] on 29/09/2020 - 19:17

    Gerry havey and Rupert Murdoch are the most saltiest mother bleeps on earth.

    But no one complains (ノ｀Д´)ノ彡┻━┻

  • Ghost47 on 29/09/2020 - 20:14
    +1

    OP next time you want to buy something and it's the last one let everyone know so they can buy it before you can and sell it to you for more than RRP simply so they can make a quick buck. Maybe then you'll realise why scalpers are arseholes.

    • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 20:16
      -7

      Next time you miss looking out for and ordering something because you weren't fast enough and didn't put in enough effort and it goes out of stock and the price goes up because of demand vs supply let everyone know they should sell to you for $700 below market and if they don't they're scum because you deserve it for doing nothing.

      Oh wait you already do that.

      • Ghost47 on 29/09/2020 - 20:18

        Sounds like what an arsehole would say. Thanks for proving my point, I look forward to seeing your Udemy course titled "How to be a (profanity)."

        • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 20:23
          -2

          Yeah I'll make sure not to charge more than the usual Udemy RRP or the RRP police will come.

          An arsehole is someone that would call someone an arsehole on OzBargain while discussing a topic simply because they disagree ;)

          • Ghost47 on 29/09/2020 - 20:37
            +1

            @takutox: I never called you an arsehole in the first place, I said "scalpers are arseholes" so please re-read my first comment.

            It was your idiotic reply that deserved the arsehole comment. Not once would I ever expect to be given something in that sort of non-sensical situation, but hey people who miss out on things are "too slow" and "didn't put enough effort in". Absolute idiocy.

            • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 20:42
              -4

              @Ghost47: Sounds like what a (racial insult) would say.

              "BUT I didn't call you that that's just what someone would say if they were a (racial insult)"

              Ok, did you get the PS5 you were looking for? How is it idiocy to say that you missed out because you weren't as prepared as someone refreshing the page and ready to go and keeping up with news? Bots couldn't even prepare for the PS5 as it was random release on new pages.

              You missed out, plain and simple. You can blame bots all you want but the release was done at random globally.

              Take some bleeping responsibility for that instead of blaming and accusing others. Ever think you missed out because you didn't put in enough effort and others did?

              • Ghost47 on 29/09/2020 - 20:45

                @takutox: I wasn't even looking for a PS5 LOL wtf are you on about LOL.

                • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 20:46
                  -1

                  @Ghost47: Uhuh :)

                  • Ghost47 on 29/09/2020 - 21:03

                    @takutox: To be honest it is really weird you're assuming that I was looking for a PS5. I haven't even thought about buying anything video game related lately especially a console as I don't have much time on my hands these days.

                    But yeah, whatever helps you win internet fights I guess. I'd probably do the same if I was still living with my parents relying on mum and dad to cook dinner and wash my clothes for me LOL.

                    • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 21:13
                      -6

                      @Ghost47: You are heating up that keyboard lmao

      • petry on 29/09/2020 - 20:24

        so bots are ok then? good for bot makers !

        • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 20:25

          You remind me of that news reporter in that Jordan Peterson interview..

          Point: "No need to be salty because you missed out and weren't there on time for the purchase"

          Response: "so you're saying bots are OK?"

  • Emerald Owl on 29/09/2020 - 20:32
    +2

    Pointless middleman

    • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 20:39
      +1

      The world works on buy low, sell high. People buy things all the time that they don't necessarily "use" (OzBargainers) and then sell them back.

      When it comes to your own benefit - price errors, stacking coupons that aren't meant to be stacked and finding ways to get things cheap, buying things with little stock despite not planning to use them, buying investment properties, everything is fine and dandy. When someone else is making profit, call the POPO!

      • Emerald Owl on 29/09/2020 - 21:46
        +1

        Investment property owners arguably add value because they allow people to rent.
        Buying a whole lot of items on special hurts the business because the items are on special to get new people to try them and hurts consumers because they are paying more.

  • schwinn on 29/09/2020 - 20:36
    +2

    I personally don't like scalpers. All the reasons above. What I always recommend is for scalper haters to waste the scalpers time. Organize a sale. Don't show up. Don't buy from a scalper. Make them put some effort into selling it.

    • [Deactivated] on 30/09/2020 - 13:50

      oohh great idea, thanks!

  • TheBird on 29/09/2020 - 20:47

    I don't really have formed solid opinion on it but if I were leaning one way, I'd be leaning towards being fine with scalping.

    There's different ways to look at it.

    On one hand… getting rid of the scalpers would rid me of the occasional smile when I hear of some random guy buying up all the hand sanatizer to sell on Amazon and getting booted from the platform, only to get stuck with the lot.

    Personally, I don't get why the buyers would pay scalper rates. Be patient and it'll become available again. If it's really worth it to you at that price… Go for it I suppose.

    On the manufacturer side, it lets them make and sell more to those who missed out…. once again entertaining me when I hear of the scalper being stuck with old stock.

    At heart I'm a capitalist, but for most markets, buying at retail to sell at above retail is a stretegy that I don't see working outside the occasional sale. I do believe in letting people (legally) do what doesn't infringe on others rights.

    I always hope people do what is good for others but don't necessarily expect it. I hope that people do what's legally required, but I've met enough people in my time that I don't necessarily expect that either.

  • kaleidoscope on 29/09/2020 - 21:33

    Nothing’s wrong with it legally. It’s all about greed and nothing else in it… I personally won’t do it nor do I purchase something from a scalper or from a seller I know that had been profiteering when times are tough.
    I’ve seen people debate how its different from any other investment like buying a land or a stock or commodity.
    Here’s the thing; For me it once again falls into whether I’m depriving the market from an item to make a profit or whether i’m investing for a good cause such as saving bit on the tax and perhaps have a lifeline when times are difficult in future.

  • Dreamcast on 29/09/2020 - 22:05

    I think it's more to do with the preying mentality. I've tried doing it a few times, but never sat with me well. So I would sell at cost price or just keep. Sense of morality maybe?

    It's fair game, but again, I feel like you're preying on fomo.

    Where as, if I source retro gaming items for example and sell for a profit, I've gone out of my way to source them and spent time and taken the risk to do so. So my time and effort warrants the mark up.

    On the flip side, if everyone didn't buy into the profiteering and avoided purchasing such items, like the ps5, this behaviour would stop. But unfortunately fomo won't allow that to happen.

  • manbearpig on 29/09/2020 - 22:06
    +6

    Sounds like you bought a PS5 or Xbox Series and are just trying to find a way to justify scalping it.

    Scalping cannot be justified no matter how much you try to spin it.

    There's a difference between selling things that have over time naturally become more sought after, whatever the reason, and straight up depriving people of something for the purpose of trying to sell them the exact same thing at an inflated price. That's inflation that has been artificially created.

    Let's say you bought the last next gen console in store and the person in line behind you couldn't get one. Would you turn around and offer the console to them for 3 times the price? I doubt you would because deep down you know it's not right. It's much easier to hide that shame when you're selling things online without looking at someone in the face.

    If you fail to see what is wrong with scalping, then you're part of the problem. It's pure greed. Have a bit of self respect.

    • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 02:19
      -7

      You're assuming that the actual market value is not 3x the price, and instead some arbitrary RRP value that may or may not represent the actual market value of the console. For example, it is common knowledge that Sony sell the console at a loss and that the sentiment of the console is that it's value is higher than it's RRP and that securing a preorder is going to be difficult from a pure stock to global population ratio.

      Have you ever bought something at a discount knowing that the market value was higher than what you bought it for despite not really "needing" it? Have you then gone on to sell it? Every ozbargainer can probably answer yes to that question and it's a common meme. In this sense you are basically doing exactly what you speak out against.

      Why did you buy something you did not need just because it was cheap? Someone else could have used that, you were a "useless middleman". Buying a PS5 at a clearly bargain price of $749 (you can't even get a gfx card for this amount). Do you really think a passing arbitrary thought in your mind that "oh maybe I'll use this" and then going on to resell for market value which is higher than you paid for it makes a flipping difference to what you are doing? These deals are also frequently limited in stock. Potatoh potahtoe.

      You noted that you're an eBay seller that sells items at a profit, anything you have bought and then go on to sell means you have reduced an opportunity of someone else to buy at the lower price you obtained the items at and you're a useless middleman. Since you have an eBay account, please prove that you are not trying to make.profit in the market and you sold everything you ever bought for the same price you bought it at, otherwise you are a hypocrite.

      • Brick Tamland on 30/09/2020 - 08:41
        +1

        it is common knowledge that Sony sell the console at a loss and that the sentiment of the console is that it's value is higher than it's RRP

        What utter tripe. Sony has never released its cost price on the PS5. Has Sony ever disclosed this information on any product has it sold? The only people who know the cost price is people in Sony. Saying its common knowledge is complete falsehood.

        • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 10:51
          -2

          No they haven't, but knowledgeable analysts have done an estimate on the manufacturing costs and their operating profit during launches have been negative. One executive did say explicitly the PS3 was making a manufacturing loss during launch. The ps4 I think was always sold at a profit due to the lower hardware. The ps5 is estimated based on the hardware to cost more. Then factor in shipping, distribution, advertising as well as the technology itself (the sum of it's parts being more valuable)

          Also, everyone tends to ignore my core points and just hones in on something relatively irrelevant. Regardless of whether it's true or not, that is the general market sentiment (that consoles are sold at a loss) which affects the market value.

          It's not "tripe," because you can't confirm the other way either. There's more evidence pointing to analysts saying consoles make a loss than there is evidence on your side proving they make a profit at launch. At best I don't have full proof but saying it's a falsehood or tripe is a bit of a stretch. So fine, take away that point from me, can you even respond to any of the other logic?

          • Brick Tamland on 30/09/2020 - 13:57

            @takutox:

            knowledgeable analysts have done an estimate on the manufacturing costs and their operating profit during launches have been negative.

            Of course it will be sold at a loss during launch. Over the lifecycle of the product it will make a big profit. If there wasn't big profit then why would Microsoft pump literally billions of dollars into acquiring new software houses to compete against PS5.

            the general market sentiment (that consoles are sold at a loss) which affects the market value.

            Does it? it might affect the price that Sony sells it for but the cost of manufacture has got nothing to do with the secondary market. If its parts were worth more than the sum of the product then wouldn't people be stripping them for parts?

            It's not "tripe," because you can't confirm the other way either.

            Well neither can you but you are the one making the claim. Most of the parts in the PS5 are custom built (particularly the SSD, GPU and sound engine) which brings doubt to how accurately you can guess the prices of components.

            • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 13:59

              @Brick Tamland: Wtf, first you say "that's utter tripe and a falsehood"

              Then you go on to say "of course it will be sold at a loss at launch"

              Make up your damn mind man.. I was talking about launch price and used an example of launch scalping. If you actually thought I was saying they never ever make a profit and especially not on the global scale with accessories and games then you're a potato lol, manufacturing costs get cheaper and they sell other things beside the console, noone ever argued otherwise.

              Then you go on to say "but they make profit over the lifecycle".. a point that noone ever disputed NO SHIT SHERLOCK.

              Let me clarify my point because some less intelligent people might think I'm talking about full lifecycle profit, launch consoles are sold cheaper than the manufacturing cost based on reputable analysts. Scalping is happening right now for launch consoles because the RRP most believe is very reasonable / actually surprisingly cheap for the parts used inside and the overall package. This is what is relevant to the scalping discussion.

              • Brick Tamland on 30/09/2020 - 15:31

                @takutox: Well it has to be priced comparatively to Xbox to be competitive. Ultimately it does comes down to FOMO. It’s come out with a reasonable price and people want to buy it and scalpers will take advantage of people that must have it on day dot.

                My tripe remark was addressing that Sony will sell the console at a loss. Not at a loss on launch. No one expects Sony to recoup all the costs on launch day.

                • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 18:04

                  @Brick Tamland: Ah ok, just a misunderstanding then

                  I should have made it clear I was talking about launch scalping and launch prices (when scalping usually happens)

          • smartazz104 on 30/09/2020 - 14:22
            +2

            @takutox:

            knowledgeable analysts

            An oxymoron.

      • manbearpig on 01/10/2020 - 02:59

        I can't believe you're comparing scalping to simply running an eBay business.

        If you simply buy things in bulk and sell them individually for a profit, is that bad? If you buy something readily available in one country and find an overseas market where it is sort after, is it wrong to sell it there? If you buy something, fix it and sell it for a profit, is that bad? If I get some codes with my console that I don't need, is it wrong to sell them? These are just some examples, but I don't consider there to be anything unethical about them. You're not inconveniencing people.

        I do have issues with scalping, especially in the context of product launches for popular products because the goods are sold at exorbitant prices above the RRP, and people are inconvenienced on a mass scale. The RRP is determined by the manufacturer. Regardless of what you think the market value is, that's the price the manufacturer set. If you buy something at RRP with the intention of scalping it at multiple times the RRP, you're simply profiteering and contributing to the scarcity. The manufacturer nor the buyer benefits from the resale. It's no different to when people were buying up masks and sanitiser only to flog them at insane prices on eBay.

        Say what you will, but I'm sure deep down you know it's unethical. You just can't admit it.

        • manbearpig on 01/10/2020 - 10:12

          And when I say buy things in bulk, I'm not talking about buying the whole inventory of a store, I'm talking about bidding on a single listing of 100 keyboards and selling them individually, for example. The wholesale type of bulk buying.

  • bmerigan on 29/09/2020 - 22:26
    +1

    You've got 1 and want to sell it - whatever. Go for it.
    I do however have a problem with someone who goes into a store and clears the shelf, then lists them all online at double the price.

  • outlander on 29/09/2020 - 23:26

    There's no major problem with it. If you want to order a PS5 or XBOX and 'flip it' as it's called, that's your business. It's no different to people who trade shares or 'invest' in houses.

    It does fall in the socially damaging part of the spectrum though, as you're not furthering society in any way by doing it, so it's best paired with something like charity to balance it out.

  • Mrgreenz on 29/09/2020 - 23:49
    +2

    Scalping is just a dog act.

    Pretty simple, sugar coat it how you like its still a dog act.

    Like cutting in line of a grandma at the post office, it's not illegal, most people would get "salty" about it, but hey you picked up your mail faster.

  • koalabargains on 30/09/2020 - 00:17
    +2

    Because its grubby.

    The people that do this, and scalpers, are bottom feeders.

    Running a shop or an online store is respectable because you can earn a living doing it. You can do it in a way that isnt so petty.

    People that buy a console for cheap, on a deal, to resell it to make $50 are grubby, scumbags, and theyre bad for capitalism.

    The point of a sale is to get customers in the shops to buy other things, as well as clear stock and whatever. It's not to enable some grubby scumbag to make $15 through sad arbitrage.

    Most people on here would get mad about that because we're here for deals.Not to make $15 in the most inefficient way possible.

    • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 00:56

      I dont think $200-500 per item is some sad arbitrage, and saving $15 in the most inefficient way possible sounds exactly like what we do as ozbargainers lol

      You can definitely make a side hustle off flipping if the defining difference is that you can make a living off of it.

      So you're here for deals. Do you ever buy something you don't need or use just because it's cheap? Do you realise by buying that you're taking away from someone else who actually has a use for it? Furthermore, have you ever sold that thing?

      • koalabargains on 01/10/2020 - 19:03

        At 200-500 that does sound like scalping or profiteering. If you're doing it on a regular basis. I think it's probably fine to prey on some weird sub culture. If you're buying sneakers or something to resell, well those products are intrinsically worthless anyway so any idiot that would buy them could also pay double to buy them.

        I really don't think there are too many items like that though. And this grubby mentality is what's led to so many people's trying to return all the toilet paper they bought BC of covid.

        I don't buy things I don't need just because they're cheap. There's a line between looking for a deal and winding up a hoarder with endless garbage BC it was cheap. I have a list of things I want and if an opportunity arises then I'd buy something in those categories. Generally I think it's a bad idea to buy crap cuz it's cheap. Even if you resell it, when you factor in your time, I really doubt it's good value.

  • christopher8827 on 30/09/2020 - 01:20
    +2

    Eh, my personal opinion is scalping behaviour, etc is actually making the overall market more efficient for people that have money and can't wait for something they demand. Not everyone knows about Ozbargain but some Ozbargainers are clearly exploiting sales & promotions & doing legal hacks & on selling goods bought at below market price.

    Do the retailers hate it? Yep.
    Is it morally wrong? No.
    Does it suck? Probably. (aren't most Australians landlords / property investors anyways?)

    It's all supply & demand at its essence.

    • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 02:33
      -1

      It's weird that most ozbargainers are happy to exploit legal hacks to obtain items at way lower than listed, or are happy to buy limited in stock items that they may or may not need just because it is a great deal. Most also have their own eBay accounts to which they list things they don't end up using at higher than they bought it for. If you've ever done anything like this (and don't lie) you are essentially scalping. These same people will then say "b..but it's not my intention to make a profit!!!" while making a cool $100.

      If you have ever bought a deal then sold it back at market price higher than you bought it for, you just scalped that deal. Your intention doesn't matter. If you really had good intentions and are on such a high horse, you would sell it back for the exact deal price you paid for it. How many can honestly say they've never sold something and made a profit off of it. Your buying of the item deprived an actual user of the item who could have bought it at your deal price. Oh, you say that deal was limited in time and required you to be in the right place at the right time and also took effort? Well…

      • Mrgreenz on 30/09/2020 - 10:51

        Intention does matter, if your intention is to resell for profit, then you're scalping

        If your intention was to use the item, visit the venue but circumstances changed, then you are just re-selling.

        One is vastly different from the other.

        • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 12:44

          This is mental gymnastics / semantics. One is not vastly different, it's an identical end result and you could even argue identical start and middle result because you took that one stock out of the pool and raised the price. You took one stock that someone could have used and you are selling at an "extortionate" price according to your same judgement on scalpers.

          Functionally someone buying a PS5 for 749 then selling back at 1200 is scalping.

          If you really had good intentions, then you would sell at the price you bought it for. Your intention of selling the PS5 at $500 more is to make a profit. How the F you going to argue that because "ohh.. but I was GONNA play it" as a reason to charge double the price?

          Why the F not sell it back at 749 (what you bought it for) if you're on such a moral high horse?

          Semantics man

          • Mrgreenz on 30/09/2020 - 12:57

            @takutox: How is it mental gymnastics? Its pretty clear cut. By your logic man slaughter shouldn't exist, because the person died. Same result right.

            Just keep scalping mate, just know the general public look upon it unfavourably.

            • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 13:42
              -1

              @Mrgreenz: Wtf LOL. That's a false analogy. I did not say "all end results are the same regardless of the circumstances", I said "this particular end result is the same regardless of your intent because you are selling at a profit". Stop smoking the good stuff please.

              If your intent was NOT to make a profit, you would sell at a lower price (the same price you bought it at). Your INTENT is 100% clear cut in that case that you are selling and making a profit, otherwise you wouldn't sell your PS5 for $1200.

              It's a literal identical result from the start to the finish, apart from some weird intent that you "might have used it" that HAS no effect on the fact that you sold for a profit whatsoever.

              Flipping and scalping, only difference is semantics, flipping at double the price but you didn't "intend" to flip is still flipping. This isn't homicide my man, it's buying and selling.

              "Yeah.. I might have used it.." then go on to make $500 profit on a PS5, then "b.,.but my intent is to not make a profit!" LMFAO that's braindead logic. You would sell back at RRP (price you bought it for) if that was not your intent. You're literally doing 1:1 what a scalper does, pricing your item at a bs inflated price that you helped cause, now Jimmy has to pay $1200 to get the ps5 from you. You are literally the guy that bought from the store and turned around to the guy back of you and sold to him at double Nah, but you're on a moral high horse and full of good intent, that's why you sell at double RRP LOL

              • Mrgreenz on 30/09/2020 - 13:57

                @takutox: Take a deep breath man, I aint reading that childish drivel.

                Enjoy the few thousand you make with your pathetic tactics.

                • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 14:08
                  -1

                  @Mrgreenz: Yep, argument lost = personal attack starts.

                  Logical rebuttal = I'm not reading that childish drivel!

                  With no actual logical response to any points.

                  Great discussion man

                  Lul

                  • Mrgreenz on 30/09/2020 - 14:10

                    @takutox: Anyone who prefaces a comment with "Wtf LOL" is barely worth engaging with.

              • [Deactivated] on 30/09/2020 - 14:24
                +1

                @takutox: Dude are you okay? Maybe take a break or something. I really didn't see it as a false analogy.
                "this particular end result is the same regardless of your intent because you are selling at a profit"- I don't see how this can't be applied to manslaughter

                If your intent was NOT to make a profit, you would sell at a lower price (the same price you bought it at). Your INTENT is 100% clear cut in that case that you are selling and making a profit, otherwise you wouldn't sell your PS5 for $1200.

                You're giving hypotheticals here. You keep mentioning certain people who bought something and decided they don't want it. This IS NOT scalping. That person, regardless of market price would just either return it or put it for auction and get whatever they can for it. If they can get it above purchase price, great, if they don't, well too bad but that's not how the SCALPERS view it. They aren't causing these prices. What percentage of people actually bought one only to realise they don't want it anymore? You keep saying people are going off topic and not addressing the main points but you keep bringing up this fringe case no one (profanity) cares about. Seriously, if you bought one and don't want it anymore, no one cares.

                You are literally the guy that bought from the store and turned around to the guy back of you and sold to him at double Nah, but you're on a moral high horse and full of good intent, that's why you sell at double RRP LOL

                Who TF are you talking about?

                Functionally someone buying a PS5 for 749 then selling back at 1200 is scalping.

                Again, debateable. Is a person who just went to woolworths and got a free ooshie they can sell for $10,000 a scalper vs people who buy 100 tubs of $1 yogurt to get as many as they can and sell them for profit, a scalper? Of course not.

                You talk about how Sony sells the consoles at a lost therefore it's worth more. Sony sells at a lost because they can recoup that money back in games. It doesn't make the console inherently worth more. Have you seen canon printers go on sale for like $20? Surely, they operate on a loss there but it doesn't make them valuable or worth more because people know why they are priced as such.

                It's weird that most ozbargainers are happy to exploit legal hacks to obtain items at way lower than listed, or are happy to buy limited in stock items that they may or may not need just because it is a great deal.

                Are you talking about price errors or things with such limited quantity it hardly makes a difference? Nevertheless, I'd argue most people do buy with the intent of using it and often leave it around until they do. If I really, really didn't need it, I don't care if I make a profit or not. Therefore, I give it to someone whoever offers me something worth more to me than just keeping it REGARDLESS of rrp, scalpers though intentionally try to mark it up.

                Flipping and scalping, only difference is semantics, flipping at double the price but you didn't "intend" to flip is still flipping.

                You mean like houses? People invest time, money and effort to make it BETTER than it once was. What has scalpers done to make the ps5 so much better?

                What are you gonna post next? Why is everyone so mad Donald Trump legally only paid $750 in taxes? I bet you're the kid who takes all the toys kids are playing with and tries to get something for them. You wish they weren't there but there's unfortunately not much you can do about it. Look mate, it's a matter of morals, ethics and opinion that clearly you don't agree with or don't have. That's all it is.

                • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 15:22

                  @[Deactivated]: Follow your train of thought for a moment to see why it's a false analogy
                  - when killing someone, the intent matters
                  - I said the intent doesn't matter if someone resells a PS5 at double the price knowing that they made a $500 profit
                  - therefore I'm saying that when killing someone, the intent doesn't matter <— WTF

                  Just because intent doesn't matter for a particular scenario doesn't mean it doesn't matter for all scenarios. I see you studied at the potato school of logic. Furthermore you are gouging the market by selling at $1200 thus Id argue your intent is not pure. Why not just sell back at RRP if you have good intent? Why the F do you need to make $500 profit?

                  See how that logic is braindead and your analogy is false?

                  Also, comparing scalper selling 100 items of a shopping market vs someone buying one PS5 is (profanity) stupid

                  How about compare like for like.
                  - Both people bought a single ps5 for $750
                  - Both sold it at $1200
                  - One guy is now a dick for reselling the PS5 because of some arbitrary logic "OH BUT HIS INTENT!!"

                  Wtf kind of braindead logic is that. In both cases they were trying to make a profit and in both cases they gouged the market.

                  If the person who bought at $750 no longer needs it then sells at a reasonable $750 of what they paid for it, then sure, you had good intent. If you're selling at the gouged scalper price, you are having a (profanity) laugh if you think you can make $500 profit and say you still had good intent

                  The murder weapon is in your hands and the $500 is in your bank account. You didn't accidentally make that $500 profit. You knew you bought it for $500 less and are now making someone overpay. If you didn't buy the item, that person could have got the item at the $750 price because there would have been one more available. You are Fcking someone over.

                  • [Deactivated] on 30/09/2020 - 15:41

                    @takutox: No offense man but it seems you really need help.

                    Also, comparing scalper selling 100 items of a shopping market vs someone buying one PS5 is (profanity) stupid

                    But that's exactly what you're doing? You keep bringing up one guy who bought one and doesn't need it anymore.

                    Just because intent doesn't matter for a particular scenario doesn't mean it doesn't matter for all scenarios. I see you studied at the potato school of logic. Furthermore you are gouging the market by selling at $1200 thus Id argue your intent is not pure. Why not just sell back at RRP if you have good intent? Why the F do you need to make $500 profit?

                    I never said I did, I mentioned multiple times I'd be happy to get back RRP for it or just return it. Hence why I, or plenty of people who didn't need one, never bought one in the first place because we don't need to make $500 profit.

                    How about compare like for like. - Both people bought a single ps5 for $750 - Both sold it at $1200 - One guy is now a dick for reselling the PS5 because of some arbitrary logic "OH BUT HIS INTENT!!"

                    Because it's the intent that caused this in the first place. The first guy participated in it while the other guy was more of a bystander. The first guy wanted $1200 for it, he didn't want one, he just bought it to scalp. The second guy didn't expect $1200 but got it anyways. The second guys result was due to the collective effort of the first guy. If anything, the first guy might have wanted $1300 but due to the second guy not giving a shit what he gets for it, might be happy with $1000. Now just replace with an action that results in death. Would you say the second guy deserves the same treatment as the second guy because of some arbitrary logic of intent?

                    Just because intent doesn't matter for a particular scenario doesn't mean it doesn't matter for all scenarios.

                    So, who decides when intent matters? Again, as I mentioned several times, people have different morals. You decided intent here doesn't matter and others did. It's a social construct and I'm glad most people haven't sided with you.

                    • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 15:46

                      @[Deactivated]: Blah blah blah

                      You haven't answered the core argument.

                      Why does intent matter if two people buy a PS5, and both gouge the market by selling the PS5 for $1200. Both have made $500 profit by taking advantage of shortages in the market, at the same time. The rest of your post is fluff and haven't answered that, now you're delving into philosophical discussion about who decides when intent matters when you're the one that brought up intent in the first place. Lmaao

                      That's the most like for like analogy you can get. The only variable that is different here is "intent". Why is the intent not malicious if this person sold their $750 item for $1200? Making someone that actually wants the item overpay by $500. You (profanity) directly contributed to the shortage and price gouge. If you actually had good intent you'd resell for the $750 you paid.

                      Semantics

                      • [Deactivated] on 30/09/2020 - 16:16

                        @takutox:

                        Why does intent matter if two people buy a PS5, and both gouge the market by selling the PS5 for $1200. Both have made $500 profit by taking advantage of shortages in the market, at the same time.

                        Ok so what's your core argument? One guy gets a free pass and the other one is labelled as a dick? Yeah, I and a lot of people brought up intent. There's your answer then? You don't think it matters but for other people it does? How long is it going to take for you to understand that? You seem to have trouble comprehending what people are saying.

                        As I mentioned before, the intention of one guy is what enabled the other guy to sell it at $1200. The other guy probably wouldn't have cared less what he got for it. Labelling someone as a dick.

                        Guy 1 (it's also important to note that it's not just one guy, it's the collective mentality of people like him): I'm gonna buy this and ask $1200 for it.

                        Guy 2: I probably don't need one right now, I'm just gonna sell it online.

                        Guy 1 probably does this all the time if he's a scalper. Most people think guy 1 is a dick because for people intent matters. Do you lump old people who bought property 50 years ago in with the 'investors' who buy them now to avoid tax and expect to make money off them? My parents bought a house to live in, if they sold it, they'd make a profit but they didn't buy a house for the sake of making money.

                        Again, judging someone as a dick is not illegal, what's your problem? It just means they dislike someone. Are we not allowed to do that? When I go to the shops and I see something good on discount, I take one or two and leave it. Some guy might grab everything. Legally nothing wrong with that, for some people they don't like it and for others they see nothing wrong with it. This is what you fail to understand.

                        • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 16:28

                          @[Deactivated]: You have so many variables in there that are different and are bordering on false analogy territory.

                          The analogy should be more like one person buying a property, planning it as a PPOR. Another buys an IP.

                          Exact same time period, area, price.

                          All of a sudden the person that originally bought it as PPOR says "nah, I want it to be an IP instead, I'm not going to live in there", I'll sell it at 100k over to the family that just wanted to buy it and was next in line with their offer.

                          As a direct result of you buying the house, the next family that actually wanted to live there has to buy it from you for 100k over.

                          But I didn't have intent to use it as an IP for flipping I swear! Even though the family paid 100k over that wasnt my intent!! Despite the fact that if you didn't buy the house the family would be able to live there for 100k less, within a short time period.

                          You can't keep giving Guy 1 and Guy 2 mythical attributes, and then throwing in random shit like guy 1 is tax avoiding lmao. Of course if you present it like that with a hundred (profanity) different attributes people are going to agree with you.

                          "But guy 1 is a murderer and his breath stinks and he's evil and he likes to bully children*"

                          With the PS5 I provided two IDENTICAL scenarios where the only difference was intent. You provided a shitty ass analogy with a hundred differences

                          • [Deactivated] on 30/09/2020 - 16:50

                            @takutox: Yeah fine let's remove all analogies.

                            As a direct result of you buying the house, the next family that actually wanted to live there has to buy it from you for 100k over.

                            I don't think it was a result of me buying a house. It was a result of many factors beyond my control.

                            With the PS5 I provided two IDENTICAL scenarios where the only difference was intent.

                            yep, the guy with the intent is probably a dick, as has been addressed so many times and I wouldn't want to be associated with him. As I said, hard to believe you're arguing over something that's an opinion. It's harder to believe you just can't see what people are saying.

                            I'm pro-abortion (to some extent) but I can see why people aren't. I think scalpers are dicks but I can see why people don't. Apparently, you can't.

                            • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 17:11

                              @[Deactivated]: So, do you think if someone buys a PS5 with the intent of scalping they are directly causing the price to go up?

                              What if someone buys a PS5, with no initial intent to resell, but end up reselling anyway?

                              They can't both be responsible and not responsible. They both have the same impact on the market. They're both reselling at the same price. They both caused a one ps5 stock shortage.

                              If person 2 did not buy the ps5, there would directly be one more ps5 in the market that could have been sold at 749

                              Likewise, the same logic applies to person 1

                              They both are taking a advantage of a shortage by charging a higher price then they paid for as a result of a shortage they directly helped to cause

                              Its not like person 2 is not aware they are gouging the market when they list their ps5 for $1200. They KNOW they paid $749 for it, it's not a (profanity) surprise that there will be stock shortages lmao

                      • monky on 30/09/2020 - 16:27

                        @takutox: Hi, I think you'll find that Economics relies heavily on Philosophy, Ethics and Epistemology. :)

                        I would suggest doing some reading from the Austrian School, Heterodox Philosophy and maybe draw some comparisons between the various views of Keynesian economics in the context of our contemporary setting.

                        Friedrich Hayek is a great place to look if you'd like to understand more about economic liberalism in the context of the industrial revolution (Important to compare to modern luxury and the paradigm-shifting of our digital culture on economic microeconomics). Gottfried Haberler is more analytical, and shares views that might align more with your Neoclassical economic ideals. :)

        • tanniesjunk on 30/09/2020 - 14:56

          or running a business…

  • whitelie on 30/09/2020 - 05:42

    I've got no problem with people flipping stuff but think that's a bit different to what most refer to as scalping….likely the same thing in essence I guess?

    Buying something that is readily available on the cheap and selling at or below RRP is fine IMO. You can still make a profit but people have a choice to buy from you or elsewhere.
    When someone buys up something at RRP or a fixed price and then proceeds to sell it for a higher than RRP price because the item is hard to obtain or sold out is where it doesn't fly with me.

  • RefusdClassification on 30/09/2020 - 07:53
    +1

    Reselling Items for a Profit: It's called Capitalism. Resellers don't produce anything of value, and they don't improve the items they reseller. They are parasites. This includes individuals as well as large corporations like Coles and Bunnings. They are all the bad guys, growing rich by fleecing the lower class.

    • schwinn on 30/09/2020 - 11:56
      +1

      Actually Coles and Bunnings do add value - distribution chain. Without Coles and other shops, farmers, producers will not be able to get as much product to the shelves. Ask any manufacturer - getting a deal with a super market is a big deal, because it increases the demand, broadens the reach of the product, and profits go back to the manufacturer.

      Scalping adds none of that value.

    • michaelTito on 30/09/2020 - 14:00

      How about woollies? Are they baddies?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join