Morality, legality and auction collusion

Not arguing that at all. The size of the impact does not matter in the analysis of this behavior. If their actions produce a small outcome, that's moral luck, not an indication that it's ethical.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

So when the speed limit is 55 you see no difference between doing 56 and doing 93?

 

this seems to have veered into a debate of how many coin auctions can dance on the head of a pin.

 

Since auctions allow reserves AND allow sellers to bid on their own coins they are already failing to be a true price discovery mechanism. I have won quite a few coins at the opening bid over the years, for instance. Would anyone else have paid even half what I paid for those coins? Who knows? I am a collector trying to collect every single Roman Republic type, so there are plenty where I most likely would have paid far less if the reserve wasn't so high, but I paid what I had to pay to check the type off the list.

 

Beef, I agree with RedSpork and others. The auction houses have ample mechanisms for preventing loss (opening bid level, hidden reserve).

 

I respectfully disagree with this statement.

If in some alternate universe I were inclined to sell my coins I can honestly say that I would have no problem with the scenario @TIF described. As a seller I would be looking for fair market value not hoping that two determined bidders drive the price into moon money territory. I would ensure that I were not taken advantage of by setting a reasonable minimum bid. Two or three people will not stop the selling price from reaching fair market value.

Plus it's not like that money is simply disappearing. How would you feel if you were the seller in the same auction who got less money because one of the bidders overpaid for the next coin over?

The above scenario would not have an appreciable affect on the profitability of auctions as a whole because as I said that money would simply be recycled back into other offerings.

 

If everyone drives 56 then nothing bad happens. If everyone drives 93 that is a different matter. Again, the Kantian imperative is an actual formal ethical test that helps determine right and wrong. I suggest you learn how it's used before you make these types of arguments.

'We'd better just shut down CoinTalk altogether lest a some comment make someone change his or her mind about bidding on a coin. Oh the poor consignor!'

The issue is not changing someones mind by talking about coins, and you know it. The issue is colluding with other bidders with the intent of lowering the sale price. Again, may not be illegal, but it's certainly unethical and something that we each have a responsibility to avoid. Or at least I do, and again I'm surprised by the number of my fellow collectors here who don't feel a responsibility to do the right thing here.

 

No, the intent is to be kind to my friends, and vice versa, by not buying coins they really want.

 

I would be disappointed, but I would not be upset with the bidders as they did nothing wrong.

The argument is that actions would cease to be auctions if everyone colluded. If the behavior you engage in, when done by everyone, ends the ability to engage in that activity, it an easy fail of Kant.

 

Me: "Hey Z... Here's my first-pass list for CNG. Any conflicts?"
Z: "Lots 2, 4, and 7 are also on my list"
Me: "I want lot 7 to go with my Winged Boar Biga set"
Z: "Yeah, you're right. It belongs in your collection. I really want lot 2 and 4 though"
Me: "Sounds good. I'll be broke by then anyway... hopefully. I won't bid on lots 2 and 4 if you stay away from lot 7."

Seriously??? No it's not, because that's a quid pro quo, not simply a I won't bid on the coins you want because I'm being nice to you...

 

Well this has been a very interesting thread. Never in my wildest imagination could I conceive of two friends discussing who wants to bid on what to be construed as immoral, unethical, or illegal. It is simply the way the hobby works, and part of the fun-- talking about upcoming auctions and planning the bids.

Unfortunately I have to go to sleep now in preparation for another hideous and long work day, but I look forward to reading more in this thread tomorrow night.

 

...and conversely as the seller of the fictitious coin that TIF didn't bid on I would be disappointed that the bids didn't go higher but as long as I got fair value for the coin (=min. bid) I would not be upset with TIF because she did nothing wrong.

This entirely depends on how you decide to apply this philosophical test.

1) If everyone "colluded" with two or three friends not to bid on certain items then I say auctions would still be auctions. This seems to me to be what we are actually talking about.
2) If everyone colluded with EVERYONE to fix prices then perhaps you would be right. However this is not the issue at hand and is physically impossible.

 

This topic surprises me because regardless of ethics, morality, and legality we all know we are just going to get clio'd anyway.

 

Clio is colluding with money.

 

Sure, and I think @Curtisimo has provided an adequate counterargument. (And @Ken Dorney too, really.) Just to make sure I have your argument right: Kant says the test for right vs. wrong is whether the maxim under which you act is universalizable. (Fancy version of the golden rule.) What makes it universalizable or not? Whether you can derive a contradiction from supposing that everyone follows the maxim. So you say: if everyone colludes in auctions, there are no auctions... contradiction! Kant says: colluding in auctions is wrong, it's absolutely forbidden. (Not a matter of degree.)

A classic objection to Kant is that it's unclear what "maxim" one is acting under. There's usually a way of describing the maxim so that no contradiction results. So Curtisimo says: we're acting under the maxim to cooperate with a couple of friends... no contradiction. Or Ken says we're acting under the maxim to pool our resources with a couple of friends... no contradiction.

Personally, I think Kant's ethical theory isn't very plausible. The whole universalizability constraint doesn't withstand scrutiny... partly due to the inherent problems in identifying the maxim, but also for its moral absolutism. More plausible is some sort of consequentialism, where morally better actions produce better consequences for all concerned, and morally worse actions produce worse consequences for all concerned.

On that sort of ethical theory, the relevant comparison would then be: is it morally better not to cooperate with a few friends, or to avoid such cooperation? As others have said, it's much of a muchness... there isn't much difference between the two. When friends cooperate, it's a wee bit worse for the consignor and the auctioneer, and a wee bit better for the friends cooperating. When friends don't cooperate, it's the reverse. Pretty much a tie. Which means it's OK for friends to cooperate, pool resources etc. rather than avoiding cooperation. (And given the starting inequalities in terms of resources (cf. the reference to Clio!), this would be especially OK for people of limited means.)

So there's some ethical reasoning for you. Did I pass the test?

 

Do you know what lawyers call people who use Wikipedia as a legal reference? Convicted comes to mind...

 

The thing about bid rigging is that it would only apply when you have a limited pool of bidders who could substantially affect the allocation of resources. In auction with hundreds of coins and thousands of bidders, bid rigging would not apply to two friends deciding they want to share a single lot. First of all, there are hundreds of other coins for others to snatch up, plus there is nothing precluding someone else from bidding higher and winning the coins.

This whole thread is absurd. Some of you seem to be treating these coin auctions as if this was a contract for one building project and only three contractors in the area, and two colluded to pull resources to shut out the third. That scenario does not apply to the scenario of two friends coming together on a single lot out of hundreds in an auction open to thousands of bidders.

 

I think by "adequate" he really means "awesome" and...


No really I do...

Ha! four pages in and first coin photo

Seriously though, let's not forget that we are all coin-friends here. We should be careful about who we accuse of being what.

 

I'll stick with your phrasing of the maxim, and still don't see how it resolves the issue. If everyone involved in a an auction colludes with a couple friends, you end up with something other than an auction. For example, think of the difference between an Olympic sprint bicycle race and the Tour de France. They are both bicycle races, but one is a winner take all race where everyone competes fairly. The other is a race where a couple groups of 'friends' decide to cooperate. The tour is a much different type of race. Now imagine someone who doesn't understand the rules trys to compete in the Tour...

You have stretched logic past it's breaking point here in an effort to come up with an argument. While I applaud the analysis, I think the degree you torture the logic is a pretty good indication of the difficulty defending the position. One group gets a benefit, and the other group is damaged. Yet you end up with it's a tie, which literally doesn't follow, and therefore ok. The fact that the magnitude of the outcome may be small, which is not reasonable to assume, still does not get you to it's a tie.

 

ahahaha! i remember the angels on a head waste of time thingy from the college days.. good one!!