Is Scalping a Sin?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jonathan95

Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello All,

I was wondering if scalping is a sin according to the 8th and 9th commandments. For those unfamiliar with the term, scalping refers to the buying of a product in bulk in order to drive up demand. Then you sell that product for a higher amount in order to secure a profit.

Is this a sin?

Some would say that it is a scummy thing to do. That scalpers are preying on those who do not know any better. That they are greedy just looking to rip people off. That these people know that the items are not worth the amount of money that they are selling for, but because it is highly desired, they will get away with selling for double the original cost.

Others would say that they spent the money to buy the items. It belongs to them and they are allowed to sell for any price they like. That it's not wrong to make a profit and no one is forcing anybody else to buy. Unless they have some kind of monopoly on the product.

Scalping happens with clothes, technology, etc.

Would you say it's a sin?
 
I think the general equity of Leviticus 19:35-36 has some applicability:

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.​

Buying in bulk merely to drive up demand, then to sell at an exorbitant price is indeed contrary to the LORD’s command. We are to seek not only our own advancement, but the advancement of our neighbor, giving them fair price for fair product/service, and vice versa.

You may find the following edifying and instructive:


 
Not much to add except that I agree with opinions stated above. You might be interested in Martin Luther's sermon On Trading and Usury


Again, there are some who sell their goods at a higher price than they command in the common market, or than is customary in the trade; and raise the price of their wares for no other reason than because they know that there is no more of that commodity in the country, or that the supply will shortly cease, and people must have it. That is a very rogue’s eye of greed, which sees only one’s neighbor’s need, not to relieve it but to make the most of it and grow rich on one’s neighbor’s losses. All such people are manifest thieves, robbers and usurers.
 
I think it definitely falls in line with loving the world and being a part of its falleness. It is not a loving thing to do to people.
 
Proverbs 11:26 might also be applicable:

"He that withholdeth corn, the people shall curse him:
But blessing shall be upon the head of him that selleth it."
 
Thank you all for replying. I do agree with what has been said.

How do we determine what a "fair" price is for an item that we desire to sell? Currently a lot of technology seems to be limited due to a chip shortage caused by Covid. The new Playstation 5 that has been released is worth $399. Currently you can find it on ebay for around $700-$900. But let's say you weren't one of these scalpers and instead you solely wish to sell the one Playstation 5 that you own. Do you sell it for what you originally paid? Would that be fair? What if you used it a few times or even if it's brand new? Should you just sell it for whatever someone is willing to pay for it.

What if people wish to bid on the item in question and the price skyrockets that way. That happens pretty frequently when it comes to trading card games. I'm sure collectors of any item would be willing to pay whatever price. Some people buy items and wait for the item to accrue value over time rather then selling to someone who wants to pay the initial low price. Would this be sin as well?

Is the sinful aspect of the original question the fact that people are buying in bulk to be able to drive the price up? The manipulative aspect is the sin as well as the greed correct?
 
If your PlayStation appreciated in value it seems to be to your benefit. You didn’t buy for the sake of driving price up by way of greed. I personally think you can sell at the going rate. Seems to be that you stumbled into an investment scenario. You had no intention of driving the price up when you purchased yours and so I cannot see how there could be a desire to do harm from greed in your case. Also playstations are recreational so their price is somewhat of an arbitrary thing to begin with- in that there isn’t the additional moral issues with say food prices that could keep a family from eating.
 
No one person on this board has the power or wealth to "drive up" the price of anything. If you did, you came about by accident otherwise you couldn't afford the item or needed quantity of items to begin with. If you found a lost Van Gogh in your Dutch great-great-grandfather's WWI footlocker then it will be everyone else driving up the cost wanting it and not you.
 
Thank you all for replying. I do agree with what has been said.

How do we determine what a "fair" price is for an item that we desire to sell? Currently a lot of technology seems to be limited due to a chip shortage caused by Covid. The new Playstation 5 that has been released is worth $399. Currently you can find it on ebay for around $700-$900. But let's say you weren't one of these scalpers and instead you solely wish to sell the one Playstation 5 that you own. Do you sell it for what you originally paid? Would that be fair? What if you used it a few times or even if it's brand new? Should you just sell it for whatever someone is willing to pay for it.

What if people wish to bid on the item in question and the price skyrockets that way. That happens pretty frequently when it comes to trading card games. I'm sure collectors of any item would be willing to pay whatever price. Some people buy items and wait for the item to accrue value over time rather then selling to someone who wants to pay the initial low price. Would this be sin as well?

Is the sinful aspect of the original question the fact that people are buying in bulk to be able to drive the price up? The manipulative aspect is the sin as well as the greed correct?
Here's my thought. We should treat others the way we want to be treated. It's not a sin to compete with the market, but if possible, it feels good to bless others, and they will appreciate it. Doesn't it feel good to "hook others up"? Also that encourages others to do the same. I think the world would be a lot less greedy if we all were more giving by nature. But each person's situation will determine what they can do for others.
 
Thank you all for replying. I do agree with what has been said.

How do we determine what a "fair" price is for an item that we desire to sell? Currently a lot of technology seems to be limited due to a chip shortage caused by Covid. The new Playstation 5 that has been released is worth $399. Currently you can find it on ebay for around $700-$900. But let's say you weren't one of these scalpers and instead you solely wish to sell the one Playstation 5 that you own. Do you sell it for what you originally paid? Would that be fair? What if you used it a few times or even if it's brand new? Should you just sell it for whatever someone is willing to pay for it.

What if people wish to bid on the item in question and the price skyrockets that way. That happens pretty frequently when it comes to trading card games. I'm sure collectors of any item would be willing to pay whatever price. Some people buy items and wait for the item to accrue value over time rather then selling to someone who wants to pay the initial low price. Would this be sin as well?

Is the sinful aspect of the original question the fact that people are buying in bulk to be able to drive the price up? The manipulative aspect is the sin as well as the greed correct?
Price appreciation due to external market forces is different than (as in the OP) a singular individual or entity buying in bulk alone to effect a price increase at the expense of others. If selling at current fair market value when the valuation of a product appreciates significantly, even in short time due to shortages, is a sin, then by that token we shouldn't be selling our homes or vehicles right now if we bought them over a year or two ago.
 
Anyone dumb enough to pay even a hundred dollars for a video game console deserves to get ripped off: "the foolish pass on and are punished." Sell your console for the most you can get, tithe on the profit, and buy some edifying books.
Buying, say, all of some necessary medicine, or the patent to it, in order to raise the price beyond what needy people can afford (provided you can sell it reasonably and still stay in business), is just being a jerk. And Congress will come after you, as we saw with Shrikelli (sp?).
 
Well...I'm going to go against the flow and say that scalping sometimes means that the market price isn't set correctly. If you're trying to drive the price up by creating artificial scarcity for a necessity (say medication) then yes, that's clearly sinful. But if you're creating a secondary market because the first isn't effective...

Take tickets to a concert, for example. The concert is completely sold out, sometimes by people who won't even show up but bought tickets anyway. Then someone who really wants to go to the concert and is willing to pay a high price to do so, can't, because he couldn't get there before they sold out. Cue the "scalpers". Some of them bought the tickets and are standing outside holding them in the hopes that someone like this man will come along. If no one comes along, the scalper loses money, but he's doing it because the system doesn't have a good market. There is a need for a secondary market.

The buyer comes along, pays the higher price for tickets (happy that he can get any) the scalper goes away with a profit. Both are happy. I don't see the sin in that.

This is a great economics episode on scalping:

Edit: By the way, I would think the same is true in the case of say, Playstations. Stores have fixed the price to be "fair", but some people are willing to pay a higher price. Even though they are willing, they can't. A scalper buys them, and those who want to pay the higher price, can. If nobody did (and waited for more systems to become available), then the scalper would lose all the money he put into acquiring the systems. With the scalper, there is at least an opportunity to acquire a system earlier (at a cost). So I think the scalper is serving in a beneficial way by facilitating what the market would like, were it allowed to function.
 
Last edited:
Anyone dumb enough to pay even a hundred dollars for a video game console deserves to get ripped off: "the foolish pass on and are punished." Sell your console for the most you can get, tithe on the profit, and buy some edifying books.
If you think you can just call a ton of brothers and sisters in the Lord dumb and get away with it, you've got another thing coming. I am married, father to twins,, work two jobs, provide for my family and tithe at church leaving room for generosity and the like. Where do you get off judging someone like me to be "dumb"? If you've never had a hobby you were willing to wisely put aside money to be able to enjoy when you get the chance, I feel sorry for you. You do realize people can just as easily spend a ton on books and never get to them right? But somehow a person who spends money on games, cards, badminton, etc. Is dumber then the man spending money on books?

Get off your high horse brother.
 
Last edited:
Well...I'm going to go against the flow and say that scalping sometimes means that the market price isn't set correctly. If you're trying to drive the price up by creating artificial scarcity for a necessity (say medication) then yes, that's clearly sinful. But if you're creating a secondary market because the first isn't effective...

Take tickets to a concert, for example. The concert is completely sold out, sometimes by people who won't even show up but bought tickets anyway. Then someone who really wants to go to the game and is willing to pay a high price to do so, can't, because he couldn't get there before they sold out. Cue the "scalpers". Some of them bought the tickets and are standing outside holding them in the hopes that someone like this man will come along. If no one comes along, the scalper loses money, but he's doing it because the system doesn't have a good market. There is a need for a secondary market.

The buyer comes along, pays the higher price for tickets (happy that he can get any) the scalper goes away with a profit. Both are happy. I don't see the sin in that.

This is a great economics episode on scalping:

Edit: By the way, I would think the same is true in the case of say, Playstations. Stores have fixed the price to be "fair", but some people are willing to pay a higher price. Even though they are willing, they can't. A scalper buys them, and those who want to pay the higher price, can. If nobody did (and waited for more systems to become available), then the scalper would lose all the money he put into acquiring the systems. With the scalper, there is at least an opportunity to acquire a system earlier (at a cost). So I think the scalper is serving in a beneficial way by facilitating what the market would like, were it allowed to function.
I think thats the thing with the Playstation example. They will be available eventually. I think people just have a fear of missing out that drives them to desire the thing right now. We can all agree that a PS5 is not a necessity. And that's why i used it as an example. Of course if you want to have a monopoly on food, and so you hike up prices, that is wrong. But for stuff that isn't nearly as important, does it carry the same weight if you decided to do whatever you could to be able to make a profit. Why is it the scalpers fault if the person they sell to is willing to buy it instead of waiting for a resupply?
 
I think thats the thing with the Playstation example. They will be available eventually. I think people just have a fear of missing out that drives them to desire the thing right now. We can all agree that a PS5 is not a necessity. And that's why i used it as an example. Of course if you want to have a monopoly on food, and so you hike up prices, that is wrong. But for stuff that isn't nearly as important, does it carry the same weight if you decided to do whatever you could to be able to make a profit. Why is it the scalpers fault if the person they sell to is willing to buy it instead of waiting for a resupply?

I think that's part of it.

The "scalper" has also done some of the legwork for you: let's say you are a reviewer and you need a system in order to review something quickly and get ahead of the curve. But you also either don't want to or can't camp out in front of the store for a week to make sure you're one of the first in line. You'd be perfectly willing to pay a higher price to get out of that inconvenience, but the way the system is currently set up, you have to camp out for even a chance at a console.

Well, here's someone who has done that for you. Surely he deserves some compensation for that, and you're willing to pay for the convenience. You're both better off, at least in one sense.

Or think about it in another way: if the price of something is too low, people snatch it up. If you then can't get it because of scarcity, the price is effectively infinity. If someone comes along with a higher than "market" price which you're willing to pay, it's suddenly affordable.

Like I said, this isn't to say that creating artificial scarcity of necessities is a moral thing to do, but for this? I'm pretty sure both parties are better off and the situation was caused by an inappropriate market price.
 
If you think you can just call a ton of brothers and sisters in the Lord dumb and get away with it, you've got another thing coming. I am married, father to twins,, work two jobs, provide for my family and tithe at church leaving room for generosity and the like. Where do you get off judging someone like me to be "dumb"? If you've never had a hobby you were willing to wisely put aside money to be able to enjoy when you get the chance, I feel sorry for you. You do realize people can just as easily spend a ton on books and never get to them right? But somehow a person who spends money on games, cards, badminton, etc. Is dumber then the man spending money on books?

Get off your high horse brother.
I call all sorts of people dumb when they do dumb things--christians, pagans, heathens, republicans....dumb is dumb. However, it should be noted that my opinion is simply that. The only people who bridle at my opinions are those whose consciences are already accusing them along the same lines.
Be at peace, my friend. My opinions cannot hurt you, and what is dumb is not necessarily sinful.
By the way, where did cards and badminton enter this? Those are a whole different category.
 
I call all sorts of people dumb when they do dumb things--christians, pagans, heathens, republicans....dumb is dumb. However, it should be noted that my opinion is simply that. The only people who bridle at my opinions are those whose consciences are already accusing them along the same lines.
Be at peace, my friend. My opinions cannot hurt you, and what is dumb is not necessarily sinful.
By the way, where did cards and badminton enter this? Those are a whole different category.
Not to derail, but is calling your brother dumb ,modern vernacular not unable to speak, the equivalent of saying "You fool" Matt 5:22?
 
Over matters of righteousness and sin, it may be appropriate, but I don't personally speak that way. But over matters of recreations in which we have freedoms, I don't see the benefit in name calling. Calling people names over our opinions of how we enjoy our freedoms does not seem like a way to build someone up.
 
Over matters of righteousness and sin, it may be appropriate, but I don't personally speak that way. But over matters of recreations in which we have freedoms, I don't see the benefit in name calling. Calling people names over our opinions of how we enjoy our freedoms does not seem like a way to build someone up.

I think what @Ben Zartman was saying was the recreation of playing video games, rather than @Jonathan95 himself, is dumb. I know that's not quite how he worded it but I think that was the substance of the comment. I think we are allowed to refer to certain behaviours as foolish or a waste of time. Recreation should not be viewed as an end in itself but as a means of making us fit for our temporal and especially spiritual duties.
 
Let's just put it to bed. The topic has been discussed. I have no other questions or anything else to add.. Thank you all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top