Teen Trades up on Craigslist from Phone to Porsche in 2 Years

In a big banker destroy the economy type of moving and shaking maybe.

get a life? ha, are you the one smart enough to work your way from the bottom? I don't see you driving a Porsche.

I'm sure he still has plenty of time to socialize, I mean his one and only sole purpose isn't to obtain a Porsche (at least I hope not) but looking at having a job/career as 'stuck for life' isn't exactly the proper motivation to get out there and socialize. and not everyone despises what they do, some people pursue careers that they adore. It's not impossible for one to still have a life, working their way up from the bottom like he did (for good or bad reasons) or just because they have a job or career, There's always time to live and have fun at some point.

Awwwww... for shame! lol

....not with a Porsche.

yes but in a way this is the america dream... rags to riches based on your ingenious skill and ability to trick and lie to people... these have become our role models.

you can't be successful and legal at the same time... not in america at least... you have to get creative and play off people stupidity to get somewhere :D

As a response to all three of you, I get where you're coming from, but does that mean we have to like it?

Yeah, so America, in some ways, is the land of the crooked con-man and it's not a new thing.

But business doesn't HAVE to be like this. It is by no means a requirement of capitalism to be this deplorable of a human being.

And the way we eradicate that notion is, in my opinion, reminding people at all times why this kind of behavior shouldn't be praiseworthy.

It isn't enough to be hard-working. It isn't enough to be resourceful. It isn't enough to have ambition. It's not enough to have a cohesive vision.

You must have purpose and applicability in this country. You need to be giving people something that they will receive benefit from in exchange for capital that you will use to provide it for them at the cheapest possible cause, with the least possible environmental damage while paying decent wages.

Those are the kinds of values we should be encouraging.

Like I said, as far as I'm concerned, this is Bernie Madoff behavior.

"He obtained used items and ripped off clueless people to make incremental purchases towards larger items which he would then rip off others with."

Where do you get this? I see nothing that indicates he ripped anyone off. He traded up. He learned how to repair electronics, which allowed him to increase the value of items he acquired.

"This person sold items for substantially more than they were worth"

Once again, where do you get this? An item is worth what people are willing to pay for it. In addition, he did a lot of trading, which in my experience tends to be beneficial to both parties.

So, why are you choosing to take everything this guy did in the most negative light possible?

What do you mean where did I get that? That's what he DID. That's how you make money off of used goods, you sell them for a much higher price than they're worth.

"An item is worth what people are willing to pay for it."

And as long as you think something that silly, you'll never see what's wrong with this or any other similar scam.

Anything in an economy that's not productive is, directly or indirectly, a leech to other people's capital. He didn't make money here, he essentially was subsidized by other people's unawareness of the actual cost of his item. If they had known what he had bought the item for, no one would ever have payed the price he asked for. This is also probably why it took two years, because he probably had to put the offers out there a lot before someone bought it.

I paint this guy in a negative light because everyone is bowing down and worshiping an activity that has no merit and whose goal is just mindless consumption.

He's being held up as some kind of exemplary citizen, which is downright disturbing to me.

There was a kid who, as a project for a science fair, invented a bacteria that could decompose plastic bags in a month instead of the thousands of years that it normally takes. Yet you'll never see the language used for that kid in the same way it's used for this kid.

And that concerns me somewhat, since what he did is just classic merchant behavior. Buy low and sell high. Accrue wealth by being the transactional middleman.

There's nothing to praise there.

"That's how you make money off of used goods, you sell them for a much higher price than they're worth."

Incorrect, sir. They way you make money off used goods is to sell them at a higher price than you purchased them for. That can be done in a number of ways, most of which are perfectly ethical and do not involve ripping off anyone. If the person the item was purchased from is fine with the transaction, and the person the item was sold to is similarly fine, where exactly is the problem?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that things have inherent, objective monetary values. They don't. As I said, an item is worth what people are willing to pay for it. That is not silly. It is reality. How much is a house worth? How much is an article of clothing worth? The answer is always going to be "what at least one person is willing to pay for it."

Your assertion that he was "subsidized by other people's unawareness of the actual cost of his item" is ridiculous. Do you know how much a can of beans at the grocery store cost to produce? Of course you don't. Do you demand an accounting of the cost of producing every good you purchase? Of course you don't. In fact, that information is largely irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the good is worth the price *to you*. If we follow your reasoning, nearly *all* sales of goods are a scam. It is not as if anyone involved with these transactions was under duress.

By the way, without "classic merchant behavior," many of us (including you) would not have nearly the amount of access to goods that we enjoy. By the way, this kid was not merely a "transactional middleman." He was risking his own capital with each deal. If an item did not sell, he would have to eat the cost.

"There was a kid who, as a project for a science fair, invented a bacteria that could decompose plastic bags in a month instead of the thousands of years that it normally takes. Yet you'll never see the language used for that kid in the same way it's used for this kid."

Wrong. A simple Google search on the subject showed articles hailing Daniel Burd as a genius and environmental hero.

Who is holding him up as an example? He was fairly clever and productive, and he's getting some kudos for it. What's wrong with that?

Also, he traded a car that was worth more money than the Porsche he got in exchange. And he's going to have to trade the Porsche because he can't afford all the maintenance it needs. So who ripped who off?

+^d good points

My language was a bit strong and I was wrong to be so worked up over such a small thing. But I still stand by my position.

"You seem to be under the mistaken impression that things have inherent, objective monetary values"

You're right, they don't. And I shouldn't have insinuated that they did. But they do have objective real COSTS, in natural resources, human labor etc.

That's why I said what I did, because you said "worth" instead of "price." Worth implies more than monetary value, it has utility connotations. An Ipad has a high price, but it's worthless compared to a laptop.

Don't equate price and worth. What people are willing to pay for things doesn't make it worth that much.

"Do you demand an accounting of the cost of producing every good you purchase?"

Kinda, yeah. I mean I'm too lazy to actually care about every item that I purchase, but if I could know it and use it to change things I would. For instance, talking about shirts, shoes, or soda, they cost literally less than 1% of what they are sold for.

I mean, are you seriously going to tell me that's not a scam? It's not at least a BIT dishonest to mark up a product by factors of hundreds of times what they cost to produce?

Pretty much every transaction has some slight degree of fraud. They kind of have to. That's how people make profits. It all bothers me, it just depends on how big the mark-up is in terms of how much I think it's wrong.

"By the way, without "classic merchant behavior," many of us (including you) would not have nearly the amount of access to goods that we enjoy."

Bogus, hostile reasoning, there's no reason we couldn't buy things wholesale or have it delivered via manufacturer. Plenty of companies do that, especially in the internet age.

In fact, that's more or less what modern capitalism is.

There doesn't need to be a merchant who picks up items and sells them for higher prices to people who can't travel to go get them. That's almost all done by outlet stores who, although they perform a similar function, are not a force for markets by themselves.

Look at something like a Sony Store or an Apple story, it's a company that directly controls their distribution.

What I'm getting at here is that I don't find what this kid did praiseworthy. It took hard work and dedication, but that doesn't mean I have to find merit in it. We didn't praise the Zodiac Killer because he worked so hard to avoid arrest, even though it was immensely difficult to do.

I definitely don't want to imply that the kid did anything near as serious as that, basic sanity is the asymptote that prevents that comparison.

But, in essence, he just mucked with the market to get something he wanted. In my opinion, if something isn't a productive industry or service, it is, in essence, a leech.

You said that no one was harmed so why am I bothered? Well, for the same reason a fractional reserve loan bothers me. Sure, it doesn't APPEAR that anyone is harmed by it, but in reality, it's reliant on a stable supply of money.

Sure what this kid did didn't really hurt anyone, but he couldn't DO IT if EVERYONE did it. Why?

Because if those people had just gone to the original sellers and bought it from them instead of this kid, there wouldn't have been this massive $80,000 waste in the system so he could get that Porsche.

That's what bugs me, let me know if you think that makes sense or not.

"Don't equate price and worth. What people are willing to pay for things doesn't make it worth that much."

...to *you*. It *does* make that thing worth that much *to them* at that point in time. If it wasn't, they would not purchase it. That is not to say that no one is ever price-gouged when they are vulnerable, but I see no indications that this fellow did that.

Additionally, it seems that most of his deals were trades. I would think you would be supportive of that. I have tons of things that I do not use and do not have the inclination to sell. If I could exchange one of those things for something I *will* use, I likely would, as long as the exchange seemed fair to me. That is still the case even if the other guy paid half as much for his item as I did for mine, and I would not begrudge him his profit.

"...there's no reason we couldn't buy things wholesale or have it delivered via manufacturer."

There are two reasons: convenience and efficiencies due to economies of scale. I have paid more for a book at a store than I would have paid on Amazon, because I wanted that book immediately. Convenience is why you pay more for a pack of gum at a convenience mart than at a grocery store. Economies of scale affect delivery and storage costs. Many manufacturers do not wish to deal with individual customers, which is why distributors exist. Hell, Amazon is a distributor. They are a perfect example of convenience (in that you can order all kinds of things at one place and have them delivered) and the use of economies of scale (they order large amounts of goods and are thus able to get low prices, and they have large warehouses which cuts their cost per square foot for storage). You wouldn't want to have to go to each publisher individually to buy books, would you, and pay shipping three times for three books?

Also, remember that there are many factors that go into producing goods and getting them into your hands other than the raw cost of each unit. Those affect profitability as well. I can guarantee, for example, that soda manufacturers are not making 10,000% profit.

"...to *you*. It *does* make that thing worth that much *to them* at that point in time"

You're still equating price and worth.

Whether I pay a dollar or ten thousand dollars for a flatscreen tv, it's still a device made of plastic, metal, complicated transistors and wiring which performs a specific purpose, requires specific skills to manufacture and requires specific materials and machinery to create.

This is what something is worth, regardless of how people speculate about how many dollars is a fair amount to pay for it.

They're two entirely different issues. Pricing is a subjective human experience based on intuition and expectations. An item's worth is an objective assessment of its manufacturing cost in real goods and services and its general applicable utility (but not a value assessment of utility, which would also be subjective).

It is the difficulty in translating real value to arbitrary currency value and dealing with the needs and desires of all parties that makes pricing something immensely difficult to reflect actual worth.

Just to reiterate, worth is an objective measure. No matter how little or how much we pay for copper or gasoline or wood, there is a fixed amount that is used in every item. The same goes with the skills and machinery needed to produce the item. And the price frequently doesn't reflect these fixed values, since it can't really.

"There are two reasons: convenience and efficiencies due to economies of scale."

But those aren't reasons, they're desires to avoid annoyance.

My point was -not- that it doesn't make sense to use middlemen and third-party distributors, just that they aren't necessary.

Beyond that, I don't disagree with you.

"I can guarantee, for example, that soda manufacturers are not making 10,000% profit."

Sure, but I CAN guarantee you that wherever the expenses are coming from that drive up the price, it ISN'T from the product itself.

But what you can't guarantee is that the price of a product even remotely reflects the overall production cost, from creation to marketing to distribution.

And that's the whole point isn't it? Excessive profitability like that comes from screwing someone over somewhere, in small or big ways.

Clapping. Something about this entire chain of reasoning just does not seem to register with many people for some reason. ( I would postulate that it might have to do with a disinterest in forming any inhibitions of ANY kind when it comes to personal consumption and a sense of personal lifestyle entitlement . )

+^d

"You're still equating price and worth."

I disagree. You can set any price you wish, but a commodity or service is only *worth* what someone is willing to pay.

You seem to be conflating manufacturing cost with worth. Worth is not an objective measure, although manufacturing cost is. For example, let's say I make a widget for $10 in materials and labor. According to you, this item is worth $10. Let's say someone else can make the exact same thing for $5. Does my identical item suddenly experience a 50% deflation in worth? What if the material cost increases and it costs me $20 to make an identical widget. Has the worth increased by 100%? What if one was made for $5, one for $10, and one for $20, yet they are all identical? Are they each worth a different amount now? I hope I am explaining this well enough, because we seem to be having difficulty agreeing on terms.

"But those aren't reasons, they're desires to avoid annoyance."

I don't even know how to respond to this. How is a desire to avoid annoyance *not* a reason to do or not do something?

"Sure, but I CAN guarantee you that wherever the expenses are coming from that drive up the price, it ISN'T from the product itself."

The problem is that, when running a manufacturing business, there are a great many costs that are not from the product itself, but which are necessary to pass on to the customer in order to maintain profitability. For example, safety officers, human resources personnel, smoke alarms, and repair people do not add value to a product, but they are necessary if you want your business to function.

"But what you can't guarantee is that the price of a product even remotely reflects the overall production cost, from creation to marketing to distribution."

Agreed.

"Does my identical item suddenly experience a 50% deflation in worth?"

Again, you made the mistake of conflating price with worth.

The price, by that I mean dollar value, of an item has NOTHING to do with its worth, the objective components of the item and its utility.

I thought I made that clear in the previous post. Competitive enterprise that reduces the dollar value of the item, by whatever means, has nothing to do with its existing parts and utility.

Whether it cost one dollar or a billion dollars to make your widget, if the component parts and functionality are the same, they have the same worth.

Money is an arbitrary social agreement to help us manage the economy, it is not indicative of anything but what people place value in.

"How is a desire to avoid annoyance *not* a reason to do or not do something?"

Because reason cannot compel, reasoning is just the language of facts. It is human desire to be efficient and to avoid annoyance.

More than anything, I was picking at your language here to make a tangential point. I'm not trying to argue that it doesn't make sense to be efficient.

The point was to demonstrate that we want things to be this way, they don't HAVE to be that way. Efficiency is a desirable outcome, not an objective necessity.

"The problem is that, when running a manufacturing business, there are a great many costs that are not from the product itself.....

...Agreed."

The points were kind of the same, so I'm not sure if you agree with my position or not.

While I acknowledge that there is far more to running a business than just the straight industrial process, my point is that there is zero indication that this is actually reflected in the cost.

This is true in a direct sense, as in you can't know without the ledgers, etc. But it's also true even if you did have them, since the vast majority of our currency is spent into existence as debt and loans, not from direct profits made from commerce. It hasn't that worked that way for nearly a century now, longer if you count fraudulent practices.

"Again, you made the mistake of conflating price with worth."

No, I really did not. You can ask any price you want, but an item or service is not worth that unless someone is willing to pay it. The value of goods and services is directly tied to supply and demand.

In short, you have a strange definition of worth, which you define as "the value of the objective components of the item and its utility." There is no objective value of an item's components, as I have demonstrated. Utility does not have an objective measure either. In fact, utility for a given item or service is *highly* subjective and situationally dependent.

"Money is an arbitrary social agreement to help us manage the economy, it is not indicative of anything but what people place value in."

Exactly. That is what we use to measure relative value, aka worth.

You are misinterpreting my word "reason" (as in "reason to do or not to do something") and arguing about "reasoning," which is a totally different thing.

"While I acknowledge that there is far more to running a business than just the straight industrial process, my point is that there is zero indication that this is actually reflected in the cost."

Well, it is certainly reflected in the cost of manufacturing, and it also represents a cost that must be factored in when deciding on a final price, if one intends to be profitable.

Especially after learning it took him 2 years to do this, working 4-6 hours daily.

Actually, his theory could. Once you have girl, any girl, you increase your desirability because a. you demonstrate that you can have a relationship
and b. somebody likes you. He can then use that increase to catapult him to a slightly more interesting/attractive friend, sister, or acquaintance. The more women that other women see you with, the more women desire you. He will continue using the increase in desirability to promote that he is someone to be desired. After repeating this process a few more times, he's taking Charlize Theron to prom.

Except that human beings, not being luxury items, tend to notice when someone is using their relationship for personal gain and immediately lose the favor of everyone around them.

I thought the only reason you went to college was so you could buy a Porsche

That was the case, but this is 2010 America

He sure has the hard work, patience and persistence in the bag. These are qualities that cannot be taught. Send him to school and teach him how to be a greedy bugger and he'll definitely be a hit.

He should teach a class .