.. requested. What is the practical difference between the following two situations:

1) Suzie Seller posts item with a minimum bid of $1. Billy Bobb Buyer thinks, "wow, I'd pay $20 for that" and bids $1. Suzie Seller then either bids herself (as is allowed in some auctions) or uses a shill to raise the bid. Billy Bobb and Suzie/shill continue bidding until Billy Bob's bid reaches $20, at which price he wins the auction.

2) Suzie Seller posts the item with a minimum bid of $20. Billy Bobb Bidder thinks, "wow, I'd pay $20 for that", bids on and wins the item for $20.

Please notice, I am not asking for any "ethical" or "moral" or other judgmental commentary. I AM asking for some critically considered and thought-provoking responses about WHY there IS an ethical, moral or judgmental commentary to be made when it appears that THERE IS NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE between the two situations (that is, in each case, the buyer gets the item for $20, a price he was willing to pay).

Put another way, what is the rationale behind a rule prohibiting shill bidding?

What interest of the free will buyer, if any, is being protected by a rule against shill bidding?

Is there a factual situation in which a buyer can ACTUALLY be HARMED by the use of a shill bidder, as opposed to the use of a higher minimum bid or reserve price? [Please NOTE that having to pay a higher price than might otherwise be the case is NOT true harm to the bidder as long as he is still getting the item for a price equal to or less than the maximum he is prepared to pay for the item.]

If you think shill bidding is "unfair" to the buyer, WHY?

If you think shill bidding destroys the "integrity" of the auction, WHY?

If you think shill bidding either is or ought to be "illegal" (that is, criminal in the real world), WHY? Factual reasons, please; what is the harm being protected against?

As long as the buyer has the final word on how much he is willing to spend, what difference does it make how he gets there?

----- jim o\-S