Jim,
Thanks for the interesting/entertaining initial post and thread.

Commenting on your comments:

(1) You said this in your last post: >>>> "1) you assume (for reasons which escape me) that only an auction with a proxy bidding system is "honest"; of course,
many auction venues do not utilize a proxy bidding system --- whatever you bid IS your bid. It doesn't get knocked down
to something just over the next highest bid. It is true that most of the internet auction sites appear to use the proxy bid
sysem (I'm not familiar with all of them, so I'm not sure), but my original question was not intended to apply solely (or
even primarily) to internet auctions."<<<< Sorry if I gave that impression. I guess I had eBay on my mind. I know that some auctions do simply take the high bid as the winning bid and do not reduce it based on the amount of the next highest bid (all this assumes the high bid meets the minimum). I am not familiar with such auctions, but they exist. Such a rule would take away half of the reason for shill bidding -- a shill wouldn't be needed to push up the bid to the "maximun' because the bid and the maximum would be the same thing! Shilling would still be useful to the seller to create false enthusuasm and credibility.

(2) You also said in your last post: >>>> "2) related; you refer to eBay fees. As I've said elsewhere, my purpose in initiating this thread has nothing to do with
eBay. Nor was it intended to address the relationship between eBay (or any other auction venue) and their sellers. If the
auction venue is getting screwed out of their fees by the way sellers are manipulating their system, the system sucks and
the venue will, inevitably, change it or go out of business."<<<< I knew you didn't want references to eBay, but I couldn't resist. Consider the remarks as a free bonus. Welcome to the real world of free and easy e-mail. But, on the other hand (there is always "another hand"), the eBay fees can be argued as relevant to the discussion of effects and costs on the bidder BECAUSE if eBay losses fees, it will have to raise them elsewhere, which would drive away sellers, which would reduces the autions, which would drive away bidders, and then more sellers, SO THE BIDDER DOES BEAR THE COST OF FEE CHEATING BY SELLERS.

(3) While I am typing here let me ask you about this comment of yours in the original post that seemed contradictory; it puzzled me. Hope no one commented on it before. It is this: >>>> "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.]" <<<< Please correct me if I missed something, but doesn't the qualifier in brackets "beg the question" or stack the deck? You seem to be saying that we must ASSUME no one can be hurt if he knows the amount he is bidding!?!? DOESN'T THAT END THE DISCUSSION RIGHT THERE?

Best wishes,
Robert