... on yours, Robert:

>> 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. <<

Of course, if you are looking at the eBay venue, you are correct that eBay will establish its rules however is necessary to survive economically. Anything else would be fiscal nonsense. I do think it remains to be seen whether shill bidding costs eBay anything, though. Certainly it raises the immediate fees on the sale prices. And, I seriously doubt that the shill bidding problem on eBay is serious enough to drive away a significant number of buyers or sellers.

>> "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? <<

Of course, if you accept my terms of the hypothetical, it does stack the deck. But, it doesn't necessarily end the discussion right there -- this is the reason that I complimented Larry on his lawyer-like response; he refused to accept the stacked deck, changed the rules and made his response suitable to his own version of the deck. It does, however, seem to me that if the buyer gets the item at or below the price he was willing to pay on the open market, he has suffered no harm, regardless of how he got to that price. Perhaps he didn't get a super sweetheart deal, but he got what he considered a fair deal. I see no harm in that.

See my two new posts on shill bidding and respond to my auction survey, please, Robert. ----- jim o\-S