[Dylan16807]

I am not having zero sun fallacy. Please read what I said again. I said the exact price is zero sum within the bounds of the deal happening. The wealth creation is caused by the deal happening at all.

> if one quadrillionaire in a city owns all the money

That's a valid risk factor but on a random eBay purchase I think it's fair to say we have no idea if the purchaser or the seller gets more utility out of each dollar.

[gond]

Then we actually agree on parts? Well, excuse me if I interpreted you wrong.

>we have no idea if the purchaser or the seller gets more utility out of each dollar.

Assumption: the seller opened the auction with his actual hard lower limit, he should be happy with what he gets as soon as that limit gets hit.

The original poster said that he essentially altered the bid in favour of the seller. However, the exchange of subjective equal values is based on the balance between the two parties and now gets distorted in favour of the seller and in detriment of the buyer. This should result in win/lose if I am not mistaken.

So, maybe I get you wrong, I am not sure right now.

[Dylan16807]

I agree with everything you said there.

My argument is that this distortion in favor of the seller isn't really good or bad in a meaningful way. It's just rude.

The seller is happy as long as their limit is hit, the buyer is happy as long as their limit isn't hit. How should the surplus happiness get split? I dunno. So the earlier poster sticking their finger in and shifting the surplus around isn't a particularly moral issue.