Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How I became a con artist (2010)

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 66 posts

Re: How I became a con artist (2010)

#21

Post by chrsstrm »

JPKab wrote: post #16
austenallred wrote: post #13

I had a really hard time reading this, mostly because it's difficult for me to separate out in my mind when arbitrage becomes theft. For example, in my teens I found a hack in the eBay search algorithm. The algorithm was very simple; it simply scanned the titles. So if I input '32GB Apple iPod Black' it would return everything with those keywords. If, however, I typed in 'iPod' it would return millions of results and…

My thought on ticket scalpers: They are, funny enough, actually providing a service for one group of people (those who are short on time and have plenty of money) while hurting people who have plenty of time and less money. Without scalpers/brokers, getting a ticket turns into a game of who is willing to stand in line the longest.

They're also a quick way to liquidate tickets you personally can't use, if your seats are good enough that they would want to buy them.

Re: How I became a con artist (2010)

#22

Post by pasquinelli »

javert wrote: post #15

Someone who is truly self-interested will strive to live in harmony with reality and with other people, instead of trying to constantly deceive and manipulate. They will focus on producing real value they can trade, instead of the less efficient strategy of stealing from others. In other words, do you think the author was happy? I don't. Religion and altruism teach that your self-interest (at least in this world) is…

"Someone who is truly self-interested will strive to live in harmony with reality and with other people, instead of trying to constantly deceive and manipulate."

why?

"They will focus on producing real value they can trade, instead of the less efficient strategy of stealing from others."

less efficient in what way?

"In other words, do you think the author was happy? I don't."

i do. well, actually i really don't know, but nothing in the text really made me think he wasn't.

"The truth is that they are the same thing and you can do both."

i'll be sure to keep that in mind. it sounds so convenient.

Re: How I became a con artist (2010)

#23

Post by ElongatedTowel »

NhanH wrote: post #19
austenallred wrote: post #13

I had a really hard time reading this, mostly because it's difficult for me to separate out in my mind when arbitrage becomes theft. For example, in my teens I found a hack in the eBay search algorithm. The algorithm was very simple; it simply scanned the titles. So if I input '32GB Apple iPod Black' it would return everything with those keywords. If, however, I typed in 'iPod' it would return millions of results and…

In the case of your ebay story, had you not done the arbitrage, wouldn't the owner of the iPod being unable to sell his stuff, hence worse off (the buy would still be buying the iPod at the same price you sell them - if they could have bought it cheaper, they wouldn't have bought it from you). Additionally, your effort wasn't just buying and reselling the iPod, you have to compile the 2-page long search term, and the…

I guess the ethical thing would be to inform all people selling iPods the wrong way that their methods are flawed. The second best thing would probably be to give those tips for money.

Re: How I became a con artist (2010)

#24

Post by javert »

austenallred wrote: post #13

I had a really hard time reading this, mostly because it's difficult for me to separate out in my mind when arbitrage becomes theft. For example, in my teens I found a hack in the eBay search algorithm. The algorithm was very simple; it simply scanned the titles. So if I input '32GB Apple iPod Black' it would return everything with those keywords. If, however, I typed in 'iPod' it would return millions of results and…

A seller on an open market quotes the price they want to sell for. They would rather have that much money, than the item they are selling. So it's not victimizing them to make the trade.

But it would be victimizing yourself to not make the trade, and instead tell the other person your inside knowledge.

And it's not dishonest, because in a market, there is no implicit assumption that the buyer doesn't know something the seller knows, on the part of either one.

This is especially obvious in the stock market. If I think a stock is a sell at $X and you think it's a buy, we trade, but clearly one person knows (or thinks they know) something that the other doesn't.

Regarding ticket scalping: People selling tickets know that that's going on. If they don't want it, they will forbid you from doing it, and if you do it, it's breach of contract and subject to legal penalties. If not, go for it. There is no reason to sacrifice your own interests so that people who didn't get in on the sale earier and can't afford scalped prices can have their interests satisfied instead. In other words, don't victimize yourself.

Regarding HFT: If you are market-making, you buy at the best price (giving someone a good deal) and sell at the lowest price (giving someone a good deal). Yes, these people could have matched against each other if they wanted to play the game of predicting which way the market is moving and waiting a few microseconds, but you can also lose at that game, so institutional investors don't want to play it. There are no victims here. I assume this kind of thing generalizes to other forms of HFT, except when people/exchanges actually do cheat (exchanges: people don't let people cheat, that is basically your sole purpose for existing).

> The moral of the story: It's difficult for me, at times, to discern when a "cool hack" becomes "criminal theft."

You only victimize someone (other than yourself) if you commit breach of contract (implicit or explicit; fraud is a form of breach of contract) or actually use physical force. Otherwise, you aren't.

tl;dr moral of the story: don't victimize anyone (yourself, or others)

Re: How I became a con artist (2010)

#25

Post by arjie »

It's funny, but this (seemingly blind) trust is why I like shopping in the Western world. As someone who never abuses it, it makes my life a lot easier.

By contrast, in India everyone's tried every variant of this scam. The net result? Shopkeepers don't accept returns and buying things is a combative experience.

I guess what I'm trying to say is "This is why we can't have nice things".

Re: How I became a con artist (2010)

#26

Post by Peaker »

javert wrote: post #24
austenallred wrote: post #13

I had a really hard time reading this, mostly because it's difficult for me to separate out in my mind when arbitrage becomes theft. For example, in my teens I found a hack in the eBay search algorithm. The algorithm was very simple; it simply scanned the titles. So if I input '32GB Apple iPod Black' it would return everything with those keywords. If, however, I typed in 'iPod' it would return millions of results and…

A seller on an open market quotes the price they want to sell for. They would rather have that much money, than the item they are selling. So it's not victimizing them to make the trade. But it would be victimizing yourself to not make the trade, and instead tell the other person your inside knowledge. And it's not dishonest, because in a market, there is no implicit assumption that the buyer doesn't know something t…

> This is especially obvious in the stock market. If I think a stock is a sell at $X and you think it's a buy, we trade, but clearly one person knows (or thinks they know) something that the other doesn't

Or maybe they just need the liquidity for some purchase they need to make?

Re: How I became a con artist (2010)

#27

Post by javert »

Peaker wrote: post #26
javert wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A seller on an open market quotes the price they want to sell for. They would rather have that much money, than the item they are selling. So it's not victimizing them to make the trade. But it would be victimizing yourself to not make the trade, and instead tell the other person your inside knowledge. And it's not dishonest, because in a market, there is no implicit assumption that the buyer doesn't know something t…

> This is especially obvious in the stock market. If I think a stock is a sell at $X and you think it's a buy, we trade, but clearly one person knows (or thinks they know) something that the other doesn't Or maybe they just need the liquidity for some purchase they need to make?

Sure, but that's beside the point.

That just means they have knowledge you don't have about an even better investment.

Or, they actually need to spend the money (e.g. buy groceries) and they still want to do the trade and appreciate the liquidity, no matter what knowledge you have.

Re: How I became a con artist (2010)

#28

Post by NhanH »

ElongatedTowel wrote: post #23
NhanH wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of your ebay story, had you not done the arbitrage, wouldn't the owner of the iPod being unable to sell his stuff, hence worse off (the buy would still be buying the iPod at the same price you sell them - if they could have bought it cheaper, they wouldn't have bought it from you). Additionally, your effort wasn't just buying and reselling the iPod, you have to compile the 2-page long search term, and the…

I guess the ethical thing would be to inform all people selling iPods the wrong way that their methods are flawed. The second best thing would probably be to give those tips for money.

It would be the good thing to do to inform the seller of their wrong methods, however the lack of doing so isn't unethical: you can't stop people from making bad financial decision in life (it might actually be condescending to make the assumption that they don't know what they are doing). And if you didn't buy the iPod yourself, their bad listing might not even be selling for them.

Re: How I became a con artist (2010)

#29

Post by Lost_BiomedE »

javert wrote: post #24
austenallred wrote: post #13

I had a really hard time reading this, mostly because it's difficult for me to separate out in my mind when arbitrage becomes theft. For example, in my teens I found a hack in the eBay search algorithm. The algorithm was very simple; it simply scanned the titles. So if I input '32GB Apple iPod Black' it would return everything with those keywords. If, however, I typed in 'iPod' it would return millions of results and…

A seller on an open market quotes the price they want to sell for. They would rather have that much money, than the item they are selling. So it's not victimizing them to make the trade. But it would be victimizing yourself to not make the trade, and instead tell the other person your inside knowledge. And it's not dishonest, because in a market, there is no implicit assumption that the buyer doesn't know something t…

"If I think a stock is a sell at $X and you think it's a buy, we trade, but clearly one person knows (or thinks they know) something that the other doesn't"

Theoretically, everyone who ever buys or sells could make money. They just have to be trading on different time-frames, different entry/exit strategies, and/or have different risk tolerance.

I do agree with your overall point.

Re: How I became a con artist (2010)

#30

Post by jaynos »

austenallred wrote: post #13

I had a really hard time reading this, mostly because it's difficult for me to separate out in my mind when arbitrage becomes theft. For example, in my teens I found a hack in the eBay search algorithm. The algorithm was very simple; it simply scanned the titles. So if I input '32GB Apple iPod Black' it would return everything with those keywords. If, however, I typed in 'iPod' it would return millions of results and…

In the late '90s I'd do a much smaller scale eBay gambit. Buy Plam Pilots or Palm Pliots (eBay used to not suggest corrected spellings) cheap and flip them for more money as Palm Pilots. Looking back, it was probably a waste of time. I think I only did this about 10 times. It was easy to justify since there was usually another bid on the item, but not 10 people bidding like when the product was spelled correctly. Also, I figured if I could buy an item for $X, the person was fine with selling it for $X (otherwise they should have put a reserve on the item).
Post reply on HN