In class this week, my students began a discussion of whether it can be wrong to do something even where I have a right to do that thing. The usual examples were given: it’s wrong for me to say something mean to my friend, even though I have a right to freedom of speech. It’s wrong for me to not visit my ailing relative, even though I have a right to spend my free time however I want. And then the conversation turned to an even more contentious topic:
Resellers.
The practice of buying low and selling high has existed since time immemorial. By all accounts, however, the practice was “supercharged” by the COVID-19 pandemic, when mass job-loss saw people looking for quick and efficient forms of alternative income. Many were able to turn this practice from a part-time “hustle” to a full-time job. In many cases, reselling isn’t merely a vocation, but a lifestyle – often accompanied by extensive documentation and posting on social media. But the practice comes at a cost. Last month, the Daily Dot detailed how resellers have co-opted Disney outlet stores, often to the exclusion of the very children these stores were designed for. From vintage clothing, to Pokémon cards, to instant soup mix, resellers have inserted themselves into almost every supply chain. And while it’s true that resellers have a legal right to do what they’re doing, we might nevertheless ask: is it wrong?
Some distinctions are necessary before answering this question. Certain resellers purchase low-value items with the intention of improving those items, and selling them for a profit. Consider someone who restores a neglected piece of furniture, or renovates a run-down home. We might call these “value-added resellers.” Other resellers, however, purchase items to merely resell at a higher price. These resellers make no improvements to the items in question, and simply generate profit by utilizing the rules of supply-and-demand. These are what we might call “mere resellers,” and their behavior gives rise to moral concerns that don’t exist for value-added resellers.
Generally, the activities of mere resellers fall into one of two categories. Some resellers generate profit by bulk-buying items at retail prices, then reselling those items at an inflated price. Such a practice involves a manipulation of supply-and-demand. By bulk-buying – and hoarding – a particular resource, resellers create an artificial scarcity. So long as there’s sufficient demand, this scarcity leads to an increase in the price that consumers are willing to pay for the resource in question. This is precisely what happened at the launch of the latest Pokémon trading card game earlier this year. Resellers went from store to store buying all available stock, then resold this stock to players at an inflated price, thus generating a profit in the process. As a result, many stores implemented purchase limits, and – in some cases – put the cards inside locked cabinets.
This kind of reselling is nothing new. In fact, it’s been the bane of concerts and sporting events for decades – what might have previously been referred to as “scalping” (though that term is itself morally problematic). But why is this kind of reselling wrong? The answer can be found in our consideration of similar problems – like the hoarding of toilet paper during the COVID-19 pandemic. Essentially, resellers are taking more than their fair share of a finite resource. And why is it wrong to do this? Well, there are several explanations we might give – but perhaps the simplest can be found in Immanuel Kant’s assertion that whenever we act, we must be acting in a way that we could will everyone else to act. We can’t carve out an exception for ourselves. When we see the reseller bulk-buying Pokémon cards, we might ask them “why do you get to do this – and reap the resulting profit – when it’s not possible for everyone else to do the same? Put simply; why do you get to be the exception?”
Some resellers operate according to a second, different, model. Generally, this involves buying high-demand items at a low price, then reselling at a higher price. This usually involves resellers combing thrift stores for “bargains” – desirable items that have been greatly undervalued – then reselling these items to buyers who do appreciate the item’s value.
The hunt for a thrifting “bargain” is a thrill enjoyed by many – myself included. Resellers are engaged in the same pastime. The only difference is that instead of using the item in question, they utilize it to generate profit. So why might this be wrong? The fair share approach is less helpful here. While “bargains” are a finite resource, the manner in which they’re distributed seems more fair. At the end of the day, thrift store finds are down to the “luck of the draw.” The avid amateur writer has just as much chance of stumbling across a cheap vintage typewriter as a reseller. But perhaps this form of reselling is wrong for different reasons. When my students raised this topic, their biggest complaint was that their main source of cheap, ethical clothing has been co-opted by those merely seeking to turn a profit.
For the most part, thrift stores offer vital resources to a particular socio-economic demographic. Put simply: these “bargains” might, in many cases, be the only items that certain individuals can afford. When seen in this light, what resellers are doing – buying these cheap items, and selling them at a mark-up – becomes problematic once again. While the reseller might argue that their revenue stream is vital, it’s not clear that the goods they gain from reselling outweigh the goods they’re taking away from others. And this is particularly concerning when those being deprived are among the most vulnerable members of our community.
