Yeah, because employees totally stopped using email because employers can and do archive it and read it when/if they want to.

So, your argument is that someone:

1. Created a page at Amazon listing a $400 game console at $80, which would net them maybe $70, after fees.
2. Went into Walmart, and used that page to get the console for $80, plus tax.
3. Planned to sell that same console to whoever bought it through the Amazon link, losing $20 or so on each console.

Yes, that's theoretically possible.

It's also theoretically possible that they were purchasing test units for the Archons of Centauri 7, who will then gift us with their technology for unlimited clean energy, but have a religious objection to paying more than $80 for a PS4.

Retailers have the right to correct pricing errors, if they were clearly errors (i.e. Xbox for $40 rather than $400). This was no pricing error - there's no way the Amazon seller/Walmart buyer can argue that he made a pricing error on his webpage, but at the same time demand that Walmart match the pricing error.

Very good point. Was trying to keep it simple. If I recall, the expected relocation costs are in the range of $6B for this spectrum.

Just because you can't believe it, doesn't mean it's not true. 65MHz, covering 315 million people. Spectrum's usually priced per MHz-POP (i.e. 10MHz of spectrum covering 1 million people is 10 million MHz-POPs).

There's a huge amount of variation in pricing, though. The most expensive license right now (on a MHz-POP basis) is for 10MHz covering the Chicago area (8.3M people) - $5.50 per MHz-POP. The most expensive license on an absolute basis is for 20MHz covering the NY Metro Area (27M people): $2 billion.

On the other hand, there are some licenses in rural Louisiana and South Dakota going for under $2k, or less than $0.01 per MHz-POP.

True, but in this case, the top bids, combined, are $34B. In other words, if the auction ended today, the government would receive $34 billion.

Hey, a deal's a deal. We didn't get Sun 2, the aliens don't get Europa as their private playground.

Walmart's cost of goods sold (i.e. the % of revenue that gets spent on the products they sell, doesn't include cost of labor, rent, light, etc.) is 75%, slightly above Amazon's 73%. So, WalMart is, on average, charging a SMALLER markup than Amazon.

Quite a number of states (Cali and Wisconsin come to mind) have laws prohibiting loss leaders, usually only if they're viewed as predatory pricing (i.e. trying to drive competitors out of business).

Wisconsin has a law that sets a minimum margin for gasoline. Idea is to prevent large operators with other revenue streams (i.e. a supermarket with a couple of gas pumps) from selling below cost to bring in shoppers, thereby driving out small operators

"they talk about people with amazon seller accounts creating sales in order to have them matched"

No, they're not creating "sales." They're creating sales pages they have no intention of actually delivering. Unless you think that the people pulling this scam would have happily shipped out hundreds of PS4s at $80 each, when the orders came in.

Oops, forgot link: http://www.dol.gov/minwage/cha...

The underlying data (through 2012) is here. Minimum wage (in 2012 $) peaked in 1968 at $10.34, has averaged (from 1938-2012) $7.09/hour in 2012 $.

In inflation-adjusted terms, the minimum wage was lower than current levels until 1956, above current levels from 1956 to 1984, and then mostly below current levels again since 1984 (with the exception of 1997-1998).

There's "gaming the system" and there's fraud. This isn't clipping Home Depot coupons and taking advantage of Lowe's willingness to accept competitor coupons. This is forging your own Home Depot coupons on your computer, printing them out, and using them at Lowe's, since you know that Home Depot won't accept the forgeries.

WalMart's already wised up, and changed the rules. Now it only applies to items on Amazon SOLD BY Amazon. No more marketplace sellers.

http://consumerist.com/2014/11...

They're not selling them on the exchanges precisely BECAUSE they want to avoid sharply pushing down the price of Bitcoin. $20M is about five days worth of volume on the USD/BTC exchanges. If you tried to dump that much volume into the exchanges, it would crush the price of Bitcoins vs. the US$.

Ignore my post, I've got this completely wrong. Oh, for an edit or delete button.