Nah, it sounds like OP was basically a ripoff artist- not smarter or more industrious, just more amoral. Pretty scummy way to make a living, hopefully it’s not viable from now on.

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree that there's something bad going on here.

It sounds like:

1. Supplier purchases whitelabel goods from China.

2. Supplier produces fancy branding and marketing.

3. Supplier sells product for a markup.

As long as they're not claiming the goods were made somewhere they're not, or that they do something that they don't, what's the difference between "Sunglasses by baybal2 (Made in China)" and "Some other product with a luxury brand name (Made in China)"?

Or to put another example, is Superdry.com scummy because their marketing implies that they're Japanese when they're actually British?

EDIT: from a consumer perspective, there being tonnes of whitelabel brand names that are meaningless is definitely a pain, but how do you resolve that? Heavy regulation forming a higher barrier to entry?

Worse than lots of meaningless brand names is when a reputable brand gets acquired, and then the quality of the goods massively reduced in pursuit of maximising profits.

I mean, I don't think we need to have an immediate regulatory answer to recognize it's a kind of scummy practice. Just because the consumer is too stupid to recognize the scumminess of the practice doesn't make it not scummy.

I'm also apparently too stupid to recognise the scumminess of the practice (as I hoped was clear in my previous post).

Which of these is true? None? Some? All?

1. branding whitelabel goods is scummy

2. branding goods with a name foreign to where they're manufactured is scummy

3. branding goods with a name foreign to where the business is operating is scummy

4. selling goods with a high markup is scummy

5. selling cheap goods with a high markup is scummy

6. A.N.Other reason that I've missed?

Oh please. There's nothing legally wrong with it but you'd have to be pretty dense not to see the moral issue with labeling something in a way that would signal it as "high end" to consumers while it's actually just being marked up 100x over cost or more.

Is there anything legally wrong with it? No, caveat emptor but I think you have to be willfully ignoring the moral implication to not see the issue with essentially abusing someone's preconceptions.

"High-end-ness" can and does carry connotations of exclusivity, design, price signaling, and so forth, not just product quality. It doesn't stink of scumminess to me at all. There is no requirement, be it moral, legal, or whatever, that there be a tight correlation between manufacture cost and retail price.

Why did you launch into a "oh please" rant instead of directly answering GP's reasonable question? What precisely do you take issue with? You seem to have some mental model here, so let's talk about it.

Sure, I'll bite. Even though I take issue with all of these as they're more-or-less a form of lying, these two stand out:

> selling goods with a high markup is scummy

> selling cheap goods with a high markup is scummy

The latter one especially takes the cake. When you resell a $2 item for $100, you imply that your contribution as a middle-man is worth $98. The other items on the list (which effectively amount to marketing tactics) essentially act as a way to convince (or, more accurately, take advantage of) consumers that your product is not actually worth $2.

Here's a great way to reformulate the morality of the matter in your mind: if you knew that all you were buying were $2 plastic sunglasses from China trussed up with European brand name to look high-end and high-quality, would you still be happy spending $100?

> (or, more accurately, take advantage of) consumers that your product is not actually worth $2.

Do you actually earnestly believe that most consumers think it costs a significant fraction of $100 to make a pair (any pair) of non-prescription sunglasses (manufactured anywhere in the world)? If so, that strikes me as incredibly naive.

What differentiates a pair of Ray-Ban Wayfarers (which I happen to like) from the $3 white label imports on AliExpress? Almost nothing, so far as I can tell, aside from branding and the design of the sunglasses.

And the design is entirely subjective--who are you to tell me that a pair of Wayfarers is not worth $150? For that matter, who are you to say that $100 is too much for a pair of re-branded white label sunglasses from AliExpress. And that's a two-way street: Who am I to tell you that $0 is too much for a pair of aviators?

> you imply that your contribution as a middle-man is worth $98.

Supposing I can connect a consumer with a product he likes and wants, why should it be impossible (or even improbable) for my contribution to be $98? Nothing is stopping him from shopping on Ali directly. Nothing is stopping Ali vendors from setting up a branded website in English. And, yet, there is the unmet desire that I would be fulfilling.

> Here's a great way to reformulate the morality of the matter in your mind: if you knew that all you were buying were $2 plastic sunglasses from China trussed up with European brand name to look high-end and high-quality, would you still be happy spending $100?

Let me answer your hypothetical with a real example: Generic prescription eyeglasses cost $15 on Zenni. I saw someone wearing a particular design I really like (different company, and the design probably costs 2x to make, but they are no longer available). I know they cost less than $30 to make, but I would be delighted to pay $300 for a pair of those glasses, even a pair of look-alikes.

Sorry, I don't check HN often and it took me a while to formulate a worthwhile response.

It depends what you consider significant; regardless, it's a really good question. I think I'll actually ask people I know when I get the chance to see how much they think Wayfarers cost to make / are intrinsically worth. I hypothesize that few will say something under $10, but I could be wrong!

I get what you're saying in that the consumers dictate what something is worth, but that's a fundamental premise I have can't subscribe to: all you have to do as the seller is convince the consumer that it's worth more and poof! more profit. Is that ethical, or should the seller just take it upon themselves to behave responsibility and not have a 5000% margin? So yes, obviously fulfilling an unmet desire should be rewarded, but by 50x the cost of the actual thing you're selling? I just struggle to reconcile the value gap between the actual labor+physical good and the... virtual marketing.

Your Zenni example again ties into the above: you may be happy to pay that (and I probably would be too, if I liked them enough! thankfully we can afford it), but selling them to you for a 10x markup would be a dick move.

This is probably my fundamental thesis, on which we may have to agree to disagree: just because someone is willing to pay X for Y, doesn't suddenly make it okay to charge X for Y.

If you mislead a customer in order to make them buy something, then that is fraud.

Superdry is an odd one. Perhaps they are crossing a line, or perhaps they're just selling a kind of semi-japanese-but-made-in-UK styling. It all depends whether the customers know the truth.

instead of asking each question, just ask 'is some activity deceiving a persons perceptions to 'artificially' extract value?

It is .. i hate to disclose this not totally productive statement .. but i am 'floored' to see how 5050 of a split there is on HN. This concept in my worldview/local culture is like year 5 childhood values/dishonesty stuff.

i hate to give a shoutout to history but .. im winking and smiling at you Google culture 2010.

This is what every brand does to some degree or other. Do you really think that Oakley sunglasses at $400 are in any meaningful way superior to say a pair of Levi's branded ones sold for $50?

I love this point coming up. I am not excluding other entities of this behavior. I am nervously saying 'great another person is doing it fml' #Idiocracymovie

Sounds to me like the implied scumminess is more of a subjective experience, which is not shared by a large portion of happy consumers and businessmen.

You might be sort of right but the statement is illformed.

Happiness is a subjective experience and some people here are aligned with one portion of values and another portion are aligned with other values. If it matters or exposes more mentality.. my views / what you are opposed to - - to me are classic, pure american (US) capitalism values.. when we behave not just to the letter of the law but within the intent of the law and with respect to the culture, and with a sense of responsibility and accountability. A refined yet aggressive and successful business class does exist and is not scummy. I don't need documents I'm a part of a 4th generation US manufacturing family.

Sadly our republican class values are currently high-jacked or i would point you to that 'label'

I don't think the individual reselling sunglasses is necessarily being "unethical". As you point out, there's nothing obviously wrong with the individual actions.

The reason it's troubling is that they are making money without actually adding any value. The sunglasses were created by factory workers in China. If you sell a pair for 100$ and they only get a few pennies, they are being ripped off.

Capitalism doesn't reward creation of actual value. It mostly rewards ownership of capital[1], and occasionally 'hacks' like the OP's. Honestly I am not too worried about them making a few thousand dollars from people with too much money. But it's the tip of the iceberg w.r.t. a dysfunctional economic system, which is why it tends to rub people, especially those who try to 'make an honest living' (by e.g. actually building something useful), the wrong way.

[1] Lenin wrote about this back in 1916. Read Imperialism and tell me it hasn't gotten ever worse since then. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch...

If factory workers are getting pennies while other people in the chain make orders of magnitude more per sale, that's a price signal saying you shouldn't take a factory job becasue other roles are more needed. If you mess with those motivators you'll just end up with a less efficient system as yet more people pile into such jobs when we need them to learn skills and contribute elsewhere.

Ah. So then middle-man doing the 1500% markup is more needed then the ones who are actually producing the goods.

You're thinking in terms of a steady-state. If a middle-man is able to do such a high markup then it means that yes we need more middle-men, because the increased competition will reduce their ability to have such markups. The need is proven by the high margin itself. If we add more factories and factory workers, on the other hand, end buyers won't gain squat since you're only addressing a tiny component of the cost.

And when factory workers try to unionize, and the company spends millions of dollars on anti-union propaganda, that's just price signals, too, I suppose?

No. That is the owners of capital wielding their power to keep the workers--the foundation that keeps the whole show running--underpaid, so that the owners can maximize their profits. Capitalism 101. Maybe actually read the book I linked to. 7 billion people in this world don't live in the free market fantasy land that you're describing.

You're being snarky and rude in response to a completely polite and reasonable post. Are you only happy having discussions in an echo chamber?

You can't seriously expect me to read a book on your request.

What makes it viable is that there will always be someone who is happy to part with their money.

If a businessman is smart enough to help that person be happy with the transaction, then I feel they are entitled to their reward.

Calling such practices amoral and scummy is a nice way to make oneself feel better about having not thought of it first.

The expanded view of my argument is meant to be more productive, not to soften. As I said in the expansion 'almost like good versus evil'.

It is certainly true that any individual or group of people may be happy to do some thing (spend money and do something). Whether it is rob a bank, get drunk and drive a car, or cure cancer people will always be happy to do some thing (referring to your point 'someone always happy to pay for a thing) as if this is the signal of some thing is OK). Just because the sensation of novelty happens doesn't mean we are doing well (see: basically any shitty thing humans do for a while and regret being assigned value through this mechanism).

I'm trying to look at this from a higher altitude and say that with the levels of intellect and passion I'm aware of (and apologies for the lack of hard evidence or citations) I believe we are capable of better things.

I believe in capitalism. I believe in the motivation to better ourselves to improve our circumstances through effort and education followed by returns due to providing things that people need or want. The sunglasses example in my view is a kind of prostitution of what the intention of capitalism is. In other words the hackers approach to capitalism. (I professionally and academically identify with and appreciate a hackers mentality, except in an economic social organizational sense due to it's regular self serving at any cost cultural grey areas). The mentality to circumvent standards and the creativity required to see pathways through a system is critically valuable to our species, but how in this case. In an attempt to open to you knowing/or having better view and resources on this than I do, please share a read, or whatever you expected me to provide?

It feels like a waste of time, a waste of materials, a waste of human thinking, a pure waste of a reason to do anything when something is done just to synthesize value.

For a light hearted 'citation': I see that the more pervasive this kind of behavior becomes in our world the closer to a scenario like the film Idiocracy we will become.

> It feels like a waste of time, a waste of materials, a waste of human thinking, a pure waste of a reason to do anything when something is done just to synthesize value.

Value attributed to an item is not absolute, and this is where your argument fails. Value is something that is agreed upon by two parties and can be any arbitrary amount.

I have been juggling with trying to understand you. Perhaps as much as you me.

I think i have something we can both understand 'trashiness of value' could be measured partly as measure of its proximity to unessential processes to artificially inflate value. This is a robbery not of cops and robbers and masks but of the ability for a person to be disguised as clever and take advantage of peoples sense of trust and hope for positive market behavior. I do believe it is destroying us.

Another attempt: my views are an attempt to present the value system/logic of why we might be happier, more successful when our transactions are more aligned with Real Value than Perceived Value. Youre welcome to help me improve this. We both want the same thing, it seems. We just are seeing different roads to the same successful/free choice result. Or maybe its more accurate to say that i see a risk/or a loss in a behavior within the widely accepted system of consumer\producer behaviors. An opportunity to optimize.

Value is arbitrary. But we are trying to describe specific types of value. And debate their merit.

And, my point is that as passive bystanders, we don't have any input into the agreement that those two parties arrive at for their arbitrary value. As long as they both are consenting, and satisfied with the exchange, it is ethical whatever value they decide.

In what world? If that were true why cant i go buy automatic machine guns, lsd, and drive counterfeit ferraris with rock climbing suspension down snow covered ski areas while shooting at the sky, assuming me and the sellers agree to the deal.... because we are trying to not live in todays version of a game of thrones world.

And no joke this activity sounds awesome

Wow, that was a big departure from sunglasses, for which my argument holds, and obviously cannot be refuted by you.

Edit: And, you can go and do all those things you mentioned. And my argument holds. There are consequences, though...

Ok. Please talk to me like I am the student.

- where did your argument suceed? - where i say 'this deceptive' transaction is not good for society. I agree this is subjective. - I present a wildly inflated case, based on your criteria 'seller buyer agree' to present that this formula would not lead to a good world, destruction/chaos, self endangerment. - I believe our disconnect is not where we fail to align argument paths but backing up, where we fail to agree on a definition of what is 'good'. Would you like to take the lead?

Appreciate your time!