Originally Posted by
delicious
What's being discussed here has little to do with capitalism. A more properly capitalist enterprise of bike flipping would involve one person doing the work, the mechanic/driver/craigslist watcher, and another owning the means of production who pays less to the worker than is made after selling the bike, while keeping the rest.
The flaw here is that in most businesses, the person "owning the means of production" also is involved with the day-today work load/issues. See most any small business as an example. A lot of times the owner is also the chief employee. The other flaw - if I read your inference right - is that in your model the "owner the means of production" is taking advantage somehow and not honestly due a profit. This is conception false on many levels, the principal one being that they are the major stakeholder in whether the buusiness is successful or not, and take all the financial risks.
Originally Posted by
delicious
What's at issue here is basically the tension between 2 extremes of individuals pulling a profit out of a market. The more respectable craftsman mechanic buys a neglected bike, puts considerable labor into it, adding "value," and eventually re-sells it. The second is just pulling arbitrage. Buying low, selling high.
The second one invests time, market knowledge and capital, and takes the risk that what he buys low, he can sell high enough to make it worthwhile to repeat the process.
I don't see either one as more respectable than the other (assuming that both are honest and not crooks)- they are just different business models.