The problem is in trying to justify the current exchange model based on resale prices. People who get the best deal in terms of TPU get it because they own prime weeks. The original purchasers of those weeks paid a premium to own those weeks.
As for the OPs contention regarding ingoing vs. outgoing TPU, that's part of the way the system is designed. It is also how many points systems are designed. As an example, if you own floating weeks and put them into a points system, they often credit you with the average value of your floating week - and then within a certain period, you can book any of the weeks you could normally book for the same number of points, even if it is listed for more. For many of those owners, this is actually a better deal than when the resort chose which weeks were deposited, because the exchangers always lost out in those systems (the best weeks were reserved for owners planning to use their weeks).
When we deposit our weeks, RCI makes an offer we can accept or reject. If we don't like RCI's offer, we can deposit our week elsewhere, or rent or use it ourselves. If RCI was the only option, this might be considered an unfair trade practice, but we do have other options. The current TPU system is set up like a currency, and there are 2 transaction for every deposit. When you deposit, you are in essence selling your week to RCI for a certain number of credits. Once RCI "owns" the week, they can sell it for whatever they want.
The system is transparent in that you know what TPU you are offered, and have a choice. You then also know what you can book with your TPU. What is not transparent is everybody else's transactions.
Yes, it appears than some resort are "overpointed" but we have to ask why. Carolinian would argue that RCI is in bed with the developers. But RCI is a business, and they are not likely to do something that is against their own best interest. RCI must be getting something in exchange for awarding these high TPU. Many of these same resorts used to offer "bonus certificates" to their owners when they deposited their weeks - and in their sales presentations would imply that RCI was offering these bonus weeks, which indicated just how much RCI wanted their deposits. The reality was that those bonus weeks represented developer inventory deposits. Maybe the same thing is happening, but in a less transparent way. Maybe those deposit points represent 50% more than the true value, because for every 2 deposits to RCI the developer gives RCI another week.
Whatever is happening, it really doesn't matter much. We all have the choice to use RCI or not, and are given adequate information to make such a decision. Our society has devolved to the point that everybody feels entitled to everything, and this is just another example. People need to take responsibility for their own decisions - good and bad.