About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 160

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 12:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andy,

I'm wondering how the following two positions can be held simultaneously:
Capitalism by its very nature cannot [] be a method of criminals.

Sure, [there] are capitalists who are evil, but not because they are capitalists.

Presumably criminals are evil here, and capitalists are those who advocate and utilize capitalism. So an evil capitalist is, what, the economic metaphysical equivalent of God?

Sarah
(Edited by Sarah House
on 9/06, 12:45pm)


Post 161

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 12:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah:

It was in the context of this thread — economics.

Sam


Post 162

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 1:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You are are always entitled to that which you own and you entitled to ask for any amount of money or other goods that you wish to exchange your product for.  You are not 'entitled' to have someone accept your terms, but nor is the other party entitled to your product on the price that they 'feel' is 'fair'.
 
Good all the way to the "feel" is "fair" part. Do you think that is all there is to every person that is evaluating a transaction? Do you think, for instance, that I work off of impulses and vague feelings in such a situation? I understand the point Ayn Rand made (you are clearly laying out her words), and I agree with it. People that do the "feel is fair" entitlement thing are confused, and there are reasons for that, even more so nowadays. It speaks to philsophical issues and that is an ongoing problem with humanity in general.  I forgive them their ignorance, but that doesn't mean they don't annoy me when I am presented with that on the other side of the negotiating table. 

What you are making is a statement of operating conditions. What I am saying is that there are those who will take undue advantage of conditions. That hurts capitalism as a whole. If you want to say it without morality in it, you can say that the values of people who do that do not include long-term growth, not only their own, but for business in general. The people that do that kind of thing are pikers, and the last place I ever want them to be is running anything bigger than their backyard. They aren't smart enough.  Capitalism is not perfect, it is nearly perfect. It is possible to make ethically bad business decisions, and survive them. In fact, you can profit from them. That speaks to what you value. I find that think counterproductive to building business, hence building civilization. It is cheap, short,  and stupid thinking.

Remember, I am only arguing that price gouging is a conceptual strategy that exists, and is utilized from time to time. It doesn't mean capitalism is bad because it allows it. It just means when people do such things, capitalism won't necessarily be able to correct it while you're still around.

rde
No Free Lunches




Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 163

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 1:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam,

So, am I correct in thinking that you've taken a single post in which I stated nothing about my knowledge or position on the matter and have deduced that I don't know shit about elementary economics? Absolutely stunning! Really! I should just stop wasting time with all this typing business and make blank posts so you can fill in whatever the hell you want. It'll be quicker that way, I think.

Sarah

Post 164

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 1:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andy and Adam, thanks for the interesting discussion above. I think you've finally managed to boil this discussion down to the essential principles involved. Good work.


Post 165

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 1:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I enjoyed Adam's post as well, particularly the part about price caps. Price caps are bullshit, they have always been bullshit. They also tend to originate from people that generally contributed to the fracas in the first place. "Ow, I hurt myself. Ow, I did it again! Mom, more Band-Aids! Ow, I hurt myself again! Mom, why can't you afford Band-Aids? Ow. Mom..... Mom?"

Tragedy is painful enough, without having to hear all these id-jits up there snapping their suspenders and holding forth. Go figure- they couldn't coordinate activities because their layers of shit were too deep. Who knew? Mom...any news on the Band-Aids yet?

rde
Getting apartments in E. Cleveland ready for Katrina people, go figure.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 9/06, 1:29pm)


Post 166

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 1:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I’ve pulled off some whoppers, some of which I am sure some of the limp-dicks would not approve. I’m curious what everyone (but especially the limps) think about this one:

A few years back I identified a Honda on a used car lot that my wife wanted. I test drove it and I negotiated and I got the salesman down pretty well off the asking price. But we went back and forth for about a week, because I wanted more off. I couldn’t get him any lower, I was insisting on 4% lower, but I couldn’t move him. I *knew* he would take less, but I couldn’t get him to do it. It was my failure and I was growing angry with myself. I called him on a Friday afternoon and tried one more thing and fell on my face. “This is the lowest we can go, Jon.” I said, “OK, fine. I’ll see you this afternoon.” “Wonderful. Please bring a bank-certified check.” “Sure.”

I didn’t really intend to see him. I intended to think a few more minutes and decide if I would call back and cancel or go to the bank and pick up the car.

Then a light bulb went off in my head.
Skip to 4:00 pm:

“Jon, good to see you.”
“Same here, Mikhail.”
M: “Excited about the car?”
J: “Oh, yes.”
M: “Great. Have a seat. I have the papers ready for you to sign. If you will give me the check, I’ll bring it to accounting so they can get started.”
J: “Sure. Here you go.”
M: “Good. I’ll bring this to accou…Oh. Did you have some cash, or, we don’t normally do this, but a personal check, perhaps?”
J: “Huh?”
M: “This is not the right amount.” [Handing check back to me]
(It was 5% less than what we agreed to.)
J: “Oh, that. Yeah, I ran into some money issues at the bank.”
M: [pausing, looking surprised that I stopped talking] “Jon, we agreed on an amount.”
J: “I remember. This is what I have for you, Mikhail. What more can I say?”
M: “We agreed.”
J: Blank stare.
M: Blank stare.
J: Blank stare.
M: “I can’t believe this…”[swiping check back from my hand]

Post 167

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 1:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Response from limp-dick #1:
I'm curious, Jon; what would you have done if you had decided to pay his price, showed up with the check, and he said the price was higher than you agreed to?


Post 168

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 2:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Car dealers are exempt from the trader principle. Screw them any way you can.

Post 169

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 2:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Scott said:
Car dealers are exempt from the trader principle. Screw them any way you can.

Right on, Scott.  And lawyers too!  No wait, I didn't mean that; really.  (Where's that damn edit key?)


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 170

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 2:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam wrote:
...one of the functions of the market is to create an equilibrium price, which then applies equally to all buyers in the market.
I disagree. This is another example of reversing cause and effect.

One of the results of a free market is that prices tend to be uniform throughout the market.

It is quite wrong to claim that such a result is a function, ie a goal, of the market. Markets do not have functions or goals. Market participants have goals.

Post 171

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 2:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Does anyone remember the scene in Atlas Shrugged where Hank and Dagny are negotiating Dagny's purchase of some Rearden Metal rails? Dagny desparately needs the rails and is unable to find a reliable steel producer to provide them. Hank clearly has the upper hand and he knows it. So does Dagny. He charges her as much as she is able to pay. Is that price gouging?

One further comment.

I believe it was Voltaire who wrote "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I say that the same applies to (non-coercive) actions.

Just because someone's right to "price gouge" is defended it should not be assumed that the "price gouging" itself is being defended. It should not be assumed that the "price gouger's" actions are moral.

Post 172

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 2:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit









                                                   http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4601


Post 173

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 2:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think you have a point there. But my moral stand on the issue is I wouldn't defend the fact that it would be moral for someone out of the disaster area charging as much as humanly possible for something that there is no risk of running out of for him. 

But someone in the disaster area not charging as much as humanly possible for something he may not need now but might need tommorow, I would hold to be highly immoral.

But the key thing is moral or immoral it is still everyone's right to do as they choose... but they must also live with the consequences of their actions.

---Landon


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 174

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 3:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon

I'm sorry to say but it's actions like yours that give capitalism a bad name.

Adam's point about the distinction between getting the best price you can and preserving the contextual preconditions for a civil society is relevant. Your behavious is akin to that in post-communist Russia, where the benefits of capitalism have been slow to take effect precisely because no one can be trusted.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 175

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 3:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah,

I can be a bit thick at times, so I'm not sure what you mean by this ...
Presumably criminals are evil here, and capitalists are those who advocate and utilize capitalism. So an evil capitalist is, what, the economic metaphysical equivalent of God?
Perhaps I wasn't clear in my response to you.  Capitalism is the ethical system of trade.  By its nature, capitalism does not produce any evil.  That's not to say that businessmen in a capitalist society never commit crimes or act unethically in the course of trading.  But when they do, it is because they are not adhering to the trader principle which is the foundation of capitalism.

Andy


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 176

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 3:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick,

You write: "One of the results of a free market is that prices tend to be uniform throughout the market. It is quite wrong to claim that such a result is a function, ie a goal, of the market. Markets do not have functions or goals. Market participants have goals."

No, you are wrong. Social institutions such as the market have functions ("goals") because they are organized by their participants to perform functions that serve the participants' goals. One of the functions for which men organize markets is to enable rational economic calculation, by, among other things, encouraging the equilibration of prices to relatively uniform levels.

This is one of the reasons why the market is a moral institution, and why the subjectivist doctrine of Wertfrei economics is bullshit.


Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 177

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 3:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Does Kat belong here?



Post 178

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 3:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,
This is one of the reasons why the market is a moral institution, and why the subjectivist doctrine of Wertfrei economics is bullshit.
I very much liked your point preceding this which reminds us that markets are the endeavor of men.  I better understand your earlier response to me, which I'm still digesting.

Andy


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 179

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 3:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick-

 Just because someone's right to "price gouge" is defended it should not be assumed that the "price gouging" itself is being defended. It should not be assumed that the "price gouger's" actions are moral.


I've found myself in much agreement with you in your last few posts, but I have to take exception to the above.  As I see it you are falling prey to the premises of those who would argue the touchy-feely term 'price-gouging'.  WE HAVE YET TO DEFINE IT.  NO ONE HERE HAS BEEN ABLE TO DEFINE IT.(No, the caps are not me yelling at you, just me emphasising in a lazy manner).  Your statement above is nonsense because the term has no meaning in reality.  Several people in here(myself included) have asked for a definition and unless I missed a thread, I have yet to see one.

(Edited by Jody Allen Gomez on 9/06, 3:40pm)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.