Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3942)	1/17/2008 6:58:59 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42652

We all operate within the social contract that enables us to practice capitalism and otherwise live our lives. Supporting the social contract is rational, not emotional. Voluntarily treating other people decently is part of the social contract. I submit that it is, indeed, "wrong" to violate the social contract. When there is a hurricane here in the SE Home Depot and Lowes not only don't raise prices, they sometimes lower them. They demand their suppliers maintain prices and divert product from other areas of the country. They bring in all sorts of necessities for their employees (donated by vendors mostly). They feel that they are part of the community and gouging your neighbors in a time of disaster is morally wrong. They make plenty of money on the increased sales, and earn the respect of their customers. Tim doesn't believe in anti-gouging laws. Tim doesn't care that millions are uninsured or under-insured and can't afford health care.

To: Lane3 who wrote (3942)	1/17/2008 10:19:28 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

OT Voluntarily treating other people decently is part of the social contract. I guess where we disagree is whether raising prices can be treating people in some indecent way. Well I suppose in certain highly specific situations it can be. If you had led someone to think that the pricer would be lower (but didn't actually have a contract), and than you surprise them with the higher price after they have taken steps and assumed costs to be in position to buy your product or service. Or if you have a monopoly on a good that is not just important but vital (say you have the only drinking water, and supplies from elsewhere won't be in place ontime). but I think that the social contract requires us to aim for a win-win in every transaction and not doing so is "wrong." But jacking up the price when there is a shortage doesn't mean there isn't a win/win for both sides. If it wasn't a win, for the buyer, the buyer wouldn't buy, even in the small scale one to one transactions you mention. If your going beyond selling one or very few goods to one or very few people, and rather dealing with supplying a market, below market clearing prices can cause more problems than benefits, even if they are not forced on the seller. Your anecdotes where useful for me, in that I was focused on markets (even if its a small local market that is temporarily separated from the larger market by some disaster), and wasn't considering such very small scale personal transactions (where selling at prices that are now low considering the supply/demand situation makes more sense, both for personal reasons and because the larger market problems that I'm discussing don't apply in any serious way). But while considering such situations expands my thoughts on this issue, those situations where not what I was talking about.