Subject:
|
Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2001 21:00:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
854 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I think you have some issues here you need to deal with. Everything is
> challenges, fighting, giving inches, not being wrong. No inclusivness, no
> common ground, no exploration of issues. Your idea of agreeing is that
> everyone you talk to agree you are correct about everything.
Pardon me, but are you describing me or YOU here?! I think you're a bit
confused, you just described several aspects of your on-line self in that
paragraph. Get a grip on reality, my friend, and realize that you mostly
stir up trouble here and share ONLY your ideas and opinions (mostly the
ideas of this political party you follow). That's your thing, it's fine with
me because that is what off.topic.debate is for. But in my opinion, you give
off the impression that you perceive yourself as some sort of moral or
intellectual leader on this forum. Once again, that is only my opinion, if
others agree or disagree, that's their business. Personally, I think you're
the one with "issues" because you seem to be living in a fantasy. By the
way, I never called on anyone in LUGNET to not respond to your posts, can
you say the same?
> OK, Dan. I do agree that there are ethics in business. I can't agree on
> whether there are ethics in pricing since I don't know what you mean by fair
> pricing or fair trade.
There, now we can discuss something. Fair pricing, in my opinion, is setting
prices according to accepted and agreed standards (formal or informal) set
by both businesses, manufacturers and consumers. Thus, an ethic is
established and followed. Since this is a LEGO forum, here's a simple
example I would like to use: The Large Grey Baseplate has a retail price of
$9.99. Most retail stores, such as Target or K-Mart, sell it for that price.
However, I noticed they've been out of that item lately so I went to Toys R'
Us. They sell it for $12.99, an unusual mark up considering their other LEGO
products are priced according to the regular retail. Is their price really
fair? Not to me. However, they redeem themselves by having a policy of
matching advertised prices. So, I show them the price in the LEGO SAHS
catalog and I get the item at the "fair" retail price.
Initially, I was speaking of fair pricing in global terms, such America
taking advantage of other countries by either jacking up the price of things
we sell or demanding countries sell their product to us way below the
standard price (whatever that may be). The example of Columbian coffee comes
to mind, where we jack up the price of the grain we export to them and
demand a lower price on the coffee we import (which we turn around and make
an insane profit). We do this because we know Columbia is desperate. I have
other examples if that won't suffice. We do this to a lot of nations that
are "over the barrel." Instead of showing good faith or helping them out of
their rut (better business for the long term) by paying the going rate, we
go in for the kill. It's either buy from us or sell to us at the price we
choose or nothing, AND we'll make sure our buddies don't buy from you either.
> Do I have to say that there are *no* ethics in order for you to tell me what
> fair pricing is??? That's what you seem to be saying. Not very clear.
Your opinion. I think you just want to argue. You often distort what I say
and make it the opposite of what I said, then tell me I wasn't clear. I
think we agree on a lot more things than we disagree. Maybe you think your
version of the same point sounds better?
> Tell you what, I'll even give you a leg up.
Enough with the bullsh*t, I'm not impressed.
> To my mind running an ethical business means making agreements in good faith
> and adhering to them, being honest in all your dealings with your
> stockholders, giving fair measure and good service to your customers and
> treating those you buy from in an honest manner as well.
>
> To my mind fair pricing means pricing things at what the market will bear
> (the market clearing price). No more and no less. To price less is to be
> unfair to your stockholders because you give up revenue you could have had,
> as well as to those who wish to buy but were unable to because you had to
> allocate rather than market clear. To price more is unfair to your
> stockholders, because you give up revenue you could hvae had, as well as
> unfair to those who wish to buy who are willing to pay the market clearing
> price but no more.
Very well said, and I'll only add that we should apply the same ethics to
international business/politics.
<snipped comments on child labor>
> You haven't enumerated the alternatives. Child labor may be OK or not OK, it
> depends on the circumstances.
I don't think "enumerating the alternatives" is the issue. In my opinion,
since our country has labor laws based on the principles of human rights and
worker's rights, then that establishes a moral code in labor--an ethic. We
shouldn't go against our established ethics whenever it brings us economic
profit. There is such thing as blood money. If we don't want our kids
suffering, working long, miserable hours in factories, we shouldn't want it
for other children. Children are helpless and too often easily exploited.
> But skip the child labor bit, let's talk about
> US "living wage" standards. Do you favor or oppose? I'm libertarian. My
> stance is derivable.
Not taking the bait, sorry.
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
| (...) I'll let your own words and posts speak for themselves and let it go at that. I'm satisfied with my characterisation. (...) Suppose they didn't do that though? Take FAO for an example... they sell well above prevailing retail and don't price (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
| (...) I think you have some issues here you need to deal with. Everything is challenges, fighting, giving inches, not being wrong. No inclusivness, no common ground, no exploration of issues. Your idea of agreeing is that everyone you talk to agree (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
271 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
