Subject:
|
Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2001 21:29:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
971 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > 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'll let your own words and posts speak for themselves and let it go at
that. I'm satisfied with my characterisation.
> > 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.
Suppose they didn't do that though? Take FAO for an example... they sell
well above prevailing retail and don't price match. Is that unfair? They
still get customers anyway.
Me, I'm glad they overpriced for as long as they did because it meant that
they had sets other retailers sold out of and I was happy to pay 15% OVER
retail for sets I could not get anywhere else at any price.
As long as we have a free market I am free to haunt Target looking for
discounted sets or buy from FAO at a premium. My choice. Nothing unfair
about that.
> 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.
You don't need to introduce other examples just yet, let's work this one a bit.
Who is doing this when you say "we"? Is this a government trade
organization? In that case I'm against it, nothing more need be discussed.
Is it a company that has secured a monopoly on trade by some collusion with
a government? In that case I'm against it too.
I'm not sure that's what you mean, though.
Where exactly is columbia buying grain? On the CBOT? Anyone who wants to can
buy grain there and take delivery FOB Omaha or whatever. The freight to
Columbia may be a bit more than to Evanston IL, but that's not unfair is it?
I'd like to know who "we" is. Most of the "we"s I can imagine... I'm with
you, it's unfair collusion, unfair barrier to entry and ought not to be done.
> 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.
Who's we again... I oppose sanctions of all sorts so if it's governments
doing this, its rotten and ought to be stopped. But I doubt that General
Mills and ADM have the power to do this on their own.
> > 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?
Here are your exact words:
> If you DON'T AGREE that there are
> ethics in business and pricing, THEN I'll be happy to elaborate on "fair
> pricing."
So I have to "not agree" that there are ethics in order for you to elaborate
on what fair pricing is? Is that or is that not what you said? It's unclear
to me. Sorry.
> > 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.
Agreed. Hmm.. who said it? "Honest friendship with all..." I forget.
> <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,
I'd tend to dispute that being the basis of our labor laws.
> 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.
Sounds great. On paper. What are the alternatives? Should we subsidise
saving the whole world? Should we erect protectionist barriers to keep goods
made by children out of the country? What exactly would you have us do?
> > 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.
OK, skip it. I'd rather talk about US labor laws than foreign but we can
work this either way.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
| (...) Denial is a powerful thing. As I said, we agree on much more than we disagree, why focus on the points of disagreement. <snipped discussion on Toys R' Us> You asked for my opinion on fair pricing, I gave it. I'm satisfied with my opinion or (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
