Subject:
|
Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:53:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1060 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> You asked for my opinion on fair pricing, I gave it. I'm satisfied with my
> opinion or point of view on that topic, but perhaps my example didn't suit
> you. We both have more subjective views on LEGO than the average consumer
> just picking out a birthday gift for someone, etc. Shall I give another
> example or do you get the basic idea?
It's not that the example doesn't suit me, it's just that it's incomplete.
I gave an example similar to your scenario of pricing above the prevalent
retail and asked if it was fair or not under your definition. I think you
need to give another example, or (better) address the questions I asked
about the one you gave, before I can decide what it is you mean by fair
pricing and whether I agree.
Let me try again. To me *any* price that a willing buyer pays a willing
seller in a free market is a "fair" price, whether it is above, at, or below
the average market price. Do you agree or disagree? (note the codicils, the
market has to be free and neither party can be coerced)
> <snipped Columbia example>
>
> > Who is doing this when you say "we"?
>
> <snipped comments>
>
> I'm probably being too general, but I say "we" as in the American government
> and it's lobbyists such as big multinational corporations with monopolies on
> many markets. I know you'll agree that our country ends up contributing to
> "bad business" because it's left in the hands of certain corrupt government
> officials on the payroll of certain equally corrupt big businesses.
Again, I think maybe you cut too much away. I tend to agree with the above
paragraph, but is that what really is happening in Columbia? I defer to your
knowledge of the specifics... you brought the example up so I assume you
know the particulars. *Was* it one of the sorts of coercive or non free
market deals I alluded to? In that case I agree it's bad and ought not to be
done.
But if it's just a US company dealing with a Columbian company in a
relatively free environment (in both the coffee and grain cases) then I'm
not convinced.
Could the market be freer? Yes. But pragmatically, opposing every partly
free trade because it isn't free doesn't seem to be the way to get things to
be more open. Partly free trade seems to tend to make things more free trade
in the long run. Not always... but "seems to tend".
> <snipped comments and discussion>
>
> > 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.
>
> Taken out of context, my friend. My point is skip the elaboration if we both
> agree on something (which we do).
It may have been more useful to just say that then instead of couching it in
the confrontational wording you used. Because, after all, I do think there
are ethics in both, just maybe not exactly the way you do... or maybe
exactly. I can't tell... so expanding a bit introduces clarity.
> We may look at it differently, but I'm not
> out to convince you to look at it exactly my way. As far as I'm concerned,
> we're both looking at the same thing but have different ways of
> understanding or explaining it. Yours is a more practical, business
> analysis, mine seems to be a more altruistic, idealistic analysis. Same
> destination, different route.
Not necessarily the same destination... I'd dispute that an altruistic
outlook ends you up at the same place at all. Any for profit corporation is
by definition not altruistic.
> <snipped comments on business ethics>
>
> > Agreed. Hmm.. who said it? "Honest friendship with all..." I forget.
>
> Don't know what you're talking about. Maybe I missed something. If you're
> trying to be sarcastic, please don't bother elaborating in your next reply.
Not being sarcastic at all. A few posts back there was a discussion of
alliances and I brought out one of my favorite Jefferson quotes, which some
folks were saying wasn't applicable any more. I still think it is. We need
more open friendships and less alliances in our dealings with other nations.
So that reference, while trying to be ironic, wasn't sarcastic at all.
Don't try to judge intent, judge outcomes.
> <snipped comments on child labor>
>
> > > 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.
>
> I share a degree of cynicism but I would like to believe that our labor laws
> have a noble basis.
I'd like to, as well, but I just can't. Paraphrasing Twain: "Laws, like
sausages, are best enjoyed if one doesn't know how they are made"... and the
footprints of the unions (which have vested interests far beyond the welfare
of their members) and big corporations (which have vested interests far
beyond the welfare of their employees and stockholders) are all over our
labor laws.
> <snipped comments on child labor>
>
> > 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?
>
> I don't have all the answers and what you or I say here makes no big
> difference. But I see no reason why we couldn't subsidize "saving the whole
> world" in certain ways. We certainly have enough money for it. The problem
> with that idea is that there MUST be a true humanitarian doctrine, with no
> intent of profit. However, our nation seems a little too consumed in it's
> excesses to realize, collectively speaking, that what it does affects the
> whole world in very bad ways sometimes. I'm sure you'll agree on this too.
No, I don't agree with this as it's posted. I don't see a country consumed
by its excesses and I don't see that on balance that we have had a negative
effect on the rest of the world. I am much more positive about the US than that.
But most importantly I don't agree that doing things without regard for
one's stockholders and investors ("with no intent of profit") is a good
idea, or, especially, even a moral one. I'd go so far as to say that
abrogating the fiduciary trust placed in one is out and out immoral. But
maybe you meant via charities rather than by having corporations deliberatly
do things at price points unfair to themselves. Again, some concrete
examples or suggestions will clarify what it is you are advocating.
I agree that the abstract notion of child labor is regrettable, but dispute
that a blanket statement (that is is always bad no matter what the
alternative), is correct. You didn't say that per se, but you don't want to
discuss alternatives. That's fine, it lets you feel you've taken the moral
high ground but it doesn't clarify what you mean or accomplish anything.
But then, this is .debate, not .we-actually-change-the-world-from-here :-)
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
| (...) Yes, I would agree because "willing" is the operative here. But I'm talking about "having to" situations, where prices are dictated by a dominating power rather than made by mutual, good faith agreements. I'm talking about dirty trade (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
