Subject:
|
Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 2 Dec 1999 21:57:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1548 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Richard Franks wrote:
>
> > My personal view is that it's nicer to give 20 people 1 thing, than give 1
> > person 20 things (related specifically to Lego deals in this example).
>
> Why? In other words, why is my need for 20 any LESS valid than anyone
> elses need for 1? Usually, the market allows me to satisfy my need. IF I
> am willing to pay more for all 20 than those that want one are willing
> to, in other words, demonstrating that my need is greater.
*sigh* I really wrote:
--
My personal view is that it's nicer to give 20 people 1 thing, than give 1
person 20 things (related specifically to Lego deals in this example). That
doesn't logically extend to saying that the one person who has the 20 things is
bad, or has less right to them. I think that attitude would be unreasonable.
--
> Now, note that in this instance, we didn't have an open market, we have
> something different, which is a scarce resource allocation problem and
> Paul chose to allocate as he saw fit, selling goods below the market
> clearing price.
>
> So in that case, why is it wrong for Paul to allocate goods as he sees
> fit? They are his goods, after all.
I think the snipped bit should cover it. (1)
Richard
(1) But will probably be mis-read again - if you want to know my opinion then
ask for it. *Please* don't assume that if I give my personal viewpoint, then
automatically I place a negative value-judgement on all different viewpoints.
It's a grey grey world, it's too easy to pretend that there's only black and
white. If you want to know - I support you on the BH issue, I'd also like, in
general, a fairer distribution of good Lego deals; an impossible conflict? Not
at all - just because one thing is good, it doesn't make the other one bad.
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
| (...) Bah, you've got the bigger sigh, you win. No more sighing for me then. *sulk* I was responding mostly to: (...) Which I read as you saying that I said it was wrong/bad whatever, but I've confused myself now, and it's probably not that (...) (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
| Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) computers (...) One problem here is that there are two mostly separate issues. The first issue is given people have money and good have prices, is the distribution of those goods fair. The second issue is (...) (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
| <FM5Cyw.4v7@lugnet.com> <slrn84eoh3.3kp.cjc@...s.utk.edu> <FM77oM.12J@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Right, it's with you for being a slacker and not earning enough to buy it! <grins, (...) (25 years ago, 4-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
| (...) Why? In other words, why is my need for 20 any LESS valid than anyone elses need for 1? Usually, the market allows me to satisfy my need. IF I am willing to pay more for all 20 than those that want one are willing to, in other words, (...) (25 years ago, 2-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
163 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
|
|
|
|
