Lawrence Edward Richard
-
Posts
35 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Lawrence Edward Richard
-
-
The intelligent answers from deep thinkers on here make the debate worth it, especially when I don’t agree.
-
No David, I point you to E.P. Thompson - left winger though he undoubtedly was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_economy
The natural force is the market! The natural force is the creator and his distribution or distributors. A redistributor who inserts himself in the middle of this is just a moocher. Did he make it? No. Does he distribute it? No. It was in the shops anyway. Did the redistributor cause the shortage? No, he just contributed to it.
If the maker of the toilet paper has an increase in demand he can make more. If his sales department or the shops selling it want to then they will charge more. But here is the part you miss. You miss the opportunistic parasitical motives of the gouger. Their long term plan is not to sell toilet paper per se, just to live off the perceived need for things that people are panic buying or fall into short supply, and to aggravate that. Like all parasites if it kills its host it loses. So if they charge too much they lose their money. If they annoy the majority of buyers by clearly putting the price up on something that confers no benefit with that price increase, then they will lose their money. It is a natural justice.
What is really funny here is that you can state that they are free to do it. Yes they are.
You can state there was no natural force that meant those supplies should always be there. No there isn't but there is a natural force that is the judgement of other men, and in England that means fair play. Its deep rooted and might fly in the face of what is... but it seems to take an effect on those who don't recognise it.
But if there is a certain amount of food on a table and someone who not just takes what they need but also as much as they can grab to sell to others at inflated prices they wouldn't have paid, is a hypocrite. I hear what you are saying, its very interesting.
I would not pay them a penny and did not.
I do not choose to trade with parasites rather than creators. I will do without first.
(At the end of AS Rearden says Dagny's freight charges will take the shirty off his back but is okay with it. Why? Because Dagny will due to her brilliance be the only game in town. A gouger is more like Orren Boyle. They will take another's work and try to make it pay for them regardless of whether in the longterm it will lead to disaster. A business that is not planning to stick around except to show up for short periods to rip people off isnt a business at all.)
-
With the greatest of respect 2046 if I find people are buying up supplies that are already being panic purchased and that there is no toilet roll to be had, and then I find some fool trying to sell it online for 5 x the price then I won't purchase it then either. Most people won't. There is such a thing as a moral economy that predates modern capitalism and marxism.
I don't believe the local jokers on Facebook who purchased up what toilet roll was in the shops and tried to sell it for stupid money:
A. Got anyone to be STUPID enough to pay them, it was ridiculously overpriced.
B. Added any value in terms of geographical deliveries or availability to those who were desperate and would pay more.
A seller cannot be both the creator of shortage and the saviour. You can't stand over someone having removed a product that was not yours to sell in the first instance by having bulk purchased and then stand over a person who is desperate to have a crap going, 'You'll pay that £20 for a roll of Andrex now...' It won't work for long.
You are FREE to try any innovation you wish, but you don't get to hide from the judgement of others or consequences. Yes Objectivists should form their own judgements but they can't force others to give them money. That's the beauty of it.
-
Except Communists detest the Bible and any God but the 'people'. But I can't deny that the bible teaches people to see themselves as sacrificial creatures.
The thing that always disgusts me most about Christianity is the way it tries to sell unnecessary suffering as virtuous with hairshirts, or Father Salvatore's boots in the Kappillan of Malta. Physical comfort is seen as 'bad' per se.
Championing pain is indefensible and is part of the reason why Mother Teresa let a lot of her 'patients' suffer agonies when medication was available. Suffering was seen as refining the soul. How on Earth Christianity can claim to be champions of moral good when they made such an evil woman a Saint is beyond me. Champions of NOTHING. Truthfully the Pope seems to be a nice chap but his Church is built on very weak foundations of brainwashing and cult worship.
----------
As for the OP about the Bible not advocating for force. From Jesus that is pretty much the case but the rest of the Bible is about blood and guts and physical punishment to a terrifying degree.
-
The problem with the tracing app makes me laugh when Facebook already does this with far higher figures than any government app could and to be honest, do you trust Facebook? I don't but use it anyway.
Also worth pointing out the contact app would only be used until the Covid epidemic is over. Unless its rebranded to show us all what we'd look like old, young, or with a dog's head, or as a cartoon, people are unlikely to continue with it.
-
I agree, but also the person who has to raise their costs to make the same profit is giving value for value and if he could guarantee supply that would be a value too that might command a premium. But if a businessman takes the mickey and goes too far they will pay with those who won't shop in the future.
The world has a way of repaying theft, and he will pay it back or go bust.
-
Hello whYNOT
I agree with your post.
Not reacting as a group using a democratic system of address and a level of compliance that respects the reality of the virus is a recipe for disaster.
Wishing for something does not make it so, and the virus is the virus.
One hopes businesses will survive this pandemic, which doesn't care about politics or freedom so long as it can spread.
-
Sometimes the rational objective way to deal with a virus that uses groups to spread, is to respond to it as a group, or manage the group at least. Otherwise we can all have fun being independent, contagious, and infected.
When a person decides to take part in a time bound and specific group endeavour, and when there is a majority in favour (witness a democratic election for an example of this path of least evil) then it should take place - subject to its own inbuilt expiration date. Otherwise we get a tyrannical government, the rules stay even though the virus is gone, the dictator remains because the election isn't ever held again.
-
One thing an Objectivist should never do is try to capitalise on other's misfortune or a crisis unless they can add Value, otherwise something must be being stolen somewhere.
Its really very simple. They made themselves a middle man between the creator/seller and the buying public. They didn't add any value to the product, they didn't do anything to earn what they sought to take from that product, they are vampiric moocher. What Value do they have for sale? What did they add? Was it a mutual trade for mutual advantage?
No.
And a person who conducts their affairs in that way may be free to conduct their life as they will, but they will take the consequences of it when people choose to avoid them in future. That is the payment they will have to make.
Turns out those toilet rolls weren't such a bargain after all.
Did this “price gouger” do anything wrong?
in Ethics
Posted
Its interesting to read the various replies here.
Strictly Logical makes a list of good points. Can't argue with it.
Very very well thought out.