Quote: Original post by SeraphLance
Then again, I don't think it's something that should be illegal. If they want to take advantage of people unwilling to do their own research, whatever. I just won't shop there.

So are you saying that you do research on every single thing you purchase? Because if you do, you're a liar.

No one has that kind of time. I'm sick and tired of being lied to by every salesman on the planet. I'm sick of having to research everything I buy before I buy it to prevent getting screwed. How much time does humanity as a whole waste researching things to prevent from getting screwed, or working to get the money they're getting screwed out of?


Society would be a lot further along if we didn't have to deal with bullshit like this.

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
So are you saying that you do research on every single thing you purchase?

Stop. Stop right here. Examine this sentence, and see if you can find what seems like an obvious flaw in this line of thinking. I'll give you a hint: It's one of the most common formal fallacies in usage.

Quote: Society would be a lot further along if we didn't have to deal with bullshit like this.

Isn't it a bit arrogant to project a direction for a society that lacks a fundamental aspect of human nature?

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
So are you saying that you do research on every single thing you purchase? Because if you do, you're a liar.

I'll have to call you out on that, on the grounds that either you're just plain wrong, expecting way more research than is needed for most things, or are just plain overly materialistic and likely own way too much crap.


I research just about everything I buy, or I buy it for the purpose of research.

How do I do this? Easy, I don't buy a lot of junk I don't really need. I couldn't tell you the last time I went out to a store and bought something randomly. I also basically never go 'shopping', rather I go to a store to buy something. I go into a store knowing what product I want, how much it costs, how much similar products run for, and hopefully have a rough idea of where it is.

Just how much junk do you buy that you can't take time and effort into working out if it is a fair deal or not?

>>I research just about everything I buy, or I buy it for the purpose of research.

Ive always wondered who those ppl are in the supermarkets studying the packet contents closely(*) :)


(*)actually I do this somewhat, esp if I see food with a product of china, I normally dont buy it

Quote: Original post by zedz
Ive always wondered who those ppl are in the supermarkets studying the packet contents closely(*) :)

I do that because I've got allergies to a number of artificial colours, and it's amazing what manufacturers put them into. I've had to switch brands of biscuits several times due to the makers silently adding tartrazine to their recipe.

What is really annoying is that under Australian law they don't need to put an ingredient list on medication (I guess it's not classified as a food). When I've got a head cold or a sore throat, the last thing I need is a lozenge laced with colours I'm allergic to. Talk about the cure being worse than the disease.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
Prices are not value, prices are a communication of relative value between individuals. Geeksquad clearly values staying in the office more than (InstallationPrice - 1) dollars. A person clearly values having a Geeksquad employee install their PS3 more than (InstallationPrice) dollars. Trade fundamentally requires two parties who value a good or service differently; trade is not possible if everyone values everything exactly the same. If I'm selling boxes of cookies for $5 each, that means I value boxes of cookies at less than $5, that I would prefer to have $5 than I would to have a box of cookies. If you buy this box of cookies, it means you value the box of cookies MORE than $5, that you would prefer to have the box of cookies than you would to have the $5. Even in the simplest of trade arrangements, someone is paying more in dollars for an item than other person would, given the circumstances. The fact that we are both not forced into this transaction is what makes it absolutely fair, and why trade is always a win-win proposition. At the end of the transaction, we both got something we valued more than what we had before. Some people may even be competent enough to do it and STILL take the service, just because they are busy individuals who value their time more than X dollar bills.

There's more to the fairness of a transaction than the question of whether it was freely conducted. The degree of freedom of the transaction is no guarantee against fraud, waste or abuse. Given the circumstances of preference, it's only win-win under certain conditions. The absence of coercion is just one aspect among the many aspects of fairness.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
Prices are not value, prices are a communication of relative value between individuals. Geeksquad clearly values staying in the office more than (InstallationPrice - 1) dollars. A person clearly values having a Geeksquad employee install their PS3 more than (InstallationPrice) dollars. Trade fundamentally requires two parties who value a good or service differently; trade is not possible if everyone values everything exactly the same. If I'm selling boxes of cookies for $5 each, that means I value boxes of cookies at less than $5, that I would prefer to have $5 than I would to have a box of cookies. If you buy this box of cookies, it means you value the box of cookies MORE than $5, that you would prefer to have the box of cookies than you would to have the $5. Even in the simplest of trade arrangements, someone is paying more in dollars for an item than other person would, given the circumstances. The fact that we are both not forced into this transaction is what makes it absolutely fair, and why trade is always a win-win proposition. At the end of the transaction, we both got something we valued more than what we had before. Some people may even be competent enough to do it and STILL take the service, just because they are busy individuals who value their time more than X dollar bills.

There's more to the fairness of a transaction than the question of whether it was freely conducted. The degree of freedom of the transaction is no guarantee against fraud, waste or abuse. Given the circumstances of preference, it's only win-win under certain conditions. The absence of coercion is just one aspect among the many aspects of fairness.

For example? A transaction freely entered is also freely abstained.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
Prices are not value, prices are a communication of relative value between individuals. Geeksquad clearly values staying in the office more than (InstallationPrice - 1) dollars. A person clearly values having a Geeksquad employee install their PS3 more than (InstallationPrice) dollars. Trade fundamentally requires two parties who value a good or service differently; trade is not possible if everyone values everything exactly the same. If I'm selling boxes of cookies for $5 each, that means I value boxes of cookies at less than $5, that I would prefer to have $5 than I would to have a box of cookies. If you buy this box of cookies, it means you value the box of cookies MORE than $5, that you would prefer to have the box of cookies than you would to have the $5. Even in the simplest of trade arrangements, someone is paying more in dollars for an item than other person would, given the circumstances. The fact that we are both not forced into this transaction is what makes it absolutely fair, and why trade is always a win-win proposition. At the end of the transaction, we both got something we valued more than what we had before. Some people may even be competent enough to do it and STILL take the service, just because they are busy individuals who value their time more than X dollar bills.

There's more to the fairness of a transaction than the question of whether it was freely conducted. The degree of freedom of the transaction is no guarantee against fraud, waste or abuse. Given the circumstances of preference, it's only win-win under certain conditions. The absence of coercion is just one aspect among the many aspects of fairness.

For example? A transaction freely entered is also freely abstained.

Deliberately holding back information or even giving out false information about a product. In case of the Geeksquad service, I assume they tell me exactly what I get for my money, which allows me to assess whether it's a fair trade from my perspective.

If I value and buy a second hand car based on its condition and milage, and I later find out that the odometer has been tampered with, I don't think I got a fair deal. It's illegal for exactly that reason.

Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid

Quote: Original post by zedz
Ive always wondered who those ppl are in the supermarkets studying the packet contents closely(*) :)

I do that because I've got allergies to a number of artificial colours, and it's amazing what manufacturers put them into. I've had to switch brands of biscuits several times due to the makers silently adding tartrazine to their recipe

ha you pawned me (or whatever the term is)

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
Prices are not value, prices are a communication of relative value between individuals. Geeksquad clearly values staying in the office more than (InstallationPrice - 1) dollars. A person clearly values having a Geeksquad employee install their PS3 more than (InstallationPrice) dollars. Trade fundamentally requires two parties who value a good or service differently; trade is not possible if everyone values everything exactly the same. If I'm selling boxes of cookies for $5 each, that means I value boxes of cookies at less than $5, that I would prefer to have $5 than I would to have a box of cookies. If you buy this box of cookies, it means you value the box of cookies MORE than $5, that you would prefer to have the box of cookies than you would to have the $5. Even in the simplest of trade arrangements, someone is paying more in dollars for an item than other person would, given the circumstances. The fact that we are both not forced into this transaction is what makes it absolutely fair, and why trade is always a win-win proposition. At the end of the transaction, we both got something we valued more than what we had before. Some people may even be competent enough to do it and STILL take the service, just because they are busy individuals who value their time more than X dollar bills.

There's more to the fairness of a transaction than the question of whether it was freely conducted. The degree of freedom of the transaction is no guarantee against fraud, waste or abuse. Given the circumstances of preference, it's only win-win under certain conditions. The absence of coercion is just one aspect among the many aspects of fairness.

For example? A transaction freely entered is also freely abstained.

A stitch in time saves nine.

One cliche deserves another. [smile]

The freedom of the transaction does not guarantee the fairness of the transaction. This is confirmed by the development of rules structuring transactions in ways that facilitate fairness.

Have you ever returned a faulty product for a refund?

Let's say you buy a new video card, take it home, install it only to find that it doesn't work, it's damaged and needs to be replaced. So you take the card back to the store where you bought it seeking a replacement or a refund but the clerk says to you, "No one forced you to buy the broken card. Sorry, fair is fair!" Do you think the clerk is right? Do you think the purchase of the card was fair? Now, you might claim the purchase was fair and while you didn't receive the value that you thought you had received, you learned not to shop at that store again. But that does not make the transaction fair. You weren't shopping for the experience of getting ripped off by an unscrupulous business but you had to pay for it anyway and pay more for it than what you valued it before the transaction. And that violates the transaction evaluation formulas you spelled out earlier.