Quote: Original post by LessBread
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.

Is it fair to force some consumers to buy a return policy that they don't want? We still have the information of the store's return policy available to us before we make the purchase, and if they don't make that available to us, we can still walk away. Even if the store had a comprehensive return policy, we're still paying the time-cost of getting the card replaced, which is significant for many people. That's something that I take into consideration as a consumer, and I should hope other people do too.

Are there not risks* in all transactions at all levels in all economic systems? Even putting a quarter into a gumball machine has the risk of ending up with a crappy gumball. Even a cradle-to-grave socialist system has the risk of the government going completely bankrupt. When you describe how free trade has risk, really, isn't that just saying life has risks? On the other hand, free trade makes is possible for people to distribute their costs (risk, time, dollars, etc.) according to their own personal needs, rather than having that dictated to them. So again, is it fair to force consumers to value time or risk in different proportions to dollars than they are naturally inclined?

Every cost must be paid eventually, it's just not possible to ignore costs, the only question is who pays for price. The store with the comprehensive return policy is going to have to charge higher margins in order to cover returns, spreading the cost of returns across all consumers. You might consider that "fair", another person might not. While I don't mind paying extra at a store with a comprehensive return policy, someone else may be willing to take the extra risk of buying from a cheaper store with no return policy. In an alternative world where stores are forced to have a comprehensive return policy by law, that option of extra risk for fewer dollars is removed for that consumer.



*what is risk? I think a fairly good definition would be to call risk the imposition of a mean distribution to all other costs. The lower the standard deviation of costs for time/money/widgets, the lower the risk. Risk, being an uncertainty factor on all other costs, can then be managed as a cost for the individual purposes of the consumer. Sports betting demonstrates this nicely, as one can readily spend extra dollars on teasers to reduce risk on one's bet.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread
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.

Is it fair to force some consumers to buy a return policy that they don't want?

That depends on who consumes and what they consume. Does the store price of a bottle of shampoo include a portion of the cost of a return policy on that bottle? At any rate, do you think the clerk is right? "No one forced you to buy the broken card. Sorry, fair is fair!"

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
We still have the information of the store's return policy available to us before we make the purchase, and if they don't make that available to us, we can still walk away. Even if the store had a comprehensive return policy, we're still paying the time-cost of getting the card replaced, which is significant for many people. That's something that I take into consideration as a consumer, and I should hope other people do too.

The time cost of the replacement increases the sales price the buyer agreed to in the original transaction, again violating the transaction evaluation formulas you spelled out earlier. The buyer valued the card more than the money. He did not necessarily value the card more than the money and the time it would cost him to replace the card. He pays more for the card than what he agreed to in the original transaction. The transaction was free but turned out not to be fair. Q.E.D.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
Are there not risks* in all transactions at all levels in all economic systems? Even putting a quarter into a gumball machine has the risk of ending up with a crappy gumball. Even a cradle-to-grave socialist system has the risk of the government going completely bankrupt. When you describe how free trade has risk, really, isn't that just saying life has risks? On the other hand, free trade makes is possible for people to distribute their costs (risk, time, dollars, etc.) according to their own personal needs, rather than having that dictated to them. So again, is it fair to force consumers to value time or risk in different proportions to dollars than they are naturally inclined?

Every cost must be paid eventually, it's just not possible to ignore costs, the only question is who pays for price. The store with the comprehensive return policy is going to have to charge higher margins in order to cover returns, spreading the cost of returns across all consumers. You might consider that "fair", another person might not. While I don't mind paying extra at a store with a comprehensive return policy, someone else may be willing to take the extra risk of buying from a cheaper store with no return policy. In an alternative world where stores are forced to have a comprehensive return policy by law, that option of extra risk for fewer dollars is removed for that consumer.

If the absence of coercion was the only thing necessary to ensure the fairness of a transaction there would be no need for contracts or for negotiating the terms of a transaction before making the transaction and finally completing it. Fairness hinges around negotiation, several negotiations ultimately. The absence of coercion is only one of many negotiations made during the course of a transaction.

Free trade is not life. (Obedience brings victory -- Victory is life! - [lol])

There's no such thing as free trade. All trades are conditioned. That said, are you claiming that free trade enables some individuals to distribute their costs according to their own personal needs rather than to the needs dictated by society? Free trade enables some individuals to burden society with their costs. How interesting!

"Is it fair to force consumers to value time or risk in different proportions to dollars than they are naturally inclined?"

That question assumes that consumers have a natural inclination to value time and/or risk in proportion to dollars. Is it fair to force consumers to adopt valuations different from the valuations they have a natural inclination for? How might such a forcing occur? Wait - that's right - forcing them to pay more for the product than they otherwise would. They might want to take the risk. They might be naturally inclined to take risks and interfering with their natural inclinations wouldn't be fair. Is that it?

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
*what is risk? I think a fairly good definition would be to call risk the imposition of a mean distribution to all other costs. The lower the standard deviation of costs for time/money/widgets, the lower the risk. Risk, being an uncertainty factor on all other costs, can then be managed as a cost for the individual purposes of the consumer. Sports betting demonstrates this nicely, as one can readily spend extra dollars on teasers to reduce risk on one's bet.

Casino capitalism? [grin]

Quote: Original post by LessBread
That depends on who consumes and what they consume. Does the store price of a bottle of shampoo include a portion of the cost of a return policy on that bottle? At any rate, do you think the clerk is right? "No one forced you to buy the broken card. Sorry, fair is fair!"

The price of everything in the store contains within it a proportion of every cost of running the store. And yes, the clerk would be right. If I bought the card, I would have been aware of the store's return policy. How fair is it for me to go back to the store and demand a refund when the expectation of one was never provided, or even advertised as explicitly unavailable?

Quote:
The time cost of the replacement increases the sales price the buyer agreed to in the original transaction, again violating the transaction evaluation formulas you spelled out earlier. The buyer valued the card more than the money. He did not necessarily value the card more than the money and the time it would cost him to replace the card. He pays more for the card than what he agreed to in the original transaction. The transaction was free but turned out not to be fair. Q.E.D.

Even buying from the most reputable dealer there is a chance that the item will be defective. The risk of item failure is part of the cost analysis. For example, I personally refuse to buy mini florescent light bulbs. I have never had one last longer than a normal incandescent bulb and they are more expensive both in dollars and in time (when considering under-warranty replacements) than incandescents. Is it "fair" that my florescent bulb burnt out before its time? Is it "fair" that it rains today when I had planned to go on a picnic? I then chose not to go through the process to replace it, meaning I'm out a light bulb. Who was unfair to me? Myself? The gremlins who blew my bulb?

Quote:
If the absence of coercion was the only thing necessary to ensure the fairness of a transaction there would be no need for contracts or for negotiating the terms of a transaction before making the transaction and finally completing it. Fairness hinges around negotiation, several negotiations ultimately.

Can negotiation be divorced from communication? When does negotiation end at understanding what is being offered and begin at altering the fairness of the transaction? If you're negotiating for "more fairness", what are you offering to receive it?

Does the fact that a car was sold at $14K mean it is unfair to people who bought it for $15K? Does the fact that a PS3 is sold at $300 today mean it was unfair to people who paid more a year ago? If so, then thousands of dollars for a limited edition comic book is "unfair". You would have to also admit that progressive tax schemes are unfair. I think they are unfair because they are coerced on threat of violence, but if you're arguing that negotiation, i.e. price discrimination, can make a transaction "more fair", then it necessarily must have a "less fair" component.

Quote:
The absence of coercion is only one of many negotiations made during the course of a transaction.

Try negotiating with someone on being truthful about their status as a liar.

Quote:
Free trade is not life.

Free trade is nothing more than the interaction of people. It may not be life, but it is certainly this thing we call "society". "The nation", "the economy", "the market", "society", "the neighborhood", they are all non-entities, labels applied to individuals acting in the context of personal interaction, of which we study in aggregate.

Quote:
There's no such thing as free trade. All trades are conditioned.

If it weren't conditioned, it would be "free take". Conditions are what make it trade, "I will give you this, if you will give me that." What makes it free is whether or not I use the word "if" in that sentence.

I might go so far as to say that there are exceedingly few cases of non-free trade, that there are primarily only distortions of cost. Illicit drugs in prohibitive jurisdictions are not impossible to obtain, they are merely obtained at high cost. When the government applies a sales tax to consumer items, stores weigh the alternative costs of noncompliance with the sales tax law versus the loss of business from the increase in prices. Without mind control devices, we are free to make whatever choice we desire. The ultimate choice is based on our cost analysis.

Citizenship, and the taxes associated with it, is not free trade, because most people are not afforded the opportunity to select their country of residence. These taxes are then coerced under threat of prison in a situation outside of the control of the person.

The only costs you have no control over are the random costs of nature: death, disaster, disease. Yet death eventually strikes everyone; is that not fair?

Quote:
That said, are you claiming that free trade enables some individuals to distribute their costs according to their own personal needs rather than to the needs dictated by society? Free trade enables some individuals to burden society with their costs. How interesting!

Negative externalities occur because the true cost of the transaction is obfuscated into the "common" where property right is not assigned properly/is ignored, thereby preventing the evaluation of infringement on that property. If I dump toxic waste on my neighbor's land, I have taken from him the value of his property, I have not traded with him. Free trade cannot burden society with an unwanted cost because trade is not free if a participant (so called "society") is not willing. Thus, free trade requires the framework of strict property rights. Without the right to deny others access to one's property, one cannot demand compensation for that property.

Quote:
"Is it fair to force consumers to value time or risk in different proportions to dollars than they are naturally inclined?"

That question assumes that consumers have a natural inclination to value time and/or risk in proportion to dollars.

I think it's a fair assumption based on being a basic definition of preference.

Quote: Is it fair to force consumers to adopt valuations different from the valuations they have a natural inclination for? How might such a forcing occur? Wait - that's right - forcing them to pay more for the product than they otherwise would. They might want to take the risk. They might be naturally inclined to take risks and interfering with their natural inclinations wouldn't be fair. Is that it?

Forcing someone to adopt different valuations is done by removing the choices available to them. For example, if the government were to pass a regulation requiring everyone to buy corn only directly from farmers, then it could make the monetary component of the price corn drop, as there would be fewer costs associated with the corn, but the time component of the price of corn skyrocket, as people would have to drive to the farm instead of the store to get their corn. This action does not force me to pay more for corn than I am naturally inclined; it forces me to abstain from buying corn, because corn has gotten too expensive. Or perhaps I'm unemployed and my time does not have a very high monetary conversion, in which case I will buy more corn.

I've tried to reply to all of your post, but it's getting late and I can't see straight now.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread
That depends on who consumes and what they consume. Does the store price of a bottle of shampoo include a portion of the cost of a return policy on that bottle? At any rate, do you think the clerk is right? "No one forced you to buy the broken card. Sorry, fair is fair!"

The price of everything in the store contains within it a proportion of every cost of running the store. And yes, the clerk would be right. If I bought the card, I would have been aware of the store's return policy. How fair is it for me to go back to the store and demand a refund when the expectation of one was never provided, or even advertised as explicitly unavailable?

How fair is a refund? As fair as the original transaction it reverses. If the store doesn't make clear to it's customers that all purchases are as is and all purchases are final, if it doesn't advertise that refunds are explicitly unavailable, that store isn't negotiating in good faith. That store is lying to potential customers about the terms of the transactions it conducts while doing business. The clerk would be wrong. There's more to the fairness of a transaction than the absence of coercion as the existence of warranties, refunds, etc demonstrate.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote:
The time cost of the replacement increases the sales price the buyer agreed to in the original transaction, again violating the transaction evaluation formulas you spelled out earlier. The buyer valued the card more than the money. He did not necessarily value the card more than the money and the time it would cost him to replace the card. He pays more for the card than what he agreed to in the original transaction. The transaction was free but turned out not to be fair. Q.E.D.

Even buying from the most reputable dealer there is a chance that the item will be defective. The risk of item failure is part of the cost analysis. For example, I personally refuse to buy mini florescent light bulbs. I have never had one last longer than a normal incandescent bulb and they are more expensive both in dollars and in time (when considering under-warranty replacements) than incandescents. Is it "fair" that my florescent bulb burnt out before its time? Is it "fair" that it rains today when I had planned to go on a picnic? I then chose not to go through the process to replace it, meaning I'm out a light bulb. Who was unfair to me? Myself? The gremlins who blew my bulb?

I just destroyed your argument and all you've got in response is an flimsy explanation for why you won't by mini florescent light bulbs? Can you do better than that?

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote:
If the absence of coercion was the only thing necessary to ensure the fairness of a transaction there would be no need for contracts or for negotiating the terms of a transaction before making the transaction and finally completing it. Fairness hinges around negotiation, several negotiations ultimately.

Can negotiation be divorced from communication? When does negotiation end at understanding what is being offered and begin at altering the fairness of the transaction? If you're negotiating for "more fairness", what are you offering to receive it?

Yes negotiation can be divorced from communication. For the most part a customer in a store doesn't negotiate the price of each thing he or she purchases. The negotiations are taken for granted as they take the form of policies and laws and other mechanisms developed to ensure the fairness of a transaction. These negotiations sought fairness, not more fairness. The distinction is subtle, can you grasp it?

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
Does the fact that a car was sold at $14K mean it is unfair to people who bought it for $15K? Does the fact that a PS3 is sold at $300 today mean it was unfair to people who paid more a year ago? If so, then thousands of dollars for a limited edition comic book is "unfair". You would have to also admit that progressive tax schemes are unfair. I think they are unfair because they are coerced on threat of violence, but if you're arguing that negotiation, i.e. price discrimination, can make a transaction "more fair", then it necessarily must have a "less fair" component.

I don't think you understand the issues under discussion. The fairness of a transaction is not determined by the relative positions on the price gradient of the parties involved in the transaction. You seem to be repeating yourself with the questions you pose here, perhaps to set yourself up to make a rhetorical attack on "progressive tax schemes" -- ooh those progressive schemers! The fairness of a transaction is not determined by the absence of coercion as I've demonstrated. The fairness of a transaction can't be quantified and measured. A transaction is either fair or it's not.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote:
The absence of coercion is only one of many negotiations made during the course of a transaction.

Try negotiating with someone on being truthful about their status as a liar.

Try negotiating with someone on being truthful about their status as a truth teller.

Have you got a better response to the statement?

The absence of coercion is only one of many negotiations made during the course of a transaction.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote:
Free trade is not life.

Free trade is nothing more than the interaction of people. It may not be life, but it is certainly this thing we call "society". "The nation", "the economy", "the market", "society", "the neighborhood", they are all non-entities, labels applied to individuals acting in the context of personal interaction, of which we study in aggregate.

Free trade is none of that. Free trade is an empty slogan used to build support for a particular set of economic arrangements.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote:
There's no such thing as free trade. All trades are conditioned.

If it weren't conditioned, it would be "free take". Conditions are what make it trade, "I will give you this, if you will give me that." What makes it free is whether or not I use the word "if" in that sentence.

What does not exist can not be conditioned. There's no such thing as free trade. Trades are conducted under varying conditions of freedom. There's more to that variety than whether or not the word "if" is employed. Will you give me that for this?

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
I might go so far as to say that there are exceedingly few cases of non-free trade, that there are primarily only distortions of cost. Illicit drugs in prohibitive jurisdictions are not impossible to obtain, they are merely obtained at high cost. When the government applies a sales tax to consumer items, stores weigh the alternative costs of noncompliance with the sales tax law versus the loss of business from the increase in prices. Without mind control devices, we are free to make whatever choice we desire. The ultimate choice is based on our cost analysis.

Citizenship, and the taxes associated with it, is not free trade, because most people are not afforded the opportunity to select their country of residence. These taxes are then coerced under threat of prison in a situation outside of the control of the person.

The only costs you have no control over are the random costs of nature: death, disaster, disease. Yet death eventually strikes everyone; is that not fair?

You're exposing the ideological foundation of your arguments. Talk about free trade and the absence of coercion is more about setting the ground work for not paying taxes than it is about anything else.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote:
That said, are you claiming that free trade enables some individuals to distribute their costs according to their own personal needs rather than to the needs dictated by society? Free trade enables some individuals to burden society with their costs. How interesting!

Negative externalities occur because the true cost of the transaction is obfuscated into the "common" where property right is not assigned properly/is ignored, thereby preventing the evaluation of infringement on that property. If I dump toxic waste on my neighbor's land, I have taken from him the value of his property, I have not traded with him. Free trade cannot burden society with an unwanted cost because trade is not free if a participant (so called "society") is not willing. Thus, free trade requires the framework of strict property rights. Without the right to deny others access to one's property, one cannot demand compensation for that property.

If the true cost is obfuscated then the original transaction wasn't fair even though it may have been free. That is what I argued earlier and what you're arguing now. Have you conceded that point? And you're still arguing that free trade enables some individuals to burden society with their costs, only now you're saying those costs are wanted costs rather than unwanted costs. Free trade requires quite an imagination, I'll give you that.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote:
"Is it fair to force consumers to value time or risk in different proportions to dollars than they are naturally inclined?"

That question assumes that consumers have a natural inclination to value time and/or risk in proportion to dollars.

I think it's a fair assumption based on being a basic definition of preference.

So the inclination to value time and/or risk in proportion to dollars is genetic? Are you saying that there is a genetic component to consumer preference?

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Is it fair to force consumers to adopt valuations different from the valuations they have a natural inclination for? How might such a forcing occur? Wait - that's right - forcing them to pay more for the product than they otherwise would. They might want to take the risk. They might be naturally inclined to take risks and interfering with their natural inclinations wouldn't be fair. Is that it?

Forcing someone to adopt different valuations is done by removing the choices available to them. For example, if the government were to pass a regulation requiring everyone to buy corn only directly from farmers, then it could make the monetary component of the price corn drop, as there would be fewer costs associated with the corn, but the time component of the price of corn skyrocket, as people would have to drive to the farm instead of the store to get their corn. This action does not force me to pay more for corn than I am naturally inclined; it forces me to abstain from buying corn, because corn has gotten too expensive. Or perhaps I'm unemployed and my time does not have a very high monetary conversion, in which case I will buy more corn.

Or perhaps you don't have a car so you couldn't drive to the farm even if you wanted to. Unemployed or not, you won't be buying any corn.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
I've tried to reply to all of your post, but it's getting late and I can't see straight now.

Thanks. You don't need to stay up late for this.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
How fair is a refund? As fair as the original transaction it reverses. If the store doesn't make clear to it's customers that all purchases are as is and all purchases are final, if it doesn't advertise that refunds are explicitly unavailable, that store isn't negotiating in good faith. That store is lying to potential customers about the terms of the transactions it conducts while doing business.

Sure, so why are you shopping there? Because you aren't forced to shop there, if you thought the conditions weren't fair, you wouldn't be shopping there. On the other hand, if the store told you they had a comprehensive return policy, your item broke, and they reneged on the return policy, then they used trickery to force you to behave in an involuntary manner, that involuntary manner being buying an item without a return policy. In societies with laws that respect the notion of free trade, the consumer has recourse to seek compensation.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The clerk would be wrong. There's more to the fairness of a transaction than the absence of coercion as the existence of warranties, refunds, etc demonstrate.

you buy the warranty with the item. It is a part of the product. You don't buy the product and the warranty is just included out of altruism. The warranty is a value-add. This is easy to see because items with more comprehensive warranties are more expensive than others. Abstaining from taking a warranty with your purchase does not make any subsequent breakage unfair because you entered into the transaction freely, you knew what the potential consequences of not taking a warranty were.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The time cost of the replacement increases the sales price the buyer agreed to in the original transaction, again violating the transaction evaluation formulas you spelled out earlier. The buyer valued the card more than the money. He did not necessarily value the card more than the money and the time it would cost him to replace the card. He pays more for the card than what he agreed to in the original transaction. The transaction was free but turned out not to be fair. Q.E.D.

Even buying from the most reputable dealer there is a chance that the item will be defective. The risk of item failure is part of the cost analysis. For example, I personally refuse to buy mini florescent light bulbs. I have never had one last longer than a normal incandescent bulb and they are more expensive both in dollars and in time (when considering under-warranty replacements) than incandescents. Is it "fair" that my florescent bulb burnt out before its time? Is it "fair" that it rains today when I had planned to go on a picnic? I then chose not to go through the process to replace it, meaning I'm out a light bulb. Who was unfair to me? Myself? The gremlins who blew my bulb?

I just destroyed your argument and all you've got in response is an flimsy explanation for why you won't by mini florescent light bulbs? Can you do better than that?

you're arguing that the cost has changed after the fact. I'm arguing that the cost was understood from the beginning, because there was an expectation of a chance of failure. You haven't destroyed the argument because you haven't demonstrated a situation that lacked coercion but was also unfair. The time cost of replacing the lightbulb is why I don't buy the lightbulbs. If I *did* buy the lightbulb, then I could only do so after accepting the cost of replacing the bulb in the event of a failure. From the very beginning, I'm not spending just $10 on a lightbulb, I'm spending $10 and an expectation of replacing it.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread
If the absence of coercion was the only thing necessary to ensure the fairness of a transaction there would be no need for contracts or for negotiating the terms of a transaction before making the transaction and finally completing it. Fairness hinges around negotiation, several negotiations ultimately.

Can negotiation be divorced from communication? When does negotiation end at understanding what is being offered and begin at altering the fairness of the transaction? If you're negotiating for "more fairness", what are you offering to receive it?

Yes negotiation can be divorced from communication. For the most part a customer in a store doesn't negotiate the price of each thing he or she purchases. The negotiations are taken for granted as they take the form of policies and laws and other mechanisms developed to ensure the fairness of a transaction. These negotiations sought fairness, not more fairness. The distinction is subtle, can you grasp it?

If the contract were entered dishonestly, then one of the parties was engaging in coercion -- they used trickery to push one or more other parties into doing something they wouldn't do if they knew the reality of the situation. The contract does not make the parties involved act fairly. The contract documents expectations so that instances of coercion may be prosecuted. So -- absent coercion -- there would be no need to enforce the terms of any contracts, and therefore the arrangements would be fair, because again -- absent coercion -- why would you enter into an unfair arrangement?

And the consumer in a retail store certainly negotiates. They negotiate with their feet. "Are these prices good? No? Then I walk." If too many people are leaving the store over the prices, then the store must lower their prices.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
Does the fact that a car was sold at $14K mean it is unfair to people who bought it for $15K? Does the fact that a PS3 is sold at $300 today mean it was unfair to people who paid more a year ago? If so, then thousands of dollars for a limited edition comic book is "unfair". You would have to also admit that progressive tax schemes are unfair. I think they are unfair because they are coerced on threat of violence, but if you're arguing that negotiation, i.e. price discrimination, can make a transaction "more fair", then it necessarily must have a "less fair" component.

I don't think you understand the issues under discussion. The fairness of a transaction is not determined by the relative positions on the price gradient of the parties involved in the transaction.

actually, that *was* the point of the OP, that $120 for installing PS3s was unfair.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The absence of coercion is only one of many negotiations made during the course of a transaction.

Try negotiating with someone on being truthful about their status as a liar.

Try negotiating with someone on being truthful about their status as a truth teller.

Have you got a better response to the statement?

The absence of coercion is only one of many negotiations made during the course of a transaction.

What is there really to respond to? You've made a statement without backing it up with anything. In what cases can a trade arrangement be absent of coercion and still be unfair?

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread
That said, are you claiming that free trade enables some individuals to distribute their costs according to their own personal needs rather than to the needs dictated by society? Free trade enables some individuals to burden society with their costs. How interesting!

Negative externalities occur because the true cost of the transaction is obfuscated into the "common" where property right is not assigned properly/is ignored, thereby preventing the evaluation of infringement on that property. If I dump toxic waste on my neighbor's land, I have taken from him the value of his property, I have not traded with him. Free trade cannot burden society with an unwanted cost because trade is not free if a participant (so called "society") is not willing. Thus, free trade requires the framework of strict property rights. Without the right to deny others access to one's property, one cannot demand compensation for that property.

If the true cost is obfuscated then the original transaction wasn't fair even though it may have been free. That is what I argued earlier and what you're arguing now. Have you conceded that point? And you're still arguing that free trade enables some individuals to burden society with their costs, only now you're saying those costs are wanted costs rather than unwanted costs.

Not at all. I'm saying negative externalities are cases where society is coerced into a transaction, therefore trade arrangements that result in a negative externality are by definition not free trade arrangements. Conversely, if we are operating in absence of coercion in trade arrangements, then negative externalities are not possible.

Say the power company is building a coal power plant. The transaction of selling electricity to people in town is not just between the electricity consumer and the power company, it includes the people down-wind too. The negative impact of the pollution on the down-wind people is a cost that is forced upon them by the power company and the electricity consumer. Therefore, it wasn't a free trade arrangement. For it to have been a free trade arrangement, the power company could approach the down-wind people before the plant is finished and offer to move them somewhere up-wind, or to pay whatever "air rent" the remaining people deem appropriate. If this is too expensive for the power company, then they have the option to build a different type of power plant that doesn't impose those costs on other people. The only way this can be enforced is with strict property right law.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread
How fair is a refund? As fair as the original transaction it reverses. If the store doesn't make clear to it's customers that all purchases are as is and all purchases are final, if it doesn't advertise that refunds are explicitly unavailable, that store isn't negotiating in good faith. That store is lying to potential customers about the terms of the transactions it conducts while doing business.

Sure, so why are you shopping there? Because you aren't forced to shop there, if you thought the conditions weren't fair, you wouldn't be shopping there. On the other hand, if the store told you they had a comprehensive return policy, your item broke, and they reneged on the return policy, then they used trickery to force you to behave in an involuntary manner, that involuntary manner being buying an item without a return policy. In societies with laws that respect the notion of free trade, the consumer has recourse to seek compensation.

If you thought they would use trickery on you, yes, you wouldn't shop there. But since you did shop there, you must not have thought they would use trickery on you. I think most people have the experience that if the store doesn't post "as is" and "all sales final" signs in the appropriate places, then the store has a return policy. A store with those policies that doesn't post such signs, or doesn't make those conditions explicit, is engaging in trickery just as sure as the store that reneges on their return policy. One reason why "as is" and "all sales final" signs are posted is to warn customers ahead of time about the terms of the transactions conducted by that store. A store with those policies without such signs is not negotiating in good faith.

I also think it dubious to expand the definition of coercion to include trickery. That said, it seems to me that people who agree with that equivalence ought to be furiously upset with the psychological manipulations so prevalent in advertising today.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The clerk would be wrong. There's more to the fairness of a transaction than the absence of coercion as the existence of warranties, refunds, etc demonstrate.

you buy the warranty with the item. It is a part of the product. You don't buy the product and the warranty is just included out of altruism. The warranty is a value-add. This is easy to see because items with more comprehensive warranties are more expensive than others. Abstaining from taking a warranty with your purchase does not make any subsequent breakage unfair because you entered into the transaction freely, you knew what the potential consequences of not taking a warranty were.

Perhaps I haven't made my point clear. If the absence of coercion was all that was necessary to ensure the fairness of a transaction, then there would never have been a need to develop devices such as warranties, refunds and even contracts. The existence of these devices testifies to a deficiency in the definition of fairness that you have been defending.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The time cost of the replacement increases the sales price the buyer agreed to in the original transaction, again violating the transaction evaluation formulas you spelled out earlier. The buyer valued the card more than the money. He did not necessarily value the card more than the money and the time it would cost him to replace the card. He pays more for the card than what he agreed to in the original transaction. The transaction was free but turned out not to be fair. Q.E.D.

Even buying from the most reputable dealer there is a chance that the item will be defective. The risk of item failure is part of the cost analysis. For example, I personally refuse to buy mini florescent light bulbs. I have never had one last longer than a normal incandescent bulb and they are more expensive both in dollars and in time (when considering under-warranty replacements) than incandescents. Is it "fair" that my florescent bulb burnt out before its time? Is it "fair" that it rains today when I had planned to go on a picnic? I then chose not to go through the process to replace it, meaning I'm out a light bulb. Who was unfair to me? Myself? The gremlins who blew my bulb?

I just destroyed your argument and all you've got in response is an flimsy explanation for why you won't by mini florescent light bulbs? Can you do better than that?

you're arguing that the cost has changed after the fact. I'm arguing that the cost was understood from the beginning, because there was an expectation of a chance of failure. You haven't destroyed the argument because you haven't demonstrated a situation that lacked coercion but was also unfair. The time cost of replacing the lightbulb is why I don't buy the lightbulbs. If I *did* buy the lightbulb, then I could only do so after accepting the cost of replacing the bulb in the event of a failure. From the very beginning, I'm not spending just $10 on a lightbulb, I'm spending $10 and an expectation of replacing it.

It's not clear that the full cost was understood from the beginning. So too with your claims about the light bulbs. If someone with an interest opposed to that particular kind of light bulb told you that they burn out quickly and you believed them without further investigation, then your understanding about their full cost is likely misinformed. And given that every kind of light bulb burns out, every kind of light bulb carries a replacement cost. So there must be a significant difference between these kinds of light bulbs and other kinds of light bulbs that changes their replacement cost. The expectation that a light bulb will eventually burn out is different than the expectation that a supposedly new made bulb is actually a burned out bulb. People don't purchase light bulbs expecting to find them burned out when they open the box.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread
If the absence of coercion was the only thing necessary to ensure the fairness of a transaction there would be no need for contracts or for negotiating the terms of a transaction before making the transaction and finally completing it. Fairness hinges around negotiation, several negotiations ultimately.

Can negotiation be divorced from communication? When does negotiation end at understanding what is being offered and begin at altering the fairness of the transaction? If you're negotiating for "more fairness", what are you offering to receive it?

Yes negotiation can be divorced from communication. For the most part a customer in a store doesn't negotiate the price of each thing he or she purchases. The negotiations are taken for granted as they take the form of policies and laws and other mechanisms developed to ensure the fairness of a transaction. These negotiations sought fairness, not more fairness. The distinction is subtle, can you grasp it?

If the contract were entered dishonestly, then one of the parties was engaging in coercion -- they used trickery to push one or more other parties into doing something they wouldn't do if they knew the reality of the situation. The contract does not make the parties involved act fairly. The contract documents expectations so that instances of coercion may be prosecuted. So -- absent coercion -- there would be no need to enforce the terms of any contracts, and therefore the arrangements would be fair, because again -- absent coercion -- why would you enter into an unfair arrangement?

See my comments above regarding devices of fairness and dubious definitions of coercion.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
And the consumer in a retail store certainly negotiates. They negotiate with their feet. "Are these prices good? No? Then I walk." If too many people are leaving the store over the prices, then the store must lower their prices.

People negotiate with speech, not with walking. The phrase - "Are these prices good? No? Then I walk." - implies that every person walking past a store is involved in negotiating a transaction with that store and that is simply not the case. If you want to believe that, however, then you'll have to concede that the store imposes itself on every person walking past regardless of whether each person finds that imposition agreeable. For those who find this imposition disagreeable the negotiation itself constitutes a coercion. They either have to put up with it or find a new route. At any rate, a true negotiation would start with "Are these prices good? No? Then we talk."

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
Does the fact that a car was sold at $14K mean it is unfair to people who bought it for $15K? Does the fact that a PS3 is sold at $300 today mean it was unfair to people who paid more a year ago? If so, then thousands of dollars for a limited edition comic book is "unfair". You would have to also admit that progressive tax schemes are unfair. I think they are unfair because they are coerced on threat of violence, but if you're arguing that negotiation, i.e. price discrimination, can make a transaction "more fair", then it necessarily must have a "less fair" component.

I don't think you understand the issues under discussion. The fairness of a transaction is not determined by the relative positions on the price gradient of the parties involved in the transaction.

actually, that *was* the point of the OP, that $120 for installing PS3s was unfair.

I was referring to the issues that you and I have been discussing. You might have noticed that I haven't commented on Geeksquad or the OP. For the most part I agree with your comments regarding Geeksquad and what it charges to set up a PS3. My argument has been with the narrowness of the definition of fairness that you set forward In particular, the claim that fairness is inversely proportional to the amount of coercion present in the transaction and nothing more.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The absence of coercion is only one of many negotiations made during the course of a transaction.

Try negotiating with someone on being truthful about their status as a liar.

Try negotiating with someone on being truthful about their status as a truth teller.

Have you got a better response to the statement?

The absence of coercion is only one of many negotiations made during the course of a transaction.

What is there really to respond to? You've made a statement without backing it up with anything. In what cases can a trade arrangement be absent of coercion and still be unfair?

See above marked Q.E.D..

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread
That said, are you claiming that free trade enables some individuals to distribute their costs according to their own personal needs rather than to the needs dictated by society? Free trade enables some individuals to burden society with their costs. How interesting!

Negative externalities occur because the true cost of the transaction is obfuscated into the "common" where property right is not assigned properly/is ignored, thereby preventing the evaluation of infringement on that property. If I dump toxic waste on my neighbor's land, I have taken from him the value of his property, I have not traded with him. Free trade cannot burden society with an unwanted cost because trade is not free if a participant (so called "society") is not willing. Thus, free trade requires the framework of strict property rights. Without the right to deny others access to one's property, one cannot demand compensation for that property.

If the true cost is obfuscated then the original transaction wasn't fair even though it may have been free. That is what I argued earlier and what you're arguing now. Have you conceded that point? And you're still arguing that free trade enables some individuals to burden society with their costs, only now you're saying those costs are wanted costs rather than unwanted costs.

Not at all. I'm saying negative externalities are cases where society is coerced into a transaction, therefore trade arrangements that result in a negative externality are by definition not free trade arrangements. Conversely, if we are operating in absence of coercion in trade arrangements, then negative externalities are not possible.

Are you saying that society should be included as a third party to every transaction? If trades that result in negative externalities are not free trades by definition, then by that definition free trades can not exist because every trade imposes some burden on society however slight that burden might be.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
Say the power company is building a coal power plant. The transaction of selling electricity to people in town is not just between the electricity consumer and the power company, it includes the people down-wind too. The negative impact of the pollution on the down-wind people is a cost that is forced upon them by the power company and the electricity consumer. Therefore, it wasn't a free trade arrangement. For it to have been a free trade arrangement, the power company could approach the down-wind people before the plant is finished and offer to move them somewhere up-wind, or to pay whatever "air rent" the remaining people deem appropriate. If this is too expensive for the power company, then they have the option to build a different type of power plant that doesn't impose those costs on other people. The only way this can be enforced is with strict property right law.

That situation is highly idealized. In the real world power companies in that situation only approach down-wind people because government regulations require them to do so. And when the demands of the down-wind people are too expensive for the power company, they pay lobbyists to influence public officials to see things their way, to change the regulations, to loosen enforcement of the regulations, to let them do what they want while society pays for the damage. Strict property rights law won't prevent this from happening. On the contrary it will facilitate it by giving priority to the party that owns more property. The trouble with a strict property rights approach is that it gives more rights to those who own more property.