Depends, if both parties are reasonable and realistic there is no reason why it can't happen.JohnG@lt wrote:
Trades, by their very definition are a compromise. It's impossible for both parties to get exactly what they want.
If you're in business and not attempting to reasonably screw over the other guy (not to the point that it's offensive) you're not really doing your job.Dilbert_X wrote:
Depends, if both parties are reasonable and realistic there is no reason why it can't happen.JohnG@lt wrote:
Trades, by their very definition are a compromise. It's impossible for both parties to get exactly what they want.
If one or both are unrealistic, excessively greedy or out to screw the other guy just because they can then then they won't.
Fixed.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Compromise is bad., m,kay?
Discuss.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Is this DST now?
And I'm saying it is for two reasons:Flaming_Maniac wrote:
compromise - n. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
Not "getting less than you really want". Getting a $20 watch when I really wanted a 24k gold watch is not a compromise.
Speak for yourself, a Casio on my wrist and a bar of gold in the bank is way more valuable to me than a Rolex.Pug wrote:
aka everyone wants to buy luxuries, but compromise by buying commodities instead
Never try to live anywhere in south-east Asia, because you're gonna end up paying about 40% extra for absolutely everything.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
There is no "compromise" between a desire and a reality.
You could just as easily be saying I wish I had a million dollars, but I'll compromise since I only have $100. It doesn't make any sense.
bargain. well, what is it then?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
barter is not compromise
er not barter what's the word...
It's bargaining. Re-valuing the goods in question can lead to a trade, not a compromise. It is dependent on the mindset of the people in question, not what the good is objectively valued at.Spark wrote:
bargain. well, what is it then?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
barter is not compromise
er not barter what's the word...
lol. glad someone noticed a lil sarcasm. i'm just happy this is about philosophy, instead of the norm.Varegg wrote:
Somehow I think this discussion is part of FMs essay so he deliberately acts selectively broadminded
How many posts does it take to reach a compromise about what a compromise really is?
I wasn't comparing a bar of gold or a gold watch, but since you mentioned it...you value the gold bar more than having a gold watch, so you compromised and bought a Casio.Dilbert_X wrote:
Speak for yourself, a Casio on my wrist and a bar of gold in the bank is way more valuable to me than a Rolex.Pug wrote:
aka everyone wants to buy luxuries, but compromise by buying commodities instead
No compromise involved.
Luxuries are for idiots, go ahead and burn cash if you like.
Why? You keep implying this is true but I don't understand why you do so. A trade can take into account all factors in making the decision and still make a valid, rational, moral trade.Pug wrote:
If a decision is zero-sum, then the parties are limited to what is available from the purchaser and the supplier, without regard to any future purchases or alternative products.
No. The want is irrelevant. The variables are what you are giving and what you are receiving in exchange. That is very important.Pug wrote:
(what the want is vs what the provide is)
Benjamin Franklin wrote:
"I have made a rule, whenever in my power, to avoid becoming the draughtsman of papers to be reviewed by a public body. I took my lesson from an incident which I will relate to you. When I was a journeyman printer, one of my companions, an apprentice hatter, having served out his time, was about to open shop for himself. His first concern was to have a handsome signboard, with a proper inscription. He composed it in these words, 'John Thompson, Hatter, makes and sells hats for ready money,' with a figure of a hat subjoined. But thought he would submit it to his friends for their amendments. The first he showed it to thought the word 'Hatter' tautologous, because followed by the words 'makes hats,' which showed he was a hatter. It was struck out. The next observed that the word 'makes' might as well be omitted, because his customers would not care who made the hats. If good and to their mind, they would buy them, by whomsoever made. He struck it out. A third said he thought the words 'for ready money' were useless, as it was not the custom of the place to sell on credit. Every one who purchased expected to pay. They were parted with, and the inscription now stood, 'John Thompson sells hats.' 'Sells hats!' says the next friend. 'Why, nobody will expect you to give them away. What then is the use of that word?' It was stricken out, and 'hats' followed it, the rather as there was one painted on the board. So the inscription was reduced ultimately to 'John Thompson,' with the figure of a hat subjoined."
Last edited by Pug (2010-01-22 13:52:21)
Last edited by Phrozenbot (2010-01-22 14:10:52)
The whole point is if someone abuses the idea of compromise and a deal is struck because the other party doesn't stand on their own two feet. If no deal is struck because the abuse is recognized, good. The whole point though is the idea of compromise should be stricken from the long corrupted list of good social behavior to help those who don't know enough to help themselves. If you don't think anyone ever tries to take advantage of someone else just because both parties sign a paper, man you are naive. Usually it is from ignorance on the part of one of the parties and irrelevant to the point I'm making it's true, but some people will abuse anything to make a living off the added "value" of their smooth talk. That includes bullshit ideas of ethos and playing nice for the sake of playing nice.Pug wrote:
No one forces anyone to agree to anything. Therefore, the concept that one side "wins" is false. The result of the deal changes the price point in the supply versus demand curve.
Both parties are big boys. I'm saying there is no "snake in the equation"...ever. If they agree to something, they have both agreed on the value of the exchange. Bottom line - if someone "abuses" society to get an edge, a deal is not struck.
Not true. Nothing has to be preset for there to be a fair agreement about the valuation of the products. I don't really understand what makes you keep wanting to take this logical leap. You can walk into a room saying I think product x is worth $100, even though the price is $150. The salesmen says but wait, product x also has feature y that was previously unknown to you, so I think the product is worth $150 to you. You can agree with the pricing because of the new information and make the deal. No compromise, values not preset.Pug wrote:
IF the agreement is ALWAYS zero-sum, this means everything is preset before the deal begins. Supply vs Demand, except your saying neither the supply nor demand curve is anything but a single point.
I am listing compromise as one of those dishonest ways of gaining, not excluding other ways from the long, long list.Phrozenbot wrote:
It's not a compromise when all parties do not net gain as a whole. One person may gain something, but the rest may lose. Whether it was because of bait-and-switch, snake-oil, or some other dishonest way of gaining, it's not a compromise. That game requires someone(s) to be a sucker so that another could benefit.
You got out-witted. There was no compromise.
edit: think I should nap
