Someone can view the trade as equal because they view the idea of compromise as a social positive that balances the deal, yet the trade is not fair.
There is more to the term compromise than capitalistic trading of goods ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Right, but that doesn't mean the deal was in errorFlaming_Maniac wrote:
Someone can view the trade as equal because they view the idea of compromise as a social positive that balances the deal, yet the trade is not fair.
Despite the fact that there was an uneven value of goods?Pug wrote:
Right, but that doesn't mean the deal was in errorFlaming_Maniac wrote:
Someone can view the trade as equal because they view the idea of compromise as a social positive that balances the deal, yet the trade is not fair.
The deal was struck, therefore the terms were acceptable by both sides. Basically, another way of saying "uneven value of goods" = price is variable.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Despite the fact that there was an uneven value of goods?Pug wrote:
Right, but that doesn't mean the deal was in errorFlaming_Maniac wrote:
Someone can view the trade as equal because they view the idea of compromise as a social positive that balances the deal, yet the trade is not fair.
Last edited by Pug (2010-01-25 09:02:04)
How can the value be variable at any fixed time?Pug wrote:
The deal was struck, therefore the terms were acceptable by both sides. Basically, another way of saying "uneven value of goods" = price is variable.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Despite the fact that there was an uneven value of goods?Pug wrote:
Right, but that doesn't mean the deal was in error
The terms are acceptable because of a flawed idea of what value is.
Something that is MORE expensive requires an exchange of MORE value.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
How can the value be variable at any fixed time?Pug wrote:
The deal was struck, therefore the terms were acceptable by both sides. Basically, another way of saying "uneven value of goods" = price is variable.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Despite the fact that there was an uneven value of goods?
The terms are acceptable because of a flawed idea of what value is.
You are arguing that the value exchanged was unequal. I'm saying yes, that's called the price.
...Pug wrote:
Something that is MORE expensive requires an exchange of MORE value.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
How can the value be variable at any fixed time?Pug wrote:
The deal was struck, therefore the terms were acceptable by both sides. Basically, another way of saying "uneven value of goods" = price is variable.
The terms are acceptable because of a flawed idea of what value is.
You are arguing that the value exchanged was unequal. I'm saying yes, that's called the price.
wtf
Did you read the first and second lines of your response?
Yes, what's the problem?
You are saying the exchange is uneven, no? I'm saying its not possible because the agreement was completed.
If you compare the same product over time, the only difference is the price point or supplier terms moving around.
There is no "unequality". The value set at the time the deal is struck.
You are saying the exchange is uneven, no? I'm saying its not possible because the agreement was completed.
If you compare the same product over time, the only difference is the price point or supplier terms moving around.
There is no "unequality". The value set at the time the deal is struck.
"Something that is MORE expensive requires an exchange of MORE value."
Right here you're implying exactly what I'm saying. Value corresponds to value. There is a direct relationship between value of good 1 and value of good 2.
"I'm saying yes, [unequal exchange is] called the price."
This is completely contradictory with the previous sentence. It doesn't even make sense in itself.
price - n. the sum or amount of money or its equivalent for which anything is bought, sold, or offered for sale.
Emphasis mine. Price is a shortcut term to define how much something is worth in general terms, in most cases as a dollar value. It's impossible for the term to denote any sort of inequality. Shit pronoun or what?
Right here you're implying exactly what I'm saying. Value corresponds to value. There is a direct relationship between value of good 1 and value of good 2.
"I'm saying yes, [unequal exchange is] called the price."
This is completely contradictory with the previous sentence. It doesn't even make sense in itself.
price - n. the sum or amount of money or its equivalent for which anything is bought, sold, or offered for sale.
Emphasis mine. Price is a shortcut term to define how much something is worth in general terms, in most cases as a dollar value. It's impossible for the term to denote any sort of inequality. Shit pronoun or what?
The value is set erroneously. Anything is worth how much someone is willing to pay for it, but the fallacy is on the other end. The person arrives at how much they are willing to pay inappropriately.Pug wrote:
There is no "unequality". The value set at the time the deal is struck.
No, I am not agreeing with you at all. If an outsider thinks a deal is "unequal", I'm saying that no it's not unequal - the price was higher...for that specific deal.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
"Something that is MORE expensive requires an exchange of MORE value."
Right here you're implying exactly what I'm saying. Value corresponds to value. There is a direct relationship between value of good 1 and value of good 2.
"I'm saying yes, [unequal exchange is] called the price."
This is completely contradictory with the previous sentence. It doesn't even make sense in itself.
price - n. the sum or amount of money or its equivalent for which anything is bought, sold, or offered for sale.
Emphasis mine. Price is a shortcut term to define how much something is worth in general terms, in most cases as a dollar value. It's impossible for the term to denote any sort of inequality. Shit pronoun or what?The value is set erroneously. Anything is worth how much someone is willing to pay for it, but the fallacy is on the other end. The person arrives at how much they are willing to pay inappropriately.Pug wrote:
There is no "unequality". The value set at the time the deal is struck.
IMO - the negotiation stage is irrelevant to your conclusion that a deal can be unequal. The price is set based on the values agreed upon by both sides. How they figure out the value during negotiation is irrelevant because if they agree to a deal. The deal can't be inappropriate or of unequal value for either side if they both agreed. If the deal was inappropriate, then both parties would walk away empty handed. There is never a "loser" or "winner" if a deal was struck.
If someone paid more during one time or another for the same product, then different variables influenced the deal and the price changed. But still, the deal was never sour because they both agreed. Aka exchanges over time at different values are price fluctuations...not one person fucking over the other.
Forget compromise for a second, do you not understand that problems like ignorance come in to play? Such a used car salesmen selling someone a car that he knows to be a lemon?
yeah, sure. caveat empor
Pug advocates fraud. Nice to know he's not on my side of this debate.
Fraud would mean the deal was invalid no?
ahh put it back up, I'm a big boy.
ahh put it back up, I'm a big boy.
Last edited by Pug (2010-01-25 10:48:54)
Why?Pug wrote:
Fraud would mean the deal was invalid no?
Fraud means a lot of different things, not all of them illegal.
I'm using fraud as a legal term, though
You can legally sell a lemon by taking advantage of buyer ignorance.
Yes. Legally.
Morally...well....
But the deal was made, and we are talking about a specific point in time no?
Morally...well....
But the deal was made, and we are talking about a specific point in time no?
The deal is made, the terms are completely ridiculous to a third party, the seller, and the buyer at a later date, and you're calling it a fair trade because they shook hands. It's ridiculous.
I mean it sucks that things like this happen in a capitalist society at all, but it's an inherent problem that has to be dealt with. To go and call it fair...absurd.
I mean it sucks that things like this happen in a capitalist society at all, but it's an inherent problem that has to be dealt with. To go and call it fair...absurd.
Agreed, but unless something comes along to invalidate the deal, it's not unlawful.
Was I ever talking about the law?
The law has nothing to do with fair. Completely perpendicular.
The law has nothing to do with fair. Completely perpendicular.
If the car was indeed a lemon, the purchaser could make the deal null and void via legal means. It's just the same as invalidating a deal with someone who lacks the intellectual capacity to make a valid deal.
There is a difference between ethics and the law, no doubt. But it's more fun to deal in absolutes, is it not?
There is a difference between ethics and the law, no doubt. But it's more fun to deal in absolutes, is it not?
I was talking ethical absolutes.
Just the point I was trying to explain about the sub primes ... professionals taking advantage of other peoples ignorance ... legal fraud ...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The deal is made, the terms are completely ridiculous to a third party, the seller, and the buyer at a later date, and you're calling it a fair trade because they shook hands. It's ridiculous.
I mean it sucks that things like this happen in a capitalist society at all, but it's an inherent problem that has to be dealt with. To go and call it fair...absurd.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................