NationStates Jolt Archive

"The proprietor of goods may set and price he/she sees fit, and may not be at the mercy of any ethical or moral concerns"

"The proprietor of goods may set and price he/she sees fit, and may not be at the mercy of any ethical or moral concerns"
Interesting question. On the one hand, I hate to see OPEC-bashing, because it's their damn oil, and the world had better remember it. On the other hand, the drug companies are screwing the Third World. So it's a tricky one.

On balance, I would say the party doing the selling has the right to set the price. It can backfire if they misjudge it, of course.

If it was like that, people would rather rob the store than buy it's goods.

Getting a fair price for the goods you sell is a fine thing.
Its the way commerce and trade have gone for millenia.

Getting a enormous sum for the goods you sell, especially when nations depend on that product is another.

Getting the kind of prices that OPEC gets for their crude is unbelieveable.
The problem is that we cant very well say "no" can we?

Unless you can mass produce oil from another source, and get around what OPEC wants per barrel...what choice do you have?

Its unethical.

"The proprietor of goods may set and price he/she sees fit, and may not be at the mercy of any ethical or moral concerns"

Let the markets rule.

When attempts are made to impose restrictions upon the market system (regulation) then the stage is set for creating more situations that beg the ethical/moral concerns you are trying to address.
It's a very ironic dynamic!

I dont think i agree with you Grace only because OPEC has to understand that they are really the oxygen of the world. And frankly going to war over oil really isn't a bad idea. IT was one of Japan's ideas for its attack on Pearl Harbor. But anyways, OPEC needs to understand that by surge pricing on oil only means more rough times further ahead for themselves and alot of other people. Plus OPEC mainly thrives simply on the investment by all the other nations, and these nations cannot live thrive without OPEC, so its a back and fourth issue, really I blame OPEC, only because now they have nothing in their way to raise gas prices, other than self conservation or more money.

Telling people what price they MUST accept to trade their legitimate property is immoral.

If the market price for a good is high it is because that good is underproduced (less supply than demand) and the high price is a signal to other people to produce that good. If you force them to sell at a low price then that signal is gone and the undersupply will continue thus making the problem worse.

The reason OPEC is messed up is govt interference. The market is the solution, not the problem. Govt monopoly is indeed unethical.

Drug patenting is also immoral. How can you "own" a chemical?

Hence why I said:

On balance, I would say the party doing the selling has the right to set the price. It can backfire if they misjudge it, of course.
That's a nod to various forms of market corrections.

I guess it all comes down to whose morality / ethics should apply. Obviously there will be a huge difference in what is morally and ethically acceptable here in the UK compared to say Dubai.

However, who is to say whose should apply?

That statement at least says.....it's our product and we will price it as we see fit and what is acceptable to us and not you (the third party)

I guess it all comes down to whose morality / ethics should apply. Obviously there will be a huge difference in what is morally and ethically acceptable here in the UK compared to say Dubai.

However, who is to say whose should apply?

That statement at least says.....it's our product and we will price it as we see fit and what is acceptable to us and not you (the third party)

Very good point on the subjectivity of the morality/ethics of a situation.

Allowing the dynamics of the market system to function, unencumbered, offers as objective, effective and efficient a means possible of "doing the right thing" in matters of trade.

well all this works unless there is an effective monopoly such as OPEC< particularly ona vital good. Water would be worse than oil though. GOod where a natural monoply is the best way means that you either have no competition and so people paying lots or competition and inefficiency. But then monopoly is often inneficient. Hence the result, the governemtn needs to regulate the monopoly top keep prices low and therefore force efficiency. Or the people will be charged lots bya company that could produce more units at a lower cost and higher utility to the consumer, but wont as it loses profits. Deadweaight loss of welfar happens as the total gain by the firms is outweighed by the loss of the people.

What good is capitalism if it doesn achieve the economic goal of maximising utility. Someone with a lot of something gets less utility per unit than someone with few, so the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor or with the porr gaining nothing means that welfare is not being maximised.

ArrrH! still got it.

As such sometimes there has to be intervention.

Telling people what price they MUST accept to trade their legitimate property is immoral.

If the market price for a good is high it is because that good is underproduced (less supply than demand) and the high price is a signal to other people to produce that good. If you force them to sell at a low price then that signal is gone and the undersupply will continue thus making the problem worse.

But oil is a finite resource. I suppose that, if a resource is scarce, the ideal would be to find either alternative sources, or alternative resources. But, sadly, market forces being blind (and unreal, or at least irreal), no-one thinks ahead and here we are, running out of a vital but all too finite resource without an adequate replacement or alternative.

State intervention, especially in times of scarcity, is not always immoral. UK wartime rationing, for example, prevented the rich from profiteering and from eating themselves sick while everyone else did without, whilst defending the lives and property of the rich. It also produced the healthiest national diet we've ever had, before or since, but that's (probably) irrelevant. :)

The reason OPEC is messed up is govt interference. The market is the solution, not the problem. Govt monopoly is indeed unethical.

But as long as the government in question is accountable to the people, a state monopoly way, way better than a private one. Particularly of a vital resource.

Drug patenting is also immoral. How can you "own" a chemical?

I've no quibble with this, but the drug companies' argument is that, after spending millions in researching the properties of these molecules, they are entitled to some compensation in the form of a brief (10 year, IIRC) monopoly. But, since these are private companies, why haven't market forces solved this problem? Instead, it looks like they've made them worse: vast sums of money go to treat erectile disfunction and overeating in the west, and virtually nothing is spent on treatments for, say, malaria. Market forces are all very well in their place -- consumer goods, mainly -- but they are not a global panacea. Nothing is.

It's a quandry. Ultimately we undermine capitalism and fair trade if we enforce moral, ethical or legal guidlines upon priving. But on the other hand essential goods are open to abuse.

"The proprietor of goods may set and price he/she sees fit, and may not be at the mercy of any ethical or moral concerns"I oppose it cause it leads to price gouging consumers

It's a bad idea. "From each according to ability, to each according to need" is much better.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

also the people of the world must unite to destroy walmart

"The proprietor of goods may set and price he/she sees fit, and may not be at the mercy of any ethical or moral concerns"

100% agree. of course, the proprieter will have to weigh the possible costs of setting the price he feels appropriate, and include in those costs the damage to his property and person when the socialists decide they deserve to have his property for whatever price they like ;).

*tag*

Isn't this basically asking if we agree with capatilism or not?

100% agree. of course, the proprieter will have to weigh the possible costs of setting the price he feels appropriate, and include in those costs the damage to his property and person when the socialists decide they deserve to have his property for whatever price they like

Even though his property is worked by workers denied the full product of their labor.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

It's a bad idea. "From each according to ability, to each according to need" is much better.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Yeah, but almost nobody practices that. Unfortunate, but true.