RoR: Forum

Not to pick nits but...

I don't think anti-concept is an accurate term. "Price gouging" is a make-believe concept like God, Santa Claus and good French mechanic.

Post 181

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 3:48pm

Glenn asked, �I'm curious, Jon; what would you have done if you had decided to pay his price, showed up with the check, and he said the price was higher than you agreed to?�

I would leave, before something happened.

Then, I would phone my Anger Ally, Phil.

But seriously, I could turn that around again. What would Mikhail have done if I had said, after he grabbed the check back from me, �Hold on, just kidding, give that back, deal�s off�? Now *he* is mad because I�m dropping a deal *he* wants to take.

I wasted one hour of a Friday afternoon that he could theoretically have sold the car to someone else; because he thought he had a solid deal from me. So what? That wasn�t going to happen for him at 4pm on a Friday. And, I was hoping he had some sort of quota or goal for the week, and would be less inclined to reject me.

Used car salesmen are the worst. Their word is not their word, it�s just part of the show they feed you. Who is responsible for this state of used car-lot ground rules? Why shouldn�t I play along?

Jon

Post 182

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 3:56pm

Tim,

If you read Jon's post and it is accurate, he didn't do anything wrong. All Jon said was "See you this afternoon." The salesman assumed the sale. When he told Jon to bring in a check, he said "Sure." And he did.

In the hardball world of American car salesmen, he was giving no better than you usually get. I wouldn't recommend this as a regular way of dealing with people but with car salesmen, who will often lowball you or lure you with bait and switch tactics, yes. I've had both done to me and then some.

I have known some honest and upfront car salesmen but they tend to be the exception to the rule.

(Edited by Bob Palin on 9/06, 4:57pm)

Post 183

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 3:56pm

Jon sez:

Why shouldn�t I play along?

It comes down to how important honesty is for you.

Post 184

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 4:07pm

Price gouging, to me, strikes more as a demonized version of Profiteering, akin to the way sexual endeavors are demonized as Pornography - in other words, they are terms used by those who despise the usage therein... in the price gouging instance, an anti-trader mindset...

And yes, Profiteering is itself a demonized version of Trading... see my upcoming [hopefully very soon] article on the Two Worldviews: the Trading and Taking Syndrones...

(Edited by robert malcom on 9/06, 4:11pm)

Post 185

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 4:17pm

Lance,

Check out Bob�s 182. When was I dishonest? The funds were good.

Jon

Post 186

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 4:37pm

Adam:

"Social institutions such as the market have functions ("goals") because they are organized by their participants to perform functions that serve the participants' goals."

I have to agree strongly with Rick on this matter. A free market (as in 'free enterprise") isn't organized and the participants' goals are to maximize profit, not stabilize prices. That markets tend to become stabilized through self interest is the overwhelming wonder of the capitalist system.

How have you missed this central point?

Sam

Post 187

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 5:03pm

What I did by showing up with that check was repeat my offer (a little bit lower, he had to pay for angering me all week) which I had been making all week�but this time in concrete form, so he knew that my offer was not a bluff, and under timing and circumstances that increased the likelihood of acceptance.

*And he accepted.*

Post 188

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 5:22pm

Sam,

All social institutions are man-made: they are created by men in order to accomplish men's goals. The fact that these institutions accomplish their function without divine or other super-natural intervention is not a good reason to ignore - or is it evade? - their identity as vehicles of human purpose.

Post 189

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 5:38pm

Adam:

I thought we were talking about principles. That we have organized market institutions is not central to the principle. Markets can exist without without governing trade. We have laws against fraud. The open outcry system of the futures pits could exist without any formal regulation.

Sam

Post 190

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 5:48pm

Check out Bob�s 182. When was I dishonest? The funds were good.

Jon, do you believe you were honest?

Post 191

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 5:49pm

I offered my story because the conversation seemed to be moving to �bad� business practices. Rich points out that these are real, but that they eventually go away. Well, how do you think they �go away�? The bad guys just mysteriously come around? No. Guys like me fuck �em at their game with finesse that exceeds their own wildest dreams, that�s how.

Tim, I�m moved. When you find yourself in a business negotiation in Russia, are you going to call me for advice�or Lance?

You should be thanking my French ass for making this a better world.

But by all means...deal with used car lot salesmen like you're my grandmother. Best of luck!

Jon

Post 192

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 6:21pm

I forgot to say: �Context.�

And I left some out. He�d been offering up bullshit all week. �Best financing in town.� It was the worst, and I indicated that a deal, if any, would be strictly funds up front. �Never been hit.� I could see where it had been hit. And on and on.

I apologize if I assumed too much when I said: Used. Car. Salesman.

Jon

Post 193

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 6:30pm

Jody,

Your point, even in caps, is being ignored about price gouging.

WE HAVE YET TO DEFINE IT. NO ONE HERE HAS BEEN ABLE TO DEFINE IT.

(I tried to start by introducing the connotation of force, but that was ignored also.)

Why this is so is because not many people on this thread are actually interested in the idea of price gouging at all. I'm serious. The words, "price gouging" are merely a prop. They have other priorities. (I see some Rand wannabees running amok, trying to trounce the evil collectivists, for instance. LOLOLOL... They forgot to notice that there are no evil collectivists around here.)

If a person defines what he is talking about, like you so rightly requested, he has a much harder time running his number. That is why things like this must remain undefined.

It makes for much better theater and such people get to feel good later. Even if it's all make-believe, they get to pretend that they did something out of Atlas Shrugged - and that feels good.

LOLOLOLOL...

Michael

Post 194

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 6:31pm

Jon-
My view is that both parties mutually agreed upon an amount. You put forth a check of X amount and he accepted it. Done deal. If he had insisted upon a higher amount, you could have walked away, and likewise, he could have walked away from what you offered. Good score!

Post 195

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 6:36pm

Michael-
I have to agree with you. Though if this be theater I want a refund for my tickets! I do think that you seriously hit the nail on the head with that though. One thing I've learned(though I do not always abide by the lesson) is to never assume. That is the reason for my insistence upon a definition, so that I will know what I'm fighting against(or perhaps for).

Post 196

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 6:38pm

Sam,

I can't figure out what point you are trying to communicate in post 189.

Post 197

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 6:43pm

Jody, you wrote:

One thing I've learned(though I do not always abide by the lesson) is to never assume. That is the reason for my insistence upon a definition, so that I will know what I'm fighting against(or perhaps for).

That is probably the most intelligent thing stated on this thread so far.

I do not expect it to make too much of a difference on this thread, though. Too many dragon slayer wannabees around here - and defining things would take their toy dragons away.

Michael

Post 198

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 6:44pm

Andy,

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my response to you. Capitalism is the ethical system of trade. By its nature, capitalism does not produce any evil. That's not to say that businessmen in a capitalist society never commit crimes or act unethically in the course of trading. But when they do, it is because they are not adhering to the trader principle which is the foundation of capitalism.

So, there're not evil capitalists then? Anyone who might be considered an "evil capitalist" isn't really a capitalist, that's what you're saying? If so, I agree.

But here's why I'm being so nitpicky: if you can't nail down something this basic, how do you expect hold a coherent discussion spanning hundreds of posts?

Sarah
(Edited by Sarah House
on 9/06, 6:45pm)

Post 199

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 6:45pm