Pages:
Author

Topic: Capitalism and immorality - page 3. (Read 10678 times)

legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
June 14, 2014, 08:28:38 AM
So it's ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare?

What is your definition of over charging?

Buyers don't buy based on price alone. You need to take trust, after sales service into account.
Let me rephrase the question. Is it ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare?

No. Why do you differentiate between types of products and services? In the free market, you offer something for a price, and there is no unethical price. In the non-free market, the question doesn't even need an answer, because it is not you the customer, or you the merchant, or you the doctor who decides. It is the one dominating over you, based on his physical power to harm you.
So how will you know if you are really about to die or the doctor just needs to make a yacht payment?

How do you know under obamacare?
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
June 14, 2014, 06:05:22 AM
So it's ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare?

What is your definition of over charging?

Buyers don't buy based on price alone. You need to take trust, after sales service into account.
Let me rephrase the question. Is it ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare?

No. Why do you differentiate between types of products and services? In the free market, you offer something for a price, and there is no unethical price. In the non-free market, the question doesn't even need an answer, because it is not you the customer, or you the merchant, or you the doctor who decides. It is the one dominating over you, based on his physical power to harm you.
So how will you know if you are really about to die or the doctor just needs to make a yacht payment?
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
June 14, 2014, 03:57:44 AM
So it's ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare?

What is your definition of over charging?

Buyers don't buy based on price alone. You need to take trust, after sales service into account.
Let me rephrase the question. Is it ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare?

No. Why do you differentiate between types of products and services? In the free market, you offer something for a price, and there is no unethical price. In the non-free market, the question doesn't even need an answer, because it is not you the customer, or you the merchant, or you the doctor who decides. It is the one dominating over you, based on his physical power to harm you.
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
June 14, 2014, 01:50:07 AM
So it's ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare?

What is your definition of over charging?

Buyers don't buy based on price alone. You need to take trust, after sales service into account.
Let me rephrase the question. Is it ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare?

The term "overcharging" cannot be easily defined. It is fair to allow people to make a profit off of the time and capital they invest in their business.

The only true way to "overcharge" someone for something is to charge a price that is above the market rate, but if you charged this much then you would not be able to sell your product/service.

What planet are you from that doesn't have salesmen?
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
June 13, 2014, 08:54:18 PM
So it's ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare?

What is your definition of over charging?

Buyers don't buy based on price alone. You need to take trust, after sales service into account.
Let me rephrase the question. Is it ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare?

The term "overcharging" cannot be easily defined. It is fair to allow people to make a profit off of the time and capital they invest in their business.

The only true way to "overcharge" someone for something is to charge a price that is above the market rate, but if you charged this much then you would not be able to sell your product/service.
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
June 13, 2014, 02:27:22 PM
So it's ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare?

What is your definition of over charging?

Buyers don't buy based on price alone. You need to take trust, after sales service into account.
Let me rephrase the question. Is it ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare?
full member
Activity: 306
Merit: 102
June 13, 2014, 02:24:24 PM
So it's ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare?

What is your definition of over charging?

Buyers don't buy based on price alone. You need to take trust, after sales service into account.
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
June 13, 2014, 02:05:10 PM
So it's ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare?
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
June 13, 2014, 01:12:14 PM
If a patient goes to a doctor with extreme pain and a doctor tells him he needs immediate surgery when it's only gas, is that immoral?

Sure. In the free market, actors must act ethical to aquire trust. It doesn't solve everything, but the current system does not either, it is probably worse.
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
THE GAME OF CHANCE. CHANGED.
June 13, 2014, 12:49:57 PM
If a patient goes to a doctor with extreme pain and a doctor tells him he needs immediate surgery when it's only gas, is that immoral?



Same situation easily arise from other type of system.

Communism killed more people than capitalism, is that moral?
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
June 13, 2014, 09:40:09 AM
If a patient goes to a doctor with extreme pain and a doctor tells him he needs immediate surgery when it's only gas, is that immoral?
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
June 13, 2014, 09:12:32 AM
If you have a lamp for sale and you know your competitor across the street has the same item for less money, is it immoral not to tell your customers about the other?

No. You are not obliged to supply your customer with any or all information. What you tell, should be honest in my opinion, but normally a grown up should be expected to handle a certain amount of misinformation also.

There are fringe cases, so defining fraud is not an exact science. Here is what probably is fraud: You have a person that you know is not experienced, maybe minor, you tell him that everybody sells at a higher price, construct false shops in the neighbourhood which displays the wares at a higher price, make a call to a supposedly knowledgeable, supposedly third party, expert who really is your partner, who lies. Based on that the customer agrees to buy. These things can happen, if the stake is high.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
June 13, 2014, 09:02:49 AM
This is completely false for the free market. A trade in the free market is always a win-win. It is the definition of the free market. If a trade is not win-win, it will not be completed.
Sorry, but this is false.

example:
A trade can also happen, because you think it's a win for you, but in reality it isn't. (e.g. a retiree that buys a useless insurance)
Or because you lack other options.
Your sentence is wishful thinking, but reality isn't like that.

All trades on the free market should be a win-win for all parties involved. In order for this to happen there needs to be a sufficient amount of transparency and neither party is able to cheat. Unfortunately this is often not the case.

Are you talking about fraud? That is not allowed in the free market. That is stealing your reality. You have the right to compensation for that.

donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
June 12, 2014, 10:26:22 PM
If you have a lamp for sale and you know your competitor across the street has the same item for less money, is it immoral not to tell your customers about the other?
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
June 12, 2014, 10:14:52 PM
This is completely false for the free market. A trade in the free market is always a win-win. It is the definition of the free market. If a trade is not win-win, it will not be completed.
Sorry, but this is false.

example:
A trade can also happen, because you think it's a win for you, but in reality it isn't. (e.g. a retiree that buys a useless insurance)
Or because you lack other options.
Your sentence is wishful thinking, but reality isn't like that.

All trades on the free market should be a win-win for all parties involved. In order for this to happen there needs to be a sufficient amount of transparency and neither party is able to cheat. Unfortunately this is often not the case.
full member
Activity: 213
Merit: 100
June 10, 2014, 01:28:08 PM
This is completely false for the free market. A trade in the free market is always a win-win. It is the definition of the free market. If a trade is not win-win, it will not be completed.


There will always be cases of seller cheating the buyer by selling crappy products and services.

Or there will be cases called "externality" where factory owners and buyer of their products area happy with the price but do not have to pay the cost of polluting the area.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
June 10, 2014, 01:17:56 PM
This is completely false for the free market. A trade in the free market is always a win-win. It is the definition of the free market. If a trade is not win-win, it will not be completed.
Sorry, but this is false.

example:
A trade can also happen, because you think it's a win for you, but in reality it isn't. (e.g. a retiree that buys a useless insurance)
Or because you lack other options.
Your sentence is wishful thinking, but reality isn't like that.
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
June 10, 2014, 10:34:03 AM
But really, it's much simpler than that. Treat others like they are your family and don't profiteer. Animals don't use money. Humans don't need money either. It's a choice. We need science and technology to promote progress. We can do it together by aggregating resources smartly. Unfortunately, most of us aren't smart enough to agree upon the best use of resources. We need tools that will assure us that our needs are met and that we have fulfilling lives. That takes a great deal of patience and care. Most humans are incapable of that. Perhaps intelligent machines will take care of our needs and allow us to provide adequate resources to build a Type 1 civilization one day.

So... instead of capitalism we just need almost all humans to be very patient and careful, extremely smart, and treat all strangers like family?  You have a problem with a theoretical consequence of capitalism based on questionable logic and supported by crony-capitalistic examples so you counter-propose a system of social order in which several of the axioms are blatantly false, two of them by your own admission!  Even without calling out many of the dubious claims in your argument, and paying no heed to the bias, you still quickly begin to consider the necessity of intelligent machines just to make your proposal tractable.

Fail.


Exactly.

But to elaborate to cbeast why  Smiley
Animals do use money. Male chimpanzee trade fruit with females, so they repay later with sex. Money is basically just information, which tells the traders the relative scarcity of the goods at THAT moment, and also tries to predict the future scarcity of the given resource. Also, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value, as long as value is subjective, and lacks any determinism, you MUST have a tool to communicate this information about demand-supply. Because people change their minds. Because resources gets depleted/new sources found/new technologies found etc. Or just shit happens none expected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

The economy is never and can not be in a state of equilibrium! And at the same time, it is always in it, because for that moment, the moment you pay - voluntary trade -, you just set a new equilibrium!

I hate this notion, you said
"Perhaps intelligent machines will take care of our needs and allow us to provide adequate resources to build a Type 1 civilization one day"
Every collectivist thinker starts from the failed Platonic logic of "philosopher kings" type of society, where someone or something will force us to do good, for our own sake.
Free will exists. Get over it. Be self reliant, spend energy, adapt, adopt, improve  Cheesy Now, you see why people long for socialism, where everything gets handed to them, and they do not have to think and risk, and choose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNZQVyabiM
You two need to get a room. Giving food to a mate is not and economy. Do you get sex from your children when you give them food too?  Save the Econ 101 Wikipedia blabla. I am interested in objective empirical science. The point was that only technology solves our survival needs as we overpopulate. The intelligent machine conjecture is symbolic and for the most part we already use them to keep our electricity flowing, our tap water clean, and to run most of our machines. It's pretty simple. I'm sorry if you want to believe in magical "invisible market hands" and other such religious nonsense.

You have not answered the money=information argument. You just twisted it, and draw a straw man, "sex with children"....
I will not save 101 economics Wikipedia, since you obviously have not read them, if you were, you would not call the money transaction of an animal an economy. Economy needs production and trade, and innovation by conscious individuals. There is no production in animal kingdom.

Also, i do not BELIEVE in the "invisible hand", i KNOW it, the evidence is overwhelming. You can see it every day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ERbC7JyCfU this speech explains it very clearly, what the free market in REALITY does every single minute!

If you can not comprehend it, that is not my problem, reality will just leave you behind. It is just weird, to deny the existence of the free market on the Bitcoin forum.

Your confirmation bias is strong. This whole conversation gets twisted away from the problem of monopoly and violence, the weapons of choice in capitalistic societies. Economics is pure bullshit. It's the astrology of our era and economists are shamen. Go read your tea leaves and crystals and leave science to scientists.
sr. member
Activity: 401
Merit: 280
June 10, 2014, 10:15:40 AM
But really, it's much simpler than that. Treat others like they are your family and don't profiteer. Animals don't use money. Humans don't need money either. It's a choice. We need science and technology to promote progress. We can do it together by aggregating resources smartly. Unfortunately, most of us aren't smart enough to agree upon the best use of resources. We need tools that will assure us that our needs are met and that we have fulfilling lives. That takes a great deal of patience and care. Most humans are incapable of that. Perhaps intelligent machines will take care of our needs and allow us to provide adequate resources to build a Type 1 civilization one day.

So... instead of capitalism we just need almost all humans to be very patient and careful, extremely smart, and treat all strangers like family?  You have a problem with a theoretical consequence of capitalism based on questionable logic and supported by crony-capitalistic examples so you counter-propose a system of social order in which several of the axioms are blatantly false, two of them by your own admission!  Even without calling out many of the dubious claims in your argument, and paying no heed to the bias, you still quickly begin to consider the necessity of intelligent machines just to make your proposal tractable.

Fail.


Exactly.

But to elaborate to cbeast why  Smiley
Animals do use money. Male chimpanzee trade fruit with females, so they repay later with sex. Money is basically just information, which tells the traders the relative scarcity of the goods at THAT moment, and also tries to predict the future scarcity of the given resource. Also, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value, as long as value is subjective, and lacks any determinism, you MUST have a tool to communicate this information about demand-supply. Because people change their minds. Because resources gets depleted/new sources found/new technologies found etc. Or just shit happens none expected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

The economy is never and can not be in a state of equilibrium! And at the same time, it is always in it, because for that moment, the moment you pay - voluntary trade -, you just set a new equilibrium!

I hate this notion, you said
"Perhaps intelligent machines will take care of our needs and allow us to provide adequate resources to build a Type 1 civilization one day"
Every collectivist thinker starts from the failed Platonic logic of "philosopher kings" type of society, where someone or something will force us to do good, for our own sake.
Free will exists. Get over it. Be self reliant, spend energy, adapt, adopt, improve  Cheesy Now, you see why people long for socialism, where everything gets handed to them, and they do not have to think and risk, and choose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNZQVyabiM
You two need to get a room. Giving food to a mate is not and economy. Do you get sex from your children when you give them food too?  Save the Econ 101 Wikipedia blabla. I am interested in objective empirical science. The point was that only technology solves our survival needs as we overpopulate. The intelligent machine conjecture is symbolic and for the most part we already use them to keep our electricity flowing, our tap water clean, and to run most of our machines. It's pretty simple. I'm sorry if you want to believe in magical "invisible market hands" and other such religious nonsense.

You have not answered the money=information argument. You just twisted it, and draw a straw man, "sex with children"....
I will not save 101 economics Wikipedia, since you obviously have not read them, if you were, you would not call the money transaction of an animal an economy. Economy needs production and trade, and innovation by conscious individuals. There is no production in animal kingdom.

Also, i do not BELIEVE in the "invisible hand", i KNOW it, the evidence is overwhelming. You can see it every day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ERbC7JyCfU this speech explains it very clearly, what the free market in REALITY does every single minute!

If you can not comprehend it, that is not my problem, reality will just leave you behind. It is just weird, to deny the existence of the free market on the Bitcoin forum.
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
June 10, 2014, 09:26:39 AM
But really, it's much simpler than that. Treat others like they are your family and don't profiteer. Animals don't use money. Humans don't need money either. It's a choice. We need science and technology to promote progress. We can do it together by aggregating resources smartly. Unfortunately, most of us aren't smart enough to agree upon the best use of resources. We need tools that will assure us that our needs are met and that we have fulfilling lives. That takes a great deal of patience and care. Most humans are incapable of that. Perhaps intelligent machines will take care of our needs and allow us to provide adequate resources to build a Type 1 civilization one day.

So... instead of capitalism we just need almost all humans to be very patient and careful, extremely smart, and treat all strangers like family?  You have a problem with a theoretical consequence of capitalism based on questionable logic and supported by crony-capitalistic examples so you counter-propose a system of social order in which several of the axioms are blatantly false, two of them by your own admission!  Even without calling out many of the dubious claims in your argument, and paying no heed to the bias, you still quickly begin to consider the necessity of intelligent machines just to make your proposal tractable.

Fail.


Exactly.

But to elaborate to cbeast why  Smiley
Animals do use money. Male chimpanzee trade fruit with females, so they repay later with sex. Money is basically just information, which tells the traders the relative scarcity of the goods at THAT moment, and also tries to predict the future scarcity of the given resource. Also, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value, as long as value is subjective, and lacks any determinism, you MUST have a tool to communicate this information about demand-supply. Because people change their minds. Because resources gets depleted/new sources found/new technologies found etc. Or just shit happens none expected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

The economy is never and can not be in a state of equilibrium! And at the same time, it is always in it, because for that moment, the moment you pay - voluntary trade -, you just set a new equilibrium!

I hate this notion, you said
"Perhaps intelligent machines will take care of our needs and allow us to provide adequate resources to build a Type 1 civilization one day"
Every collectivist thinker starts from the failed Platonic logic of "philosopher kings" type of society, where someone or something will force us to do good, for our own sake.
Free will exists. Get over it. Be self reliant, spend energy, adapt, adopt, improve  Cheesy Now, you see why people long for socialism, where everything gets handed to them, and they do not have to think and risk, and choose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNZQVyabiM
You two need to get a room. Giving food to a mate is not and economy. Do you get sex from your children when you give them food too?  Save the Econ 101 Wikipedia blabla. I am interested in objective empirical science. The point was that only technology solves our survival needs as we overpopulate. The intelligent machine conjecture is symbolic and for the most part we already use them to keep our electricity flowing, our tap water clean, and to run most of our machines. It's pretty simple. I'm sorry if you want to believe in magical "invisible market hands" and other such religious nonsense.
Pages:
Jump to: