On Mar 17, 4:34 pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:> On Mar 17, 2:45 pm, ta
nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 17, 1:23 pm, "Sean"
up_over.org.au> wrote:>
>>> "ta"
nc.rr.com> wrote in message>
>
>>>> On Mar 17, 11:49 am, "Sean"
up_over.org.au> wrote:>>>>> "ta"
nc.rr.com> wrote in message>
>
>>>>>> On Mar 17, 5:39 am, "Sean"
up_over.org.au> wrote:>>>>>>> "Michael Price"
yahoo.com> wrote in message>
>
>>>>>>>>> S: In that case then, it follows that anyone in the USA is being
>>>>>>>>> penalised
>>>>>>>>> for unfair prices because they are "rich".
>
>>>>>>>> MP : Well not it doesn't follow because you haven't defined "unfair
>>>>>>>> prices".
>
>>>>>>>> Sean : dear michael, i am following the meaning of the term as set
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> originator of this thread, and which apparently you have already
>>>>>>>> concurred
>>>>>>>> with ... NAMELY::
>
>>>>>>>>>> It is unfair because the cost of producing, marketing,
>>>>>>>>>> distributing,
>>>>>>>>>> and selling the product is the same regardless of who the buyer
>>>>>>>>>> is,
>>>>>>>>>> and charging the same price means all customers are treated
>>>>>>>>>> equally.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Requiring one buyer to pay more for a product/service is
>>>>>>>>>> effectively
>>>>>>>>>> penalizing the wealthier buyer for being wealthier.
>
>>>>>>>> THEREFORE, i say that, based upon the previous "theory" that then
>>>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>>>> in the USA is being penalised for unfair prices because they are
>>>>>>>> rich.
>
>>>>>>>> Compared to what? Compared to others in the world who pay much less
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> same products and services.
>
>>>>>>>> So, either the theory is flawed, or the premises are flawed, or what
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>> is correct and accurate.
>
>>>>>>>> I'll let you ponder that a bit to see where it goes. :)
>
>>>>>>> But you haven't said that the prices are "unfair" in the sense of
>>>>>>> being actually unfair. So without knowing whether the prices are
>>>>>>> "unfair" you don't have any the penalty is unfair or just there.
>
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>
>>>>>>> I do not necessarily believe they are unfair, but according to Ta's
>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>> they would be deemed unfair.
>
>>>>>> You are misrepresenting my argument in the same manner as tg.
>
>>>>>> If you read my original post without projecting your pre-existing
>>>>>> biases/dogma/beliefs onto it, I said that what was unfair was to
>>>>>> charge two different people a different price for the same product (a
>>>>>> loaf of bread) *in the same store*.
>
>>>>>> The reason the *in the same store* part is important is because
>>>>>> presumably outside of the particular store, the market conditions
>>>>>> would be different.
>
>>>>>> Again (I say "again" because I've already said this like three
>>>>>> time) . . . "fairness" in the context of my post has *nothing to do
>>>>>> with how prices are arrived at*. It has to do with applying those
>>>>>> prices equally among all individuals who choose to participate in that
>>>>>> market. Another store presumably has different market conditions that
>>>>>> apply, and if they don't like those market conditions, they can go
>>>>>> elsewhere.
>
>>>>>> Now it's quite possible that my original argument is incorrect or
>>>>>> flawed or incomplete or is based on some misunderstanding. I'm not
>>>>>> sure whether you are just not reading carefully or whether you are
>>>>>> intentionally twisting my argument to suit your propagandistic goals
>>>>>> -- either way, you're not addressing the original argument.
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>> Ta ... i hear what you are saying, and I know what you mean. I addressed
>>>>> your original argument days ago. I said then it's a faulty argument
>>>>> analogy,
>>>>> and does not represent "normal" business marketing principles. [ or words
>>>>> to
>>>>> that effect ] there is NOTHING inherently wrong or unfair charging
>>>>> different
>>>>> people different prices for the same goods in a so called same market
>>>>> area.
>
>>>> So if you went into the grocery store and the cashier charged you more
>>>> than me for the loaf of bread because you make 5K more a year than me,
>>>> you wouldn't consider that unfair?
>
>>> No, not automatically, because such variations in prices happen all the time
>>> anyway. There's about 10 shops within 100 yards of here that sell CocaCola
>>> .. they ALL charge different prices, they all buy it from the same bottler,
>>> it all costs the same to deliver and store, and sell.
>
>>> Why get bent out of shape if the same thing happens in the same specific
>>> store, AND espcialy if I made $5k more than the rest of the folks on my
>>> street, i could care even less about it.
>
>> Red herring -- whether you get bent out of shape or not is not the
>> question -- you seem to be good at answering questions that weren't
>> actually asked (wonder why?).
>
>> I asked whether or not it would be fair to charge you a different
>> price for the loaf of bread than me, based upon the fact that you made
>> more money than me.
>
>>>>> Prices are NOT set based upon *costs* to the extent your analogy
>>>>> suggests,
>>>>> that is why it is flawed.
>
>>>> To what extent are prices based on costs, and what are the other
>>>> factors?
>
>> No answer?
>
>>>> Why are the prices at the hardware store and the grocery store the
>>>> same for all customers, regardless of financial condition?
>
>>> You're making an assumption that they are, when in many even most real world
>>> cases they aren't. There are always exceptions and special deals to the
>>> "advertised" price, to get the sale. In all sorts of ways. some overt, some
>>> subtle and behind the scenes.
>
>> Of course, some grocery stores have coupons associated with certain
>> products, but presumably every customer would have equal opportunity
>> to get that discount on the loaf of bread, wouldn't they?
>
>> And of course, some grocery stores have "vip" discount cards that
>> offer special prices on certain items, but presumably every customer
>> would have an equal opportunity to get a "vip" card, wouldn't they?
>
>> And there are special discount stores that require membership (i.e.,
>> BJ's here in the us of a), but presumably every customer gets the same
>> discounts associated with the membership, wouldn't they?
>
>>> Many businesses here support a national campaign for Seniors Cards ... they
>>> offer discounts to fixed income/pensioner retired people they don't give to
>>> rich CEO's of major companies. One example of MANY, where one's financial
>>> situation means higher or lower prices ... same place, and exact same time,
>>> and exact same product.
>
>> Right -- I gave the example already of a senior discount at the movie
>> theaters (although I noted that they don't give discounts to younger
>> low wage earners, so the criteria for the discount must not be income,
>> right?)
>
>>>> Further, if it is ok to charge people differently for the same
>>>> products in some cases, why not apply that rule universally? Why not
>>>> give low wage earners a discount on hammers at Home Depot, for
>>>> instance?
>
>>>>
>
>>> Do some study on Business marketing. [ not advertising, or focus groups, or
>>> sales, but real "marketing" principles] , and you'll see why there are many
>>> factors in setting retail pricing that go beyond basic costs.
>
>> So now we finally get down to the opportunity for you to answer the
>> question that I asked in my original query, and you dodge it by giving
>> the old "go read a book" response? I would think that a self-
>> proclaimed expert on these matters like yourself would be able to
>> articulate the general principle in a couple of sentences -- this was
>> your moment to shine. I'm certainly willing to learn from your
>> expertise, because I really don't know . . . which is why I asked the
>> question in the first place.
>
>> It's interesting to note that out of all of the words you've written,
>> you haven't actually answered the question that was posed in the
>> original post.
>
> Ta, to repeat my original observation: People can't answer your
> question because you hold the key to the meaning of the word "fair".
> If "fair" means "everyone pays the same for the same product", then
> this is the question-begging fallacy---you've answered your own
> question and there's nothing for anyone else to say.
Well, part of my question had to do with defining what is fair. I
asked in my original post: wouldn't you consider it unfair if you had
to pay more for a loaf of bread at the grocery store than the next
guy? I know I would. But no one except for Dan has actually answered
that question (but then he failed to follow up on why charging
different people different prices was more fair) -- it's a simple yes
or no question.
> A number of people have given reasonable justifications for a
> progressive tax. They rely on some underlying principle which is
> clearly defined---not just labeled as "fair".
I'm not looking for justifications for a progressive tax or a flat tax
or any other tax. I'm simply using the concept of "fairness" as a
starting point, because "fairness" and "justice" are concepts upon
which any modern, democratic nation is founded. Fairness and justice
are universal principles that should guide a society's decision making
process about important issues, in my opinion. It is my position that
"fairness" comes into play in economic decisions as well, as evidenced
by my bread example.
> I would propose the following analogy:
>
> You and I, by coincidence, take a vacation in Australia. We
> independently decide that we would like to go on a fishing charter. I
> decide that I am going to take the 400 dollar boat which is well
> appointed but carries four fisherman, and you decide to go with the 2-
> person 800 dollar boat. But when we arrive (late) at the dock we find
> that both boats are filled up.
>
> Along comes Captain Sean, who has a 2-person boat. He too is late and
> has missed all the other customers. Since I only have 400 in my
> pocket, he offers to take us both out for a total of 1200, since he
> needs to pay his crew anyway and will still make a few dollars. But he
> refuses to do it for 800.
>
> By your reasoning, this would seem to be 'unfair', since he is
> charging you twice as much. You can choose to decline the trip,
> because you would feel bad about me getting to pay less. But if the
> situation were reversed, I woud be perfectly happy to pay the 800
> because my goal was to go fishing, not to enforce some moral
> principle. I am certainly not being harmed, since if you also had 800,
> I would pay exactly the same and get the same trip.
That's right, it would be unfair for me to pay twice as much as you
for the same service. However, in this case, the problem is not with
the overall price of service, but the way the costs are divided. Of
course, I may still pay the 800.00 and enjoy the trip, because I'm
essentially paying what I expected to begin with, but that is a
separate issue that is negotiated between you and me.
In this case, Sean is offering a consistent price of $1200 to
whichever customer(s) can pay that price. He doesn't care who pays
what -- he only cares that the total is $1200.
So again you are adding nuances that change the dynamics of the
scenario that I offered. If you want to be consistent with my analogy,
then Sean would have to offer you the service for 400 and me for 800,
which of course is unfair. That's not the case with the analogy you
offered.
In my analogy, the price of bread is still $1 a loaf -- whether you
come into the store and say "hey, it's the last loaf of bread on the
shelf and I really need the bread bad man -- I'm having yeast
withdrawls -- I'll give you 70 cents for a half of that loaf".
You've now offered two analogies that differ in significant ways from
my original query. Why are you changing the rules of my analogy?
> If we base the idea of "fairness" on the mutual benefit of the
> parties, rather than the simple numerical difference, we see that all
> parties benefit---Sean doesn't lose money, I get my trip, and you pay
> 400 to go fishing which was your original intention as well. So this
> is a subjective question, and it isn't 'fair' to expect people to
> think exactly the way you do when answering it.
Of course -- but if someone comes up with an alternate definition of
fairness, then I'd like to know why is it fair in one instance but not
in another. Why do we pay equal prices in one instance but not in
another?
> In the case of progressive taxation, the same principle operates. For
> example, people always claim that "the top 1%% pay 30%% (or whatever) of
> the taxes. But all the services provided by the state would not exist
> without the other 99%% of the people.
So? Would all of the services for the 99%% exist without the 1%%?
> That's not only because of the
> other 70%%(?) in cash tax payment, but because the wealth of the 1%%
> would neither exist nor be secure without all those other people.
But then again, would the wealth of the 99%% be available without the
businesses, jobs, and benefits provided by the 1%%? There is clearly an
interdependence here, and both groups benefit from each other.
Do you benefit more from police protection from a murderer than the
homeless man?
> By
> having the progressive system, everyone benefits---they get something
> that they would otherwise not have.
>
> -tg
As a matter of principle, do you believe all all people should be
afforded equal protection from criminals and intruders?
>>> Mind you, that doesn't mean that all businesses follow such principles or
>>> need to, but the more successful usually do. Bear Sterns sure didn't !!!!
