The intersection of "Don't rip me off" & "I'm just trying to make a living"

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

The intersection of "Don't rip me off" & "I'm just trying to make a living"

Let's have us a little thread on the ethics of trade. What kinds of behaviors and tactics are acceptable when two people are negotiating a mutually beneficial deal involving a transfer of resources? Which ones should not be tolerated, and why not?

Do boycotts work? Something tells me they could theoretically be the best enforcer of fair trade ever made, but are hard to pull off well.

Who and what does the best job enforcing fair trade? Do people trade most fairly when both sides are evenly matched in their ability and willingness to bring violence upon the other if there's any funny business? Is heavy government enforcement of trade regulations a good thing, even though it's wasteful? Should all markets be left entirely unhindered and allowed to run their course, whereby the naive and stupid get selected out by being ripped off?

I've taken a liking to dealing with merchants face to face and "under the table" for buying all sorts of things, as opposed to a rigid hierarchy of price tags, scanners, sales associates and clerks. I like yard sales, flea markets, mom and pop stores, streetside vendors, village markets in third world countries, and a few kinds of loosely knit markets that have really no "above the table" equivalent. But I find that negotiating this sort of trade required a whole different skill set than buying and selling through a computerized store. For one thing, I've found it very much not in my best interests to rub it in the merchant's face when I catch him trying to overcharge or scam me. It's best to let him save face and just calmly say, "I'm offering you $X." I used to be very self-righteous about calling out people trying to rip me off, and I had guys explode at me, telling me "I'm only trying to make a living here, asshole."

The question is, do I owe it to the merchant to gracefully decline a ripoff? Or am I just doing that as a social lubricant? What if I'm seriously angry about just how naive or stupid he must have thought I was? Also, I thought most good merchants had a grudging respect for customers who were frugal.

 

[Pegasus]

I really dislike the bargaining process altogether and will avoid it if possible. I hate any situation that makes me disguise my intentions. I much prefer to be in good company with someone and take price discussion in stride. If I don't like their price, I often don't even specifically tell them that the price is my concern, I just politely decline. If the person really wants a sale, they may lower the price and I may counteroffer, but I won't pursue this unless it is presented by them. If someone makes a ridiculously overpriced offer, I do genuinely get offended but don't often say why I'm offended, I just make it obvious that I'm not pleased and leave. I don't want to deal with someone who would take as much advantage of me as possible, and I want them to know that their behavior disgusts me.

 

[L2R]

^you wouldn't survive in asia!

mdoa, you are no more obligated to be graceful in trade as you are to be polite and friendly in any situation. Applying tact to all interactions has benefits which long outlast the purpose of the immediate contact. Although content wise they are essentially identical, there is a big difference between saying "no thanks, that's more than i had budgeted" and "what are you, insane?". You gotta think longer term, as long as things remain friendly and reasonable, the more likely a successful outcome can be eventually reached. Even if not, you have no idea if you will deal with that person ever again. Even if you are successful in pulling the wool over someone's eyes, after the deal they are likely to figure it out and remember.

"i'm trying to make a living" is in direct conflict with "i can do better elsewhere". they balance out quite well on their own when dealing with small businesses.

big business, on the other hand, needs regulation from a common authority. unregulated markets stifle profit, but that is a good thing. profit comes at many social costs, to employees, to the environment, many kinds of exploitation. boycotts require far more activity than is ordinarily possible to compete with the lure of cheaper products or the intimidation of scary legal powers. figure out how to motivate people when they are overworked/underpaid and/or overdistracted as is the norm today, and you'll impress the nobel prize committee.

 

[ebola?]

I think that one of the key issues here is that most exploitative economics occur outside of the trading process, inhering instead within the laboring process (albeit conditioned / reproduced by labor contracts established within class-unequal contexts). One of Marx's key points is that capitalist class relations entail domination and exploitation even under conditions of trade, where all commodities go for their 'fair' price (for Marx, a 'fair price' is the amount of effort put into reproducing a commodity). The 'trade' here, of ability to work for a wage, entails subordinating one's work to external command and appropriation. The trade might be 'unfair' in some sense (as workers don't receive the full fruits of their efforts realized), but it remains fair in conforming to a uniform criterion of value.

The central problem requiring political intervention occurs prior to swindling in deals, where patterns of working activity and flows of wealth fall under hierarchical command; 'politics' (in this sense the exercise of power via defining logically fundamental economic conditions) determine crucially what markets emerge and what consequences follow from them.

In short, it is only when we reconstruct that which shapes markets and actors' positions therein that meaningfully fair trade emerges as an open avenue.

counterarguments?:

The capitalist contributes value to the laboring process congruent with his power and skill in dictating how people will collaborate to work. In Marx's terms (but contra Marx), maybe the capitalist cannot be treated as abstract, interchangeable labor, a la proletarian working effort. But what is fair compensation for business savvy, large amounts of inherited wealth, or legitimate innovative ideas?

What is the value of something (prescriptively; value as price is the result of a power struggle over what people are willing to pay/demand)? Which trades are fair? If we argue that to be fair is to set prices at market norms, we run into a tautology when trying to account for how markets shape trade to be fair or unfair, as we lack a contrast case of unfair trade or systemic pathologies in markets.

Free market dogma only brackets the above question.

In short, extra-trading social relations of power, the 'non-contractual bases' of exchange and contract, construct what fairness will be (set against alternative ideas), and shaping adequacy of market in attaining success by such criteria.

ebola
(so tired...proofing later.

 

[L2R]

lovely sentiments, ebola. however i find it hard to go beyond the machiavellian notion that power only requires success to be legitimate. until the nationalist competitiveness is replaced with a co-operative position, no state would get away with bucking the common capitalism trend. except for maybe china, but then again china is hardly not capitalistic.

 

[ebola?]

True, but I consider current criteria of legitimacy illegitimate .

 

[L2R]

yeah? well waddaya gonna do about it?

p.s. i think they got bigger sticks.

 

[ebola?]

I'll let someone more competent field that one.

ebola

 

[L2R]

how's this for a suggestion:
step1- stir up the whole debt ceiling debate with intense activity over the next 24 hours with the full intention to cause a delay and default.
step2- boycot the government, stop paying taxes, stop obeying laws, be obnoxiously rebellious and draw plenty of attention to yourself
step3- watch while the government is incapable of paying someone (police, irs, etc) to do anything about it.
step4- publicly proclaim the power of washington illegitimate (wear a bullet proof vest).

 

[B9]

Should all markets be left entirely unhindered and allowed to run their course, whereby the naive and stupid get selected out by being ripped off?

Perhaps if we all started from a level playing field that would be ok but we don't therefore it is a silly idea.

The question is, do I owe it to the merchant to gracefully decline a ripoff?

I'd have thought you'd have owed it to yourself