Capitalism and Firefly by chrisisall

I can totally understand charging more if it's not current, or if it's autographed. I know the object of business is to make money. There are just degrees.
But that doesn't answer my question, should he have paid or not without a ruckuss, or was he right in how he responded?

He's my he-wo Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 2:57 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:
How can you ask someoen who is trying to make a living to take less than market value for something?

Well, price gouging is generally considered selling at well above market value when the seller has the buyer at a disadvantage. I don't think Chris is talking about someone selling anything at fair market value.

However, I think this situation with Fillion and his comic shop is not an example of price gouging. The reason it is not price gouging is that the seller does not have the buyer at a disadvantage. In fact it is the buyer who actually has the seller at a disadvantage. In a free market where competition exists the buyer can always go somewhere else to buy something, and the threat of loosing business to cheaper prices is what competition is all about.

There was nothing unfair about charging an exuberant price for something that is worth much less, as long as the seller doesn’t have the buyer at an unfair advantage (and even then it is debatable.) It was Fillion who had the advantage, I think, because he could (and probably did) go somewhere else, thereby leaving the previous seller without a purchase. So the only person who lost here was the seller, who should have reduced his prices if he wanted to stay competitive with the market, but that’s his choice. He didn’t do anything ethically wrong, if that’s all he did.

Free market Capitalism does mean whatever the market will bear, but the market is not set solely by the seller, rather by what the seller and the buyer agree upon. This is a concept that I think eludes many people. They go to Walmart and they pay whatever the seller sets; never quite understanding that the price is or should be set as much by the buyer as by the seller. So suggesting that Nathan should simply pay whatever price the seller asks is not capitalism. Nathan should argue and complain and argue and complain some more, until he gets down to a price that both the seller and the buyer can agree upon, or failing that depart and seek other sources. And that price is then what the market will bear.

So to answer Chris' question: Nathan did the right thing.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 3:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
My question here is: Do you agree with standing up to unfair pricing just because the perceived demand is so high, or do you feel Capitalism means whatever the market will bear, and Nathan should have just paid the price asked for?

Concepts like value and worth are entirely subjective. People may talk about "fair market value" but that's something of a fiction. Goods and services are worth whatever you are willing to pay for them. Probably, to some people, the comic was worth $20. Obviously Nathan thought that was kind of a rip off (as do I) and had every right to gripe about it.

I think maybe Nathan's post was prompted more by the clerk's asinine responses to his complaints than by the actual price. Either way, I think he's right to complain. On the other hand, people who want to legislate 'price gouging' laws to prevent such a thing don't seem to understand the point of a free market, imho.

EDIT: (eewwww gross! I agreed with Finn!

)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 3:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I think maybe Nathan's post was prompted more by the clerk's asinine responses to his complaints than by the actual price.
EDIT: (eewwww gross! I agreed with Finn! )

Like if the clerk just said, "I'm sorry, I know the price is really high, but small shops like ours have to pay rent, and event-driven material is unfortunatly our bread and butter...", but no, he had to go all Badger on Nathan.

And don't worry 'bout agreeing with Finn, I do it a lot (he's so warm and fuzzy and such, y'know).

Bargain huntin' Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 3:37 PM

Nathan did the right thing, the guy was an arse (based on his attitude alone).
Frankly he [[]Daryl, the comic book guy[]] may have done nothing wrong based on the ethics of capitalism, but I tend to think the ethics of capitalism isn't all that great anyway.
Greed isn't a great motivation for anything, yet its the guiding creed of capitalism.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 3:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Greed isn't a great motivation for anything, yet its the guiding creed of capitalism.

That notion is widely touted, even by supposed capitalists, but the real guiding creed of free-market capitalism (as long as you leave corporate privilege out of the mix) is respect for each person's right to decide for themselves.

This example really illustrates that nicely. In any economic system, there's always the chore of determining what something is worth. In a centralized economy you have bureaucrats or elected officials making such decisions. In a free market, people make these calls for themselves. Just seems more fair to me.

(Damn you, ChrisIsAll. Don't try to pretend you didn't know what you were stirring up here....

)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 4:04 PM

I see your point. But it just doesn't workout like that.
The companies that make money are the most ruthless, the ones that don't mind fighting dirty. Not the ones the offer the best, cheapest service.
The companies that make it are ones that don't mind screw people over (imho), that can channel the extra profits in to pulling the wool over peoples eyes, using pyschological tricks and advertising.
Recently I saw a program on TV that highlighted that food bought in small independent butchers/grocers etc was not just better for you (which people tend to know) but was cheaper than what you can buy in the supermarket. Why do people shop at supermarkets, because they're perceived to be cheaper and more convient (this one may be true), than the small independent shops.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 4:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
(Damn you, ChrisIsAll. Don't try to pretend you didn't know what you were stirring up here.... )

Who, me?

I just see a lot of anti-Independent like comments tossed around by die-hard Firefly fans on the RWE, and wanted to see how that thinking holds up when the man portrayin' our captain speaks out in a way that stands up for the people history rolls over.
I'm dying to see Lynchaj comment here

Words don't stir people up, Chrisisall does

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 4:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I see your point. But it just doesn't workout like that.
The companies that make money are the most ruthless, the ones that don't mind fighting dirty. Not the ones the offer the best, cheapest service.
The companies that make it are ones that don't mind screw people over (imho), that can channel the extra profits in to pulling the wool over peoples eyes, using pyschological tricks and advertising.
Recently I saw a program on TV that highlighted that food bought in small independent butchers/grocers etc was not just better for you (which people tend to know) but was cheaper than what you can buy in the supermarket. Why do people shop at supermarkets, because they're perceived to be cheaper and more convient (this one may be true), than the small independent shops.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

You're right, it doesn't work like that, not always in any case. These days corruption and greed carry the day for a multitude of reasons, which we ought to discuss, but I fail to see anything inherent in the notion of the free market that makes this happen.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 4:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Recently I saw a program on TV that highlighted that food bought in small independent butchers/grocers etc was not just better for you (which people tend to know) but was cheaper than what you can buy in the supermarket.

People doing the job always know best, not the Allianc...I mean, the corporations. They just know the best way to screw things up whilst maintaining their bottom line...THIS quarter.
Short sightedness that results in stupidity and corruption (not to mention conspiracies!!)

Not for s*#&in' on the little guy Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 4:22 PM

Theres nothing wrong with the concept of the free market.
Theres nothing wrong with the concept of communism. Before I'm labeled as this or that let me explain:
Communism's guiding principle is the idea of everyone being the same, equal, everyone helping each other out.
Capitalism, at its best, is advisarial, trying to succeed at the detrement of your competion.
Problem is neither of them workout how their supposed to.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 4:39 PM

Hmmm.. I think the issue is not really one of how capitalism (or communism or whatever) works or doesn't work. I'm just saying that the injustices we see in the name of 'capitalism' are just people looking to screw other people over. This is going to happen in any system. But, excepting the basic unfairness of corporate law, capitalism at least tries to seperate this from the forceful rule of government. It's why I like it better than any other economic system I've heard of.

People in a free market system can turn away from the despicable business practices you mentioned. They can stop shopping at Wal-Mart, they can refuse to grant unfair tax favors to large companies, they can stop letting themselves be brainwashed by unscrupulous marketing. The fact that they refuse to do so is pretty depressing, but the option is there waiting for us to seize it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 4:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

the ethics of capitalism

Capitalism... Ethics... What?

Anyone see the documentary "The Corporation"?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 4:53 PM

Nope, was it something on American TV? I'm British.

SergeantX:
Freedom of choice is meaningless with out the information/knowledge to use it.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 4:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

People in a free market system can turn away from the despicable business practices you mentioned. They can stop shopping at Wal-Mart, they can refuse to grant unfair tax favors to large companies, they can stop letting themselves be brainwashed by unscrupulous marketing. The fact that they refuse to do so is pretty depressing, but the option is there waiting for us to seize it.

I think your fallacy here is that you are assuming that the masses are basically intellegent. And that they are aware of what's going on.

Capatilism has the some basic flaws in common with communism. They both assume that people are basically intellegent, are informed, are activites, will do something when something isn't fair, etc This is, in reality, non-sense. People just don't care enough.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 5:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Capatilism has the some basic flaws in common with communism. They both assume that people are basically intellegent, are informed, are activites, will do something when something isn't fair, etc This is, in reality, non-sense. People just don't care enough.

So, basically you're saying Nathan did the right thing, and didn't over-react, or anything, right?
I would agree.

Back on track Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 5:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I think your fallacy here is that you are assuming that the masses are basically intellegent. And that they are aware of what's going on.

It's tempting to agree. I've made similar statements myself. But I think it's more a matter of laziness. Most people are reasonably intelligent but tend to avoid the 'work' of thinking for themselves if they can get away with it. I just don't see how making it easier for them to get away with it helps the problem.

Now, my last statement makes some (perhaps unwarranted) assumptions about what you might be suggesting as an alternative to a free market, but regardless, I'd rather err on the side of optimism when it comes to human intelligence. It seems that treating them as naive children in need of constant supervision will only encourage them to behave as naive children.

As I alluded to earlier, I really think the problems we're seeing aren't inherent in free economic exchange, but have more to do with the way people are conditioned from birth to respond to marketing and groupthink. The basic model of our education system is a culprit, in my opinion, as well as the non-stop assault of pop media.

Out of interest, are you suggesting any viable alternatives?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 9:57 PM

TIGER

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Theres nothing wrong with the concept of the free market.
Theres nothing wrong with the concept of communism. Before I'm labeled as this or that let me explain:
Communism's guiding principle is the idea of everyone being the same, equal, everyone helping each other out.
Capitalism, at its best, is advisarial, trying to succeed at the detrement of your competion.
Problem is neither of them workout how their supposed to.

The guiding priciple behind communism is not that people will help each other, it is that people will work willingly for everyone but themselves. That individuals will never desire rewards that match their efforts, but will settle for getting what everyone else gets regardless of their own sacrifice, ideas, pain and work. In reality this is only possible in insects, therefore it is neccessary to force people to conform to the communist model. Every communist government that has ever existed on earth either failed quickly or degenerated almost immediately into a dictatorship. Stalin, Castro, Mao, Kim Il-sung. That is the nature of communism.

The guiding principle behind capitalism is not to succeed to the detrement of your competition, it is that you are free to succeed (or fail) based on your own merits without interference from the government. This is the natural state of a human being - to do his best to provide for himself. The United States in the 19th and early 20th century (the only truly capitilast time/place in history) spearheaded the largest explosion of wealth for common people ever. That is the nature of capitalism.

So, if I have a choice between a jerk who wants to charge too much for a comic book that I can refuse to buy, and a Stalin or Il-Sung, I'll take the jerk.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2005 4:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
So, if I have a choice between a jerk who wants to charge too much for a comic book that I can refuse to buy, and a Stalin or Il-Sung, I'll take the jerk.

That certainly is lookin' at the small and large of it in the same sentance, all right.

Polar Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2005 11:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

So, if I have a choice between a jerk who wants to charge too much for a comic book that I can refuse to buy, and a Stalin or Il-Sung, I'll take the jerk.

This is an extremely unfair comparison.

A more oranges to oranges comparison would be, a choice between the Stalin's of the world and people who'll sell out other people/work them to death/go to war/etc. all for profit.

So, basically both options are horrible to the people, just one is more subtle than the other (at least to the population in that country).

Both are very unacceptable options. Why are you comparing the extremes of the extremes? Why can't you see that extremes are never the answer? Why can't you see that a middle path would be the best alternative?

Watch The Corporation. I think there's lots in there that you aren't aware of. Capitalism isn't the shining star of perfection that you make it out to be.

One can also make the argument that they both end in the same place for the people. Look at Russia, we have rich people at the top and extremely poor people at the bottom. Look at the US, we have rich people at the top and extremely poor people at the bottom. The only reason why there is more poor people in Russia (which mind you is not necesarily true anymore) is that there economy tanked, which mind you, may happen to the US in the relatively near future as well.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,366940,00.html
"""
It didn't used to be that way. The American Dream was once robust and immigrants really did make it. As late as 1960, we were the most middle class and most egalitarian of all the OECD developed nations. We now rank 24th among industrial nations in income disparity -- only Russia and Mexico rank lower. That's disgraceful and most Americans would be shocked if you told them that. Barely 51 percent of Americans believe in the American Dream according to a Ford Foundation survey. One-third say they don't believe in the dream at all, which is devastating because that's the social glue, that's what binds us together, much more than Wall Street or Washington or even the US constitution.
"""

Hmmm...

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2005 11:07 AM

@ChrisIsAll:
Yes, I'm saying Mr. Fillion did the right thing. I've done the same thing with my friends when a store/company/etc done me wrong (UPS I'm looking at you!). Mr. Fillion is just better at it than I am.

@SergeantX:
My suggestion would be to move far away from the fringe to the middle. Creating some laws that would prevent corps from screwing the people would be good as well. Not to mention getting rid of all the company specific tax laws.

Interestingly enough, my wife has told me that the next instalment in the series I posted above (Monday I believe) is going to be a comparison of European and US economies. Should be an interesting read.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2005 11:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
My suggestion would be to move far away from the fringe to the middle. Creating some laws that would prevent corps from screwing the people would be good as well. Not to mention getting rid of all the company specific tax laws.

I'm curious what you consider 'the fringe', but we seem to be on the same page. Personally, I've never seen corporate law, at least as it exists today, as consistent with free market ideology. Corporations operate under an entirely different set of rules and responsibilities than privately owned companies. Nothing 'free' or 'fair' about it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2005 9:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

I'm curious what you consider 'the fringe'

Basically, extremes. Capatilism or the form of it that the US has breeds very bad things; people get screwed all the time. I'm just saying, move to a moderate place. B/c, as you say, there's nothing free or fair about it.

If you want, I can try a better explination later. Right now I'm about to fall over tired.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2005 11:36 PM

DAIKATH

Bah, there is nothing more irritating then reading a thread. Really want to share something and then watch the thread go into an entirely different direction wherein the emotion/story/argument you want to share is irrelevant to the discussion

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 3:08 AM

Feel free to bring it back on topic.

Moderator Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 5:01 AM

No kidding Daikath, fire away!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 8:30 AM

DAIKATH

Well I live in The Netherlands (better known as Holland though we only call it that way for ignorant foreigners). With the euro a whole lot of poeple took advantage of the confusion among poeple.

We all had to get used to a new currency and stuff in stores had different price tag to it. A lot of poieple and stores (even the government at a lot of places) took advantage of our initial confusion with new numbers on everything and have gotton away with raising the price on a lot of stuff. (The government denis this as they are saving their ass, pointing out the prices only rose after that. But the stores were smart enough to raise the prices as soon as we didnt think anymore in our old currency).

Long story short, especially in bars everything is much more expensive. I'd like to find some cheaper spots but I have only found them in fastfood (Kentucky Fried Chicken and some privately owned Turkish Fast food places are the only ones asking a reasonable price). For bars the cheaper places I could visit instead are just not there. Poeple visit them less often now too, but the prices won't go down.

I just now refuse to spend the kind of money bars are asking now. But I still live with my parents so drinking at home isn't a real option either.

So okay after all this ranting I finally make my point. Despite all of the theory behind capatalism I can't find a place to drink nowadays. If I could find a place that won't ask the price of a bottle for a glass I would go there and celebrate that there is such a place. But there isn't.

In theory I support the free market, but this is getting ridiculous over here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 8:38 AM

That's kind of what Sigma was getting at. Consumers must have a decent level of awareness for market 'forces' to have much affect. If you can fool enough of them things get wonky.

Do you know anyone with enough cash to open a bar? Might be a good time to undercut the high prices with something more reasonable. There are probably other people like you out there, refusing to pay the higher prices.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 8:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Watch The Corporation. I think there's lots in there that you aren't aware of. Capitalism isn't the shining star of perfection that you make it out to be.

I'm going to look for this one. I've heard it's quite good.

There's got to be some way to separate free market capitalism from corporate capitalism. It's frustrating that the basic elements of a free economy are almost always tied to corporate excesses, as though it were a package deal. In my opinion, the legal framework of corporate law (limited liability, and the bevy of legal 'fictions' that accompany it), violates the basic ideas of the free market.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 11:16 AM

DUSETH

As the seller he has the right to sell it for what ever he feels the value of the comic is.

Alright, first things first, while you do have a valid point about value and capitalism, you don't know the guy who runs the comic shop, I do, I live in the city where this happened.

First off, Patchy (as I will call him, leaving names out for obvious reasons) is a dick. The guy doesn't know how to run a business first off, he lost my business a long time ago because of this.

Second thing is he doesn't mark up his product reasonably, he gouges his customers and doesn't care that his business is getting ruined because of it.

Third, he could have easily gotten Nathan Fillion to autograph some other Firefly merchandise he has in the store and GIVEN him the comic, getting something more in return for a simple gesture.

All that said, I think Nathan was justified in his reaction to the scene that was caused. A three dollar comic (Canadian) with nearly a 700% markup, just cause it is the last copy in the store is a bunch of bs. Patchy just wanted to cause a scene and was hoping to seem like the better person for having stiffed Nathan. I can tell you now, that any and all Firefly fans in my city will no doubt have stopped giving Patchy their patronage, as his actions were less than honorable. I said my piece, stated my opinion and now I sit back to watch.

Outside of a dog a book is a man's best friend, inside a dog it's too dark to read.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 11:32 AM

I believe yours is a mute point.

Quote:

I said my piece, stated my opinion and now I sit back to watch

I don't think anyone is going to argue against anything you've said.
Ours is a discussion of the wider issue.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 11:54 AM

DUSETH

Like I said, I stated my opinion and made my point

. Capitalism isn't something I'm fond of, because it breeds situations like what happened to Nathan Fillion. And there is little I can do to avoid Capitalism in todays day and age, but what I can do, I do with a passion, like avoiding Warp 1 Comics. Greed is a product of civilization, anyone who argues this needs to have their heads examined. Capitalism is in my opinion the chief factor of greed, and one we have brought upon ourselves. To complain without trying to change what we have wrought with our ambitions is pointless and a waste of time. All that said, I'm sure everyone would like a change from Capitalism to something a little more sane and incouraging for social growth.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 12:39 PM

258WESTAUTHENTIC

Why dont people look at this from the sellers prospective. No one complains when they can buy stuff super cheep online ( sometimes pennies above cost.) yet when something is in demand and the price goes up, people start complaining? Its called supply and demand.

I mean If you can sell a comic for $20 or sell it for $3 what would you do? Sure Only a hand full of people would pay $20 ( but if you only have a handfull of comics then its ok) If you have 1000 comics no way could you sell them all for $20 you will have to lower your price to move them.

The clerk could have handled the situation WAY better. Nathan had a right to complain about his service. Dont think he had a right to complain about the price. Nathan is in part to blame if him and the rest of the cast wernt so damn good in the show and the movie no one would want the comics and they would be selling for $1 each.

------------------------------------------------

RON GLASS AUTOGRAPHED COMIC COVERS FOR SELL ON MY SITE FOR A LIMITED TIME ( Limited to 258 Copies )

https://258west.com/category/item.php?id=60

Serenity Comics, Action figures, RPG, Books, Trading cards... Everything Serenity can be found at my store.

http://www.bigdamnstore.com

Thanks for you support

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 12:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DuSeth:
All that said, I'm sure everyone would like a change from Capitalism to something a little more sane and incouraging for social growth.

Like what? Seriously, I'm interested. I've studied the most popular alternatives, the various forms of socialism and such, but I'm not seeing how they avoid the problems we're discussing. They just centralize them. What have you got in mind?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 1:52 PM

@SergeantX:
I think that the first part of it is the most interesting. The next 2 parts get such that you can tell the leanings of the creators, but there's still a lot of good info in there; lots of examples.

@Duseth:
Noticed that you just joined, welcome

I pretty much agree with all your points except your opinion that greed is a product of civilization. I would say that it is a product of todays society. To say that it's a product of civilization would discount the possibility of groups of people working without greed as a prime motivator (ie there are tribes in the world that don't run on greed, countries in Europe are basically Socialist, etc).

Please note, I'm still in a fog. So, don't hesitate to tell me if I'm talking nonsence

For the record, I don't want to completely s**t on capatilism. I think that it is great on the smaller scale for a limited time. The early years of the US is a good example of that.

The problem comes in when you start to cross into a large scale corporate environment, next to no restrictions on busness practices (read: unethical busness practices), etc.

This is a natural evolution of capatilism. The trick is to start making laws that prevent these sort of practices before the corps get any real power; moving in a Socialist direction. That or actually make corps be what they were first in
tended for and actually enforce corp law. Unfortunately, the US is beyond that
point and Socialism has become a dirty word.

So, it'll definitly be an uphill battle, but change for the better is more than possible.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 2:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:

I mean If you can sell a comic for $20 or sell it for $3 what would you do? Sure Only a hand full of people would pay $20 ( but if you only have a handfull of comics then its ok)

Um, no it's not. It's called ethics.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 3:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
The problem comes in when you start to cross into a large scale corporate environment, next to no restrictions on busness practices (read: unethical busness practices), etc.

Agreed. The corps eventually amass enough power and money through the collective wealth of the shareholders that they can bend the government to their will. This problem multiplies when the corporations grow beyond the borders of their home nation. At that point they can pretty much dictate their own regulatory environment.

Quote:
This is a natural evolution of capatilism.

I'm not sure this is neccessarily true. Corporations developed as an alternative to approaching projects generally considered too large for private or individual developers. To encourage this (and, I'm assuming to keep up with countries willing to fund such projects with government money) our legal framework was designed to limit the liability of investors.

The problem with that, is it also limits accountability. If a privately owned business engages in vile practices, the owners can be sued, or even criminally prosecuted for the actions of their company. They can lose everything, even their freedom. In a corporation, the owners (i.e. shareholders) are protected from suffering such consequences. It makes for businesses that can act completely without conscience, while the owners risk nothing more than the money invested. Frequently that isn't even in jeopardy if the company is large and powerful enough to rig a government bailout.

Anyway, I don't see why these things naturally follow from allowing free enterprise. We just have to make sure all business operate under the same rules and quit giving special dispensation to corporations just because it's expedient to do so.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 6:04 PM

258WESTAUTHENTIC

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:

I mean If you can sell a comic for $20 or sell it for $3 what would you do? Sure Only a hand full of people would pay $20 ( but if you only have a handfull of comics then its ok)

Um, no it's not. It's called ethics.

That's Funny. I dont see people crying when someone buys something below a stores COST becuase they cant get rid of it. It works both ways. Ethics have nothing to do with it. How come the price of Gas, Milk, Water keeps going up? How about Rent in manhattan? Supply and Demand. Its a simple concept. How is people BID things up on Ebay to WAY over their Retail Value? Should the seller say " My God you bid way to much on this item, its retail price is far less. Let me refund the balance.

$20 you say is to High, is it to high for someone who Really wants it and cant find it any where else? How about in 5 years when a 1st print of serenity will be worth $100? I bet $20 will seem like a steal then. Wake up from this dream world you live in and open your eyes to the real life. Go back to school and learn about supply and demand.

------------------------------------------------

RON GLASS AUTOGRAPHED COMIC COVERS FOR SELL ON MY SITE FOR A LIMITED TIME ( Limited to 258 Copies )

https://258west.com/category/item.php?id=60

Serenity Comics, Action figures, RPG, Books, Trading cards... Everything Serenity can be found at my store.

http://www.bigdamnstore.com

Thanks for you support

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 6:54 PM

@SergeantX:
The reason why I think that this is natural evolution is that in the beginning companies will earn money from there local surroundings. Then they may move to other towns/cities/etc. Then still not content they'll want to make some massive undertaking. Thus the idea of the corporation is a natural evolution of capatilism. At least that's my logic.

But, at least we agree that the playing feild should be leveled

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 7:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:

Ethics have nothing to do with it.

Just because you say something, doesn't make it true.

Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:

How come the price of Gas, Milk, Water keeps going up? How about Rent in manhattan?

Well, some of it would be inflation, increased cost to transport goods, people will raise to a price that they think they can get away with, people will screw people out of as much money as possible (read: unethical - see it does play a role), etc.

Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:

How is people BID things up on Ebay to WAY over their Retail Value? Should the seller say " My God you bid way to much on this item, its retail price is far less. Let me refund the balance.

You are making an apples and oranges comparison here. This isn't something that is being sold on a store shelf, first come first serve; it's highest bidder. Selling at auction isn't about market value, it isn't about price gouging. It's purely about what it's worth to the people bidding, period. Thus the people bidding set the price, NOT the person who puts it up for auction.

ebay != store. Since we're talking about actual retail stores here, you're also going to have to explain to me/us how autions are relavent.

Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:

$20 you say is to High, is it to high for someone who Really wants it and cant find it any where else?

Yes. If market value says $3, then $20 is rather steep don't you think?

Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:

How about in 5 years when a 1st print of serenity will be worth $100? I bet $20 will seem like a steal then.

I'd hate to let you in on a secret, but 5 years from now isn't now. Since we are talking about now, this is a rather moot statement isn't it.

Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:

Wake up from this dream world you live in and open your eyes to the real life. Go back to school and learn about supply and demand.

I find it funny that when people refuse to agree with a certain type of person right off the hop, that certain type of person will imediately jump right to personal insults.

I'm actually well aware of this concept. Your problem is that you don't realize that in this case supply was/is still relavitly high, thus even by the supply/demand "rule", $20 is way too high.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 8:33 PM

Sigma, I think you're misusing the term 'market value'. In a free market economy it means nothing more than how much something is being sold for. It is constantly in flux and dependent entirely on how much a customer is willing to pay. There's no central authority setting prices. That's why it says 'suggested retail' on the cover.

Now, I understand you're not in favor of the whole free market set up, which is fine. But you still have the same problem with deciding how much to charge people for items. (Even if you're suggesting just giving them away, someone still has to decide how much of a given item gets made and who gets them.) Who decides?

The safety valve in a free market, when someone makes an unreasonable decision (like trying to charge $20 for a comic book), is that you can look for a better price from another seller. But, if the prices are set by an authority of some sort, you're pretty much stuck with one price, take it or leave it. Isn't it better to have options in such a case?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 8:36 PM

TIGER

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The corps eventually amass enough power and money through the collective wealth of the shareholders that they can bend the government to their will.

That is the most important point made in this entire thread.

The power is ultimately in the hands of government, not big business. Corporations spend millions (billions?) of dollars every year to influence the course of government in their favor. Why isn't it the other way around? Why aren't there gov't lobbyists stalking the halls of Microsoft begging for favors? Because government has the power. Large corporations beg at the feet of government for ways to FORCE the market in their favor, instead of competing honestly. Cable and Telecom companies constantly have lobbyist wars at all levels of government to obtain the rights to work in certain cities, use which phone lines, sell to which customers. The lowly consumer isn't allowed to choose between Comcast and Charter cable, for example, because the local government has already decided for you.

Capitalist nay-sayers blame corporate abuses on free markets - as if that's what we actually have (business in the U.S. is almost as regulated and taxed as those in socialist western Europe). The problem isn't that there are greedy, amoral, jerks in big business that will take advantage of the little guy every chance they get (which there are), it's that they can borrow the massive power of the government to do their bidding.

Some people say give the government MORE power - regulate, give favors, tax, interfere with ALL business even more than now, whether or not the business in question is even suspected of doing anything wrong.

Others say get to the source of the problem. Take the power away from the government. Don't allow them to hand out markets to begging corps like a king's indulgence. Don't allow gov'ts to give your house, or farm, or place of business to Home Depot for a bigger parking lot. (Yes, it's wrong of Home Depot to take it, but they couldn't if the gov't wasn't permitted to give it away in the first place).

In any economic system there will always be cheats, liars, and dirty bastards. The question is, do we allow them access to the institution with the monopoly on force in the country (government)? Or do we SEPARATE THE TWO ENTIRELY and force business to get the money they want by pleasing their customers?

Also, Nathan was absolutely right to do what he did. I think people put up with too much shit in general; as customers, as employees, as neighbors, as citizens. We need more like him, even if they are Canadian.

And finally, a most impressive and important point - [insert any SergeantX comment here].

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2005 4:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
In any economic system there will always be cheats, liars, and dirty bastards.

EXACTLY, Tiger.
Look at those living like kings in communist Russia a few years back, they weren't corporate but they used the system to live large. Whatever system is in place, those who worship greed will find a way to make it useful to them. Capitalism is just a really good tool for that, and allows for the maximum # of 'kings'.
I totally agree that the way to solve it is for government to have less power.

My condominium association where I live is a good example; the group was supposed to represent the will of all the owners, being owners themselves. But over the years people got on the board who owned, but didn't live here. They started to receive 'incentives' from the company managing the property to vote on issues in ways that favoured the company, not the owners. It was the work of two very dilligent souls that raised owner awareness to the problem, and through their tireless work, the management company was voted out by 51% of the owners (I'm making it sound a good deal simpler than it was here). We subsequently found out they were skimming thousands of $ a year through kickbacks and such. Golly, and they seemed like such nice folk...

Sounds like governments and corporations, huh?

Power to the people Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2005 6:35 AM

Quote:

Look at those living like kings in communist Russia a few years back, they weren't corporate but they used the system to live large.

You mean after the collapse of communist russia when there was little or no system, perhaps?

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2005 6:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You mean after the collapse or communist russia when there was little of no system, perhaps?

I mean before, you know, Stallinist Communist Facist white-haired guys runnin' the rubles (and developing the Firefox behind our backs)! The rulers, man! No-caviar-at-dinner-is-not-an-option types.
After the collapse we're talkin' the mob.
I'd like to see the ruler of ANY country drivin' a Saturn or a Hyundai - but we're gettin' off the topic (like that's ever been a big concern of mine...).

Educational Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2005 6:54 AM

I see, so your likening present day capitalist corporations to the rulers of a Totalitarian dictatorship, organised crime, and possibly brutal murders like warlords.

Well, no argument here.
Big Execs and those types have a hell of alot in common.

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2005 7:01 AM

Like the dude in Die Hard said, some use a gun, some use a fountain pen, what's the difference?

I have two myself Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2005 7:08 AM