4 ms·

I think the problem is the phrasing. "Keep the change" sounds like they exploited her ignorance and ran off with a bargain. It's just not how most people want t

by MrJagil 10y ago

I think the problem is the phrasing. "Keep the change" sounds like they exploited her ignorance and ran off with a bargain. It's just not how most people want things to be. Despite the logic of the situation, it doesn't feel right. Attributions are free. Further, though, there are some practical considerations. If they'd shown her appreciation, future dialogue about how it got there, clues to the motor etc should be easier to develop- they obviously asked, but no reason to potentially burn any bridges.

ChuckMcM 10y ago
I largely agree, but I note that we're reading the BBC's retelling of a story told to them, so we don't really have a good handle on how the transaction went down with the owner. I have related experience with finding items to add to my DEC VAX collection. I've found equipment that would sell for a premium to one of the folks who maintain old computers for companies, and the owner has offered it up to me for a few dollars. I always tell people in that situation what we're looking at and often they are just glad to see it going to a good home rather than wasting away in their closet/basement/storereoom. Sometimes they will decide to try to sell it for more elsewhere. In this particular case, the historical value is high, but the number of people who would pay more than 9.5 pounds for it is probably in the single digits. Remember it's only a part of a larger artifact. Further, they found it on ebay so others had the opportunity to see it and bid on it. In the past I've found that things really do find their "market" price on ebay and sometimes that is very different from what either the seller or the buyer thinks should be the market price. Finally there is the question of "value." It would be fun and cool to have an ancient encryption device, but what is that "worth" to you? So many times I've met people who kept old computers when they were enjoying them (high value) and then discarding them after the excitement/fun has worn off. Cleaning out and disposing an in-law or relative's estate after a long life is also really useful for internalizing cash value vs sentimental value. Really the best you can hope for is that both parties are satisfied with the transaction. This person in the story might be looking forward to visiting the artifact in a museum some day. I'm not trying to argue that there aren't people who would exploit an imbalance of information in a market to profit at the expense of others. Hedge funds are full of people like that. I'm just saying that from what we've heard in this story, both parties seem happy with the transaction. The BBC could always follow up with a phone call to the owner and say "If you knew what it was would you have asked the museum for more money?" Only then do we have enough information to consider whether or not the museum was being exploitive.
- MrJagil 10y ago
  All valid points. Interestingly, I just remembered that we in Denmark have a law called "Danefæ"[0], which states that the government has claim on all found "treasure". Here you can read what is "danefæ" (i.e. claimed) http://natmus.dk/salg-og-ydelser/museumsfaglige-ydelser/danefae/hvad-kan-vaere-danefae/ http://natmus.dk/salg-og-ydelser/museumsfaglige-ydelser/dane.... As the law is mostly written with ancient, dug-up items in mind a contraption such as the one in question would not be covered. It's interesting though, how it would solve the moral dilemma. It's surprisingly hard to find information on this in english; do the states/UK have a similar setup? (your DEC VAX collection obviously wouldn't be covered (yet)) [0] http://natmus.dk/salg-og-ydelser/museumsfaglige-ydelser/danefae/ http://natmus.dk/salg-og-ydelser/museumsfaglige-ydelser/dane...
  - stordoff 10y ago
    The UK has a broadly similar scheme for buried treasures under the Treasure Act 1996. IIRC, it only covers items more than 200 years old. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Act_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Act_1996
AceyMan 10y ago
The idea of "ignorance" here is a type of slippery slope I would argue. Offhand it would seem that many (all?) profits made in open exchanges proceed from some knowledge advantage on the part of one party—or at least originate from a calculated risk taken in light of some knowledge. As a 'user story'; "I work in the field of <something>-ics, and suspect that <some products|raw materials> in <some industry> will be much <more|less> available in the coming years, so I'm going to go <long|short> on related stocks." I don't think many would say I'm obliged to inform the selling parties of my reasoning in some interest of fairness. (I'm not including the edge case of insider trading, but run of the mill, hard-earned expertise.) And at a more mundane level of analysis, c'mon—who doesn't know to at least do some web (text & image) searching before selling off something interesting (complex, artistic, hand-crafted, etc.) that you know very little about?

by MrJagil 10y ago

ChuckMcM 10y ago

I largely agree, but I note that we're reading the BBC's retelling of a story told to them, so we don't really have a good handle on how the transaction went down with the owner. I have related experience with finding items to add to my DEC VAX collection. I've found equipment that would sell for a premium to one of the folks who maintain old computers for companies, and the owner has offered it up to me for a few dollars. I always tell people in that situation what we're looking at and often they are just glad to see it going to a good home rather than wasting away in their closet/basement/storereoom. Sometimes they will decide to try to sell it for more elsewhere. In this particular case, the historical value is high, but the number of people who would pay more than 9.5 pounds for it is probably in the single digits. Remember it's only a part of a larger artifact. Further, they found it on ebay so others had the opportunity to see it and bid on it. In the past I've found that things really do find their "market" price on ebay and sometimes that is very different from what either the seller or the buyer thinks should be the market price. Finally there is the question of "value." It would be fun and cool to have an ancient encryption device, but what is that "worth" to you? So many times I've met people who kept old computers when they were enjoying them (high value) and then discarding them after the excitement/fun has worn off. Cleaning out and disposing an in-law or relative's estate after a long life is also really useful for internalizing cash value vs sentimental value. Really the best you can hope for is that both parties are satisfied with the transaction. This person in the story might be looking forward to visiting the artifact in a museum some day. I'm not trying to argue that there aren't people who would exploit an imbalance of information in a market to profit at the expense of others. Hedge funds are full of people like that. I'm just saying that from what we've heard in this story, both parties seem happy with the transaction. The BBC could always follow up with a phone call to the owner and say "If you knew what it was would you have asked the museum for more money?" Only then do we have enough information to consider whether or not the museum was being exploitive.

MrJagil 10y ago
All valid points. Interestingly, I just remembered that we in Denmark have a law called "Danefæ"[0], which states that the government has claim on all found "treasure". Here you can read what is "danefæ" (i.e. claimed) http://natmus.dk/salg-og-ydelser/museumsfaglige-ydelser/danefae/hvad-kan-vaere-danefae/ http://natmus.dk/salg-og-ydelser/museumsfaglige-ydelser/dane.... As the law is mostly written with ancient, dug-up items in mind a contraption such as the one in question would not be covered. It's interesting though, how it would solve the moral dilemma. It's surprisingly hard to find information on this in english; do the states/UK have a similar setup? (your DEC VAX collection obviously wouldn't be covered (yet)) [0] http://natmus.dk/salg-og-ydelser/museumsfaglige-ydelser/danefae/ http://natmus.dk/salg-og-ydelser/museumsfaglige-ydelser/dane...
- stordoff 10y ago
  The UK has a broadly similar scheme for buried treasures under the Treasure Act 1996. IIRC, it only covers items more than 200 years old. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Act_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Act_1996

AceyMan 10y ago

The idea of "ignorance" here is a type of slippery slope I would argue. Offhand it would seem that many (all?) profits made in open exchanges proceed from some knowledge advantage on the part of one party—or at least originate from a calculated risk taken in light of some knowledge. As a 'user story'; "I work in the field of <something>-ics, and suspect that <some products|raw materials> in <some industry> will be much <more|less> available in the coming years, so I'm going to go <long|short> on related stocks." I don't think many would say I'm obliged to inform the selling parties of my reasoning in some interest of fairness. (I'm not including the edge case of insider trading, but run of the mill, hard-earned expertise.) And at a more mundane level of analysis, c'mon—who doesn't know to at least do some web (text & image) searching before selling off something interesting (complex, artistic, hand-crafted, etc.) that you know very little about?