3 ms·
Negotiating for more favorable terms is destroying friendships now? Come on now. Obviously there's a boundary, but if there's a known market price, it's obvio
by shortoncash 8y ago
Negotiating for more favorable terms is destroying friendships now? Come on now. Obviously there's a boundary, but if there's a known market price, it's obvious when someone is being unreasonable.
- mikeash 8y ago“Negotiating for more favorable terms is destroying friendships now?” No. I didn’t say that. Nobody said that. What?
- shortoncash 8y agoYou didn't say it, but the question you asked implies a stable friendship can be destroyed by "hard" negotiations. I disagree with that premise. Why? Well, I'd argue that if you're seeking "fair value" and are 1) not unreasonable, 2) your friend is not unreasonable, and 3) there is more or less a market price or consensus about the value of an object, there is little no risk of destroying the friendship -- reasonable people can seek fair value and market transactions can support claims about value. If 1, 2, or 3 aren't in place then your friendship is on shaky ground already (someone is unreasonable) or the market for an object is just hard to price (and more information is required for reasonable people to come to a consensus.)
- mikeash 8y agoThe problem here is (1). Yes, if everybody is reasonable, you’ll be fine. That’s completely not the case here. For example, you might threaten to harm them unless they concede something to you, which may work but is not going to keep friends.
- shortoncash 8y agoRegarding global events, it looks like reasoned behavior prevailed in the end and the friendship is still in tact. None of my conditions were violated.