40 ms·

Isn't it an effect of physical proximity, of the seller somewhat at least more probably having some relationship with the buyer? Abusing, in all senses of this

Isn't it an effect of physical proximity, of the seller somewhat at least more probably having some relationship with the buyer? Abusing, in all senses of this verb, is much easier if you absolutely don't know, won't know and even don't relate to your victim. Screwing, taking excessive advantage or even only playing it without respect with a total anonymous stranger is one thing, doing so with someone who may become your neighbor, brother-in-law... or who may be a friend of someone who is a friend of your father... or may be a soldier fighting on your side... is another thing. Wherever something is wrong, something it too big -- L. Kohr.

squiggleblaz 7y ago
> Abusing, in all senses of this verb, is much easier if you absolutely don't know, won't know and even don't relate to your victim. Well that's patently untrue. The average abused child or woman actually lives with their abuser. A significant number of abused children are abused by someone who is not in their family but who knows them. It seems that people fear abusing strangers (who are more likely to report you) more than those who are close (who are more likely to say "it's not his fault").
- zwaps 7y ago
  When talking about economics relations, there is a difference. In most cases, and I am sure that was meant here, there is an "outside option". And then things differ. If we analyze supplier networks, trade relations in old style bazar or markets, or even just the playing of simple two-player games, then we see that a long term relationship, or its prospect, may make it much more likely that people cooperate in some sense. This has two effects: A code develops where blatant exploitation is unusual, even if it would be an equilibrium in a one-shot contact. Second, however, there is more leeway for small exploitations, those that can not be "identified" to be causal from the seller (price hikes elsewhere etc.). Anyhow, your point is true (since he said all senses of the word) but I think this issue is too multi dimensional to find an analogy in home violence
- natmaka 7y ago
  Sorry. I meant 'abusing' in the context of the article: during a commercial operation adopting a behavior (towards the other party) which will be scorned at (scam/swindle, speculation...). zwaps' interpretation is the right one.

squiggleblaz 7y ago

> Abusing, in all senses of this verb, is much easier if you absolutely don't know, won't know and even don't relate to your victim. Well that's patently untrue. The average abused child or woman actually lives with their abuser. A significant number of abused children are abused by someone who is not in their family but who knows them. It seems that people fear abusing strangers (who are more likely to report you) more than those who are close (who are more likely to say "it's not his fault").

zwaps 7y ago
When talking about economics relations, there is a difference. In most cases, and I am sure that was meant here, there is an "outside option". And then things differ. If we analyze supplier networks, trade relations in old style bazar or markets, or even just the playing of simple two-player games, then we see that a long term relationship, or its prospect, may make it much more likely that people cooperate in some sense. This has two effects: A code develops where blatant exploitation is unusual, even if it would be an equilibrium in a one-shot contact. Second, however, there is more leeway for small exploitations, those that can not be "identified" to be causal from the seller (price hikes elsewhere etc.). Anyhow, your point is true (since he said all senses of the word) but I think this issue is too multi dimensional to find an analogy in home violence
natmaka 7y ago
Sorry. I meant 'abusing' in the context of the article: during a commercial operation adopting a behavior (towards the other party) which will be scorned at (scam/swindle, speculation...). zwaps' interpretation is the right one.