4 ms·

If you look at giving away stuff as a transaction, it might make more sense. You get to feel better about not creating waste and helping someone else -- if tha

If you look at giving away stuff as a transaction, it might make more sense. You get to feel better about not creating waste and helping someone else -- if that was worth nothing to you, you'd throw it away. They get a calculator at the expense of having to deal with a human, coordinate details and potentially troubleshoot a device that may not be in perfect condition. In that sense you've reached a market price for the transaction. The person on the other end is just trying to negotiate a better deal for themselves after you thought the agreement was already done. Being aggressive can be very effective because avoiding conflict is also pretty valuable for a lot of people. The fundamental issue seems twofold: 1) that a more fragmented society results in more transactional thinking versus feeling like we're all on the same team. 2) we're in an increasingly disposable society where the cost of second hand goods can be higher than new items, depending on how valuable your time is (again, if the calculator malfunctioned they might spend a few hours troubleshooting at greater opportunity cost than the price of a new one).

parasubvert 6y ago
I think there are good and bad aspects to an economically focused transactional society, but there’s also a lot of evidence we are getting less transactional over time. Similar for disposability, where everyone is becoming painfully aware of externalities due to climate change. “Economic man” was a 19th century concept, where philosophers dreamt of a society where everything was broken into transactions and property. This is still the dream of some libertarians, and is one of the delusions that made the US so economically successful for so long in spite of its social and environmental costs. However, we are an increasingly interconnected world, isolated disposable transactions certainly still happen at scale, but I see a lot of evidence this is being curtailed. An interesting observation: most successful enterprise software companies have a large portion of their sales as “not” transactional, and these tend to have the highest repeatable revenue streams. Consumers are also incredibly studying how the organization would use a contribution. Who they politically donate to, etc. Vs, just letting price and features dictate a purchase decision.
mumblemumble 6y ago
I don't really buy that hypothesis. Evidence: I ultimately did get rid of the calculator, by selling it for $1. It's the same trick that many of my acquaintances have set on. Any transfer of cash at all seems to eliminate this kind of behavior. If it were really just about rational economic agents trying to negotiate a better deal, then you would expect the opposite. The person, having now given money in exchange for the item, would expect to get even more in return.
- imtringued 6y ago
  It honestly doesn't sound like that is the wrong strategy. Selling something far below its value is still a form of indirect charity. That calculator probably could have fetched a little more. Maybe $20.

parasubvert 6y ago

I think there are good and bad aspects to an economically focused transactional society, but there’s also a lot of evidence we are getting less transactional over time. Similar for disposability, where everyone is becoming painfully aware of externalities due to climate change. “Economic man” was a 19th century concept, where philosophers dreamt of a society where everything was broken into transactions and property. This is still the dream of some libertarians, and is one of the delusions that made the US so economically successful for so long in spite of its social and environmental costs. However, we are an increasingly interconnected world, isolated disposable transactions certainly still happen at scale, but I see a lot of evidence this is being curtailed. An interesting observation: most successful enterprise software companies have a large portion of their sales as “not” transactional, and these tend to have the highest repeatable revenue streams. Consumers are also incredibly studying how the organization would use a contribution. Who they politically donate to, etc. Vs, just letting price and features dictate a purchase decision.

mumblemumble 6y ago

I don't really buy that hypothesis. Evidence: I ultimately did get rid of the calculator, by selling it for $1. It's the same trick that many of my acquaintances have set on. Any transfer of cash at all seems to eliminate this kind of behavior. If it were really just about rational economic agents trying to negotiate a better deal, then you would expect the opposite. The person, having now given money in exchange for the item, would expect to get even more in return.

imtringued 6y ago
It honestly doesn't sound like that is the wrong strategy. Selling something far below its value is still a form of indirect charity. That calculator probably could have fetched a little more. Maybe $20.