4 ms·

First, he owed no-one anything. He could set the price to 1 billion for all he cared. His former employees could take it or leave it. Second, you speak as if h

First, he owed no-one anything. He could set the price to 1 billion for all he cared. His former employees could take it or leave it. Second, you speak as if his claims were irrational. The way I see it, however, you would set for 125k (probably much less judging from what you write) while he, the sentimental fool, scooped up double the money. Therefore, your decisions, which you personally claim are rational, would have left you with half the money the "irrational" player would get. Seems to me, the "irrational" is actually the rational one, as he netted more profits. Economy and market are not math games in a vacuum, and players are not formless ideas.

johnchristopher 6y ago
> Second, you speak as if his claims were irrational. The way I see it, however, you would set for 125k (probably much less judging from what you write) while he, the sentimental fool, scooped up double the money. Therefore, your decisions, which you personally claim are rational, The way I see it you are putting words in my mouth and I am definitely not interested in having a discussion like that. I never insinuated OP was a sentimental fool or wrong to raise the price. I am calling bullshit on the free market and econ 101 as an explanation of why the price got doubled and call it like it is: it's payback from OP because they were dicks to him first, everything else is pedantry and useless justifications. edit: if anything, OP could be considered a fool since he obviously gave an under the market quote as his first proposal. Had he started with 250K from the beginning he would have gotten more since there likely would have been screams anyway and he would have risen the price all the same.
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  No one said the free market is "why" the price got doubled. Emo drama ended up being the mechanism of price discovery here. But the market accepted this price. It was not a swindle. It was free trade. And yes. I completely agree with your edit and said as much elsewhere. Their acceptance of 250K showed that the OP under-priced their services at 125K. And yes. Free markets produce monopolies. Especially when time is important. As I said above, the critical good here was not the delivery but the delivery within a certain time.

johnchristopher 6y ago

> Second, you speak as if his claims were irrational. The way I see it, however, you would set for 125k (probably much less judging from what you write) while he, the sentimental fool, scooped up double the money. Therefore, your decisions, which you personally claim are rational, The way I see it you are putting words in my mouth and I am definitely not interested in having a discussion like that. I never insinuated OP was a sentimental fool or wrong to raise the price. I am calling bullshit on the free market and econ 101 as an explanation of why the price got doubled and call it like it is: it's payback from OP because they were dicks to him first, everything else is pedantry and useless justifications. edit: if anything, OP could be considered a fool since he obviously gave an under the market quote as his first proposal. Had he started with 250K from the beginning he would have gotten more since there likely would have been screams anyway and he would have risen the price all the same.

DubiousPusher 6y ago
No one said the free market is "why" the price got doubled. Emo drama ended up being the mechanism of price discovery here. But the market accepted this price. It was not a swindle. It was free trade. And yes. I completely agree with your edit and said as much elsewhere. Their acceptance of 250K showed that the OP under-priced their services at 125K. And yes. Free markets produce monopolies. Especially when time is important. As I said above, the critical good here was not the delivery but the delivery within a certain time.