3 ms·
What's immoral is to abuse pricing leverage. A proper exchange generates value. The value gets divided between the parties. Divided how? Usually the richer
by dspeyer 15y ago
What's immoral is to abuse pricing leverage.
A proper exchange generates value. The value gets divided between the parties. Divided how? Usually the richer party makes an offer and the poorer party can take or leave it. Taking the lion's share of the value this way is immoral.
To be concrete, if a man is starving and has a mountain of gold, offering a scrap of stale bread for the entire mountain is immoral.
- dualogy 15y agoAbsolutely not. Value is measured by both parties, among other factors, in terms of scarcity: in the default case, food is relatively abundant and gold is relatively scarce: hence the situation that a man with a mountain of gold is starving is typically extremely unlikely. Should the situation you describe ever realistically occur, then food must be so scarce that finally the old trite "you cannot eat gold" does indeed become true, and the offerer of a scrap of stale bread must in such a context and situation indeed be offering a tremendous sacrifice, which both seem to agree the gold is a cheap enough price to pay for. How's that immoral in such an extreme food-deprived and relative gold-abundant environment you're describing? I'm assuming a mutually voluntary exchange of course.