4 ms·

Why should the sellers be shortchanged?

s1artibartfast 3y ago
Nobody was short changed. The fair price is what a buyer and seller agreed to unless someone provided false information. The word "no" is a complete answer to a request for more information.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  That’s true only if both parties have perfect information, which is of course why Disney went to great lengths to prevent that. There would be no such thing as fraud if “accepted transaction == definitionally fair.”
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Perfect information has nothing to do with fair There's a difference between false information and no information.
    - nerdponx 3y ago
      It's not about fairness, it's about letting markets work properly, reaching a market-clearing price that maximizes total welfare.
    - pohl 3y ago
      It has everything to do with price, however — and, therefore, "fair price".
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Define fair price? Fair prices when a buyer and seller agreed to as long as no one's lying. The fair price has nothing to do with how much money the buyer or seller make more lose.
        bamfly 3y ago
        When I read your comment above, I wondered if you'd gotten here by defining "fair" circularly. And... yep.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Nothing circular. It's just a definition. I think consent and honesty make something Fair. Nobody has refuted this and The only other counter argument I've seen is that full disclosure would mean the seller gets more money. What is getting more money have to do with fair.?
        bamfly 3y ago
        You're taking the very much not-universally-shared position that concealing something you know would make a big difference counts as "honest". [EDIT] I retract the "circular" claim—you're right that it's not that, it's the definitions of "lying" and "honest" that are making the difference.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I think you succinctly summed up the Crux of it. The kind of begs the question of what information is relevant. When I apply for a job, I certainly don't tell the recruiter the minimum salary I would accept. When I negotiate for a house, I don't tell them my maximum theoretical offer. These information asymmetries obviously benefit me at their expense. When I buy a 20 cent bolt for my car, I don't tell them that it's worth $20,000 to me because my car won't run without it
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      False information like Q: Who is buying this land? A: XYZ Shell Corp (no connection to who is actually effectively buying and coming into control of this land)? Obviously your argument will be "it's not false that XYZ Shell Corp is buying it," and sure, but it's obviously misleading in a way that affects the transaction, as it is specifically designed to do.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I don't even think it's misleading. You don't know what XYZ show Corp does or will do with the land. It's a mystery not a deception. On the other hand, if the buyer is called XYZ Fun Center and tells you that they're going to put in a nonprofit for Orphans, that would be deception. It all comes back to the idea that saying I won't tell you what I'm going to do with the purchase is not a lie. It's perfectly honest
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        itisit 3y ago
        I'd say the primary concern is not with the purchasing party exercising their right not to disclose their intent post-sale. It's that they're intentionally masking their identity to prevent unwelcome influence on the transaction (i.e. If you know I'm rich, you're going to jack up the price.) I think the argument is really over whether parties on either side are entitled to privacy/anonymity. The answer seems to be 'yes' in the form of typically legal shell corps, anonymous LLCs, and the like.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I agree that the heart it's about privacy, and what compelling reason we would have as a society that would supersede privacy. I don't think the idea that benefiting one party's negotiation is such a compelling interest. In the case of Disney, it sounds good because it benefits the perceived Underdog, but It can just as easily cut the other way, especially if you extended to how bad you want something as some people in the thread advocate. Maybe you want to buy a specific house cuz it's next to the Medical Center where you get treatment. That would probably influence how much you're willing to pay.
diogocp 3y ago
If the increase in value of the sellers' land is wholly due to Disney's development of its land nearby, the sellers would simply be benefiting from a positive externality created by Disney. Thus it would be Disney being shortchanged if it was unable to capture the value of that externality. From an efficiency standpoint it is also preferable for the developer to capture the value, as naturally that increases incentives for development.
- gowld 3y ago
  From an efficiency standpoint it is preferable for a Land Value Tax to incentivize selling to whoever will put the property to best use.
- bravoetch 3y ago
  Is it okay for the buyer to lie, but not okay for the seller to ask for the truth and adjust their price accordingly? This 'anything goes' market ideology is the same framework that leads us to deceptive subscription systems, anti patterns etc. Deceiving people to make a buck is shitty behavior.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    I’m pretty shocked by the whole “profiting from a deceptive transaction is ok if the counterparty believes you” attitude here. I guess I expected more out of HN. I feel like I’d have to keep my hand on my wallet and my eyes over my shoulder if I ever visited any of these guys’ businesses.
    - Arainach 3y ago
      HN has for a long time (longer than I've been here) had a strong libertarian streak, and like all libertarians they always seem to believe they're the ones who would come out on top in anarchy despite all historical evidence to the contrary.
- mcphage 3y ago
  > If the increase in value of the sellers' land is wholly due to Disney's development of its land nearby, the sellers would simply be benefiting from a positive externality created by Disney Isn't that true of any price increase due to increased demand? It seems like you're saying a seller shouldn't be allowed to raise their prices as demand increases, because they'd simply be benefiting from a positive externality created by the buyer.

Nobody was short changed. The fair price is what a buyer and seller agreed to unless someone provided false information. The word "no" is a complete answer to a request for more information.

ethanbond 3y ago
That’s true only if both parties have perfect information, which is of course why Disney went to great lengths to prevent that. There would be no such thing as fraud if “accepted transaction == definitionally fair.”
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Perfect information has nothing to do with fair There's a difference between false information and no information.
  - nerdponx 3y ago
    It's not about fairness, it's about letting markets work properly, reaching a market-clearing price that maximizes total welfare.
  - pohl 3y ago
    It has everything to do with price, however — and, therefore, "fair price".
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      Define fair price? Fair prices when a buyer and seller agreed to as long as no one's lying. The fair price has nothing to do with how much money the buyer or seller make more lose.
      - bamfly 3y ago
        When I read your comment above, I wondered if you'd gotten here by defining "fair" circularly. And... yep.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Nothing circular. It's just a definition. I think consent and honesty make something Fair. Nobody has refuted this and The only other counter argument I've seen is that full disclosure would mean the seller gets more money. What is getting more money have to do with fair.?
        bamfly 3y ago
        You're taking the very much not-universally-shared position that concealing something you know would make a big difference counts as "honest". [EDIT] I retract the "circular" claim—you're right that it's not that, it's the definitions of "lying" and "honest" that are making the difference.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I think you succinctly summed up the Crux of it. The kind of begs the question of what information is relevant. When I apply for a job, I certainly don't tell the recruiter the minimum salary I would accept. When I negotiate for a house, I don't tell them my maximum theoretical offer. These information asymmetries obviously benefit me at their expense. When I buy a 20 cent bolt for my car, I don't tell them that it's worth $20,000 to me because my car won't run without it
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    False information like Q: Who is buying this land? A: XYZ Shell Corp (no connection to who is actually effectively buying and coming into control of this land)? Obviously your argument will be "it's not false that XYZ Shell Corp is buying it," and sure, but it's obviously misleading in a way that affects the transaction, as it is specifically designed to do.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I don't even think it's misleading. You don't know what XYZ show Corp does or will do with the land. It's a mystery not a deception. On the other hand, if the buyer is called XYZ Fun Center and tells you that they're going to put in a nonprofit for Orphans, that would be deception. It all comes back to the idea that saying I won't tell you what I'm going to do with the purchase is not a lie. It's perfectly honest
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - itisit 3y ago
        I'd say the primary concern is not with the purchasing party exercising their right not to disclose their intent post-sale. It's that they're intentionally masking their identity to prevent unwelcome influence on the transaction (i.e. If you know I'm rich, you're going to jack up the price.) I think the argument is really over whether parties on either side are entitled to privacy/anonymity. The answer seems to be 'yes' in the form of typically legal shell corps, anonymous LLCs, and the like.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I agree that the heart it's about privacy, and what compelling reason we would have as a society that would supersede privacy. I don't think the idea that benefiting one party's negotiation is such a compelling interest. In the case of Disney, it sounds good because it benefits the perceived Underdog, but It can just as easily cut the other way, especially if you extended to how bad you want something as some people in the thread advocate. Maybe you want to buy a specific house cuz it's next to the Medical Center where you get treatment. That would probably influence how much you're willing to pay.

diogocp 3y ago

If the increase in value of the sellers' land is wholly due to Disney's development of its land nearby, the sellers would simply be benefiting from a positive externality created by Disney. Thus it would be Disney being shortchanged if it was unable to capture the value of that externality. From an efficiency standpoint it is also preferable for the developer to capture the value, as naturally that increases incentives for development.

gowld 3y ago
From an efficiency standpoint it is preferable for a Land Value Tax to incentivize selling to whoever will put the property to best use.
bravoetch 3y ago
Is it okay for the buyer to lie, but not okay for the seller to ask for the truth and adjust their price accordingly? This 'anything goes' market ideology is the same framework that leads us to deceptive subscription systems, anti patterns etc. Deceiving people to make a buck is shitty behavior.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  I’m pretty shocked by the whole “profiting from a deceptive transaction is ok if the counterparty believes you” attitude here. I guess I expected more out of HN. I feel like I’d have to keep my hand on my wallet and my eyes over my shoulder if I ever visited any of these guys’ businesses.
  - Arainach 3y ago
    HN has for a long time (longer than I've been here) had a strong libertarian streak, and like all libertarians they always seem to believe they're the ones who would come out on top in anarchy despite all historical evidence to the contrary.
mcphage 3y ago
> If the increase in value of the sellers' land is wholly due to Disney's development of its land nearby, the sellers would simply be benefiting from a positive externality created by Disney Isn't that true of any price increase due to increased demand? It seems like you're saying a seller shouldn't be allowed to raise their prices as demand increases, because they'd simply be benefiting from a positive externality created by the buyer.