Here are a few questions I have. - Posted by Drew
Posted by Drew on August 30, 2006 at 18:40:29:
What happens to seller responsibility in your model?
I am assuming throughout this discussion that we are not talking about ?clean? offers, not market manipulation, misrepresentation or deliberately misleading the seller.
When I make an offer of $50k, I am presenting the seller with a choice. They are not a captive audience; I am not forcing anything upon them. I think we can agree that it is better to have a choice than to not have a choice.
As I understand your fundamental argument, the problem with me offering this choice is that it ?violates? a sort of militant Golden Rule; namely, it takes my economic benefit into account without proper consideration for theirs. I read this with interest, since I am still not entirely sure where I fall in this discussion. While I feel in my gut the rectitude of your position, I struggle with the following questions:
First. This militant Golden Rule implies that whenever I enter the marketplace, I am bound not just to represent my own economic interests, but those of other parties. I can never make an offer I would not accept myself, since my interests and the sellers? interests are linked (?Do unto others??).
How could a market ever efficiently operate in such a manner?one where individual value maximization is no longer the sole imperative? Those ?leading companies? you reference ?go beyond what is expected? because they have learned through experience that doing so will maximize their profits, not because they feel categorically obligated to represent any interest beyond the maximization of shareholder value. This equally applies to the goodwill generated by corporate charitable giving.
In the same way, I enter the marketplace to maximize my own value, and I generally assume the seller has done likewise. In such manner are fair markets made. It is not my job to guess the sellers? economic indifference curves and represent them against myself in a transaction. Good Lord, what a model to try to base an economy on??everybody represents everybody!?
What happened to the seller responsibility to represent their own interests?
?But the seller does not possess your knowledge and experience. They can not make a proper decision.? Fine. Let?s talk about that.
Under what divine commandment did the seller gain a God-given right to access my proprietary knowledge and experience? How did they become entitled to a complementary remedial education at my own expense, one they themselves were derelict in pursuing?
Or, if you prefer: How did I LOSE the right to benefit from my own knowledge and experience? Why do I become bound by the irresponsibility of the seller? Just what is the point of me personally developing expertise, if it is only going to be a communal asset, available to anyone I do business with?
What happened to the seller responsibility to obtain basic competence before representing themselves in a marketplace transaction?
I accept that I have ethical obligations and responsibilities as a buyer. I am not sure that educating and representing the seller are among them.
What about the responsibilities of the seller?
Caveat venditor. Caveat emptor.
Please, don?t flame me. Again, I am not 100% sure where I come down on this.