I don't think that "gouging" people is necessarily an ethics issue at all. It's an economics issue actually.
Jeffrey is right, we should let free market rule. However, I have to disagree that providing information on where to buy an item more cheaply is "wrong". I don't really care what Craigslist's rules are about this either....
Am I saying that I should go to a forum on Amazon's site and say, "Don't buy from Amazon- you can get it cheaper at XYZ's!" No. I wouldn't go to KMart and tell people they can go to Wal-Mart and get things cheaper either.
However, free markets are markets which involve the free trade of information, free choice, etc. An economist, I believe, would view the seller's price as a signal to what he is willing to sell the item for. If a buyer can gain from purchasing the item at this price, then they will send another signal and a purchase will be completed. In order for markets to be free and efficient, many buyers and many sellers must be freely sending signals (thus trading information).
So, if I choose to send a signal saying I am willing to sell my car for $50,000 and the ensuing trade of information reveals that buyers only value my car at $10,000- my car will not sell. It would no longer be a "free market" if I were to try to limit information about THE MARKET to buyers, such as "You can buy this elsewhere for less." This is not to say that I cannot limit information about the item, how it was made, trade secret, etc.- just that market info (valuation) shouldn't be limited.
So, if Craigslist WERE a free market, then anyone could post where to get an item for less. Anyone is still free to sell for any price that they like, or rather TRY to sell- but no buyers will buy at an exhorbitant price if given correct signals from the market. In other words, it is not unethical for someone to WANT $200 for an item that is worth $60, and it is not unethical for someone to provide information that other places sell for $60. All these prices are, is signals for what values are. Maybe someone will buy it, maybe they won't. However, for the seller to get upset because someone finds or provides information that an item is available for less is ridiculous. That would be like saying it is wrong for Wal-Mart to sell my shaving cream for $2.97 when KMart is trying to sell it for $3.15. If you're that upset, lower your price and compete. Or, decide that you value the item for more than the market values it, and keep it.
Of course, posting angry rants about how a seller is overpriced is not only childish, but WILL be a problem when rant's poster is not providing objective information on valuation. For instance, if I have a collectable guitar and a buyer sees that I'm trying to sell it for $10,000 and he doesn't think the guitar is worth $150 (his subjective OPINION), and then he goes on an emotional rant in public about how the guitar is overpriced...he's childish and unethical. However, his rant may not hurt me in the end, since it's market valuation that tells me the price at which my item will sell.
I think that crockett handled this well- he wasn't childish, and gave the seller the benefit of the doubt. By providing the information, the seller had a choice- drop price to the markets true perception of value, don't sell, or try anyway. If he were to try anyway- he couldn't be upset that others could get this information easily.
Jeffrey is right, we should let free market rule. However, I have to disagree that providing information on where to buy an item more cheaply is "wrong". I don't really care what Craigslist's rules are about this either....
Am I saying that I should go to a forum on Amazon's site and say, "Don't buy from Amazon- you can get it cheaper at XYZ's!" No. I wouldn't go to KMart and tell people they can go to Wal-Mart and get things cheaper either.
However, free markets are markets which involve the free trade of information, free choice, etc. An economist, I believe, would view the seller's price as a signal to what he is willing to sell the item for. If a buyer can gain from purchasing the item at this price, then they will send another signal and a purchase will be completed. In order for markets to be free and efficient, many buyers and many sellers must be freely sending signals (thus trading information).
So, if I choose to send a signal saying I am willing to sell my car for $50,000 and the ensuing trade of information reveals that buyers only value my car at $10,000- my car will not sell. It would no longer be a "free market" if I were to try to limit information about THE MARKET to buyers, such as "You can buy this elsewhere for less." This is not to say that I cannot limit information about the item, how it was made, trade secret, etc.- just that market info (valuation) shouldn't be limited.
So, if Craigslist WERE a free market, then anyone could post where to get an item for less. Anyone is still free to sell for any price that they like, or rather TRY to sell- but no buyers will buy at an exhorbitant price if given correct signals from the market. In other words, it is not unethical for someone to WANT $200 for an item that is worth $60, and it is not unethical for someone to provide information that other places sell for $60. All these prices are, is signals for what values are. Maybe someone will buy it, maybe they won't. However, for the seller to get upset because someone finds or provides information that an item is available for less is ridiculous. That would be like saying it is wrong for Wal-Mart to sell my shaving cream for $2.97 when KMart is trying to sell it for $3.15. If you're that upset, lower your price and compete. Or, decide that you value the item for more than the market values it, and keep it.
Of course, posting angry rants about how a seller is overpriced is not only childish, but WILL be a problem when rant's poster is not providing objective information on valuation. For instance, if I have a collectable guitar and a buyer sees that I'm trying to sell it for $10,000 and he doesn't think the guitar is worth $150 (his subjective OPINION), and then he goes on an emotional rant in public about how the guitar is overpriced...he's childish and unethical. However, his rant may not hurt me in the end, since it's market valuation that tells me the price at which my item will sell.
I think that crockett handled this well- he wasn't childish, and gave the seller the benefit of the doubt. By providing the information, the seller had a choice- drop price to the markets true perception of value, don't sell, or try anyway. If he were to try anyway- he couldn't be upset that others could get this information easily.
Comment