Comment: Equitable Fraud?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Not on Purpose (see in situ)

Equitable Fraud?

"But Joe, isn’t it natural to buy when it is cheap and sell when it is high?"

What exactly is any case imaginable? Warren covers this in Equitable Commerce, just because a person is in a stronger position, having leverage over someone else, does not automatically mean that it is natural to use that power to gain at someone else's expense.

The example offered went something along the lines of a crowded bus and the stronger person, a large strong man, is seated on the bus when a frail old woman boards the bus to stand in the isle.

The man is stronger so he takes that seat since it is cheaper, naturally, less cost for him, and the frail old woman pays that price of having to stand?

How selfish is it to think only in terms of what one person does naturally when in fact there is an exchange being measured where more than one person is involved in the exchange?

For someone to buy something at a discount someone else may be forced to sell at a loss. Someone forced into selling something at a discount can be giving up a lot to someone who gains on that spread between market price and desperation price.

Whereas the concept of buying cheap and selling expensive is equitable, of course, is where the other person on the other end agrees with the same trade in reverse.

I sell something I no longer want at a discount, making it a deal for me to get rid of it, like a garage sale, I have too much stuff, not enough room, no need for any of that garbage, and I am almost ready to hire someone to take it away. Someone else can't afford new things and there is the thing needed at an affordable price, both are gaining, neither are losing, and the deal is equitable because both people measure the exchange equitably.

Why do people buy new things when old things are just as good, or nearly as good, and typically much less expensive?

Naturally a person will not pay more than market price BECAUSE the same thing can be purchased for less somewhere else without having to pay too much to go somewhere else to get the same thing at the lower price. Naturally a person will price something at market price because the same thing is being sold for that price within walking distance or close by and people know it, so pricing high is discouraging the sale of it.

Look at how The Internet is changing this natural desire to sell things at a higher than market price. I can see who is selling what I want, and I can search the whole world, and I can list the sellers selling what I what cheapest price first, and there may be 100 pages worth of sellers, how likely is it that I will need to look past page 1?

The reason why someone can raise the price of something above cost has to do with the measure of demand relative to the supply of that thing and that measure of demand relative to supply is called scarcity.

Are you speaking of general human nature or are you speaking about a price determined by the measure of scarcity?

"But Joe, isn’t it natural to buy when it is cheap and sell when it is high?"

Economic depression is caused by the scarcity of money. Why is money made scarce?

Who makes money scarce?

Why do people pay for 3 homes just to live in one?

"The capitalists are all in on creating the boom/bust cycles together and “scratch each other’s backs” in the process. I am sorry. I just don’t think like that."

Which people are being called capitalists.

Warren covers this too, with an example of a man dying of thirst. What price is the man dying of thirst willing to pay for water?

Will a person who has the water that can save the man dying of thirst charge "what the market will bear" or is it human nature, where water is abundant, to help the man dying of thirst by giving it to him?

Which capitalists say the following?

"...every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others."

"...if there were a society where all goods were available in amounts exceeding the requirements for them, there would be no economic goods nor any “wealth.”"

People will make things scarce on purpose so as to squeeze every dime out of their fellow man?

That is natural?

"The capitalists are all in on creating the boom/bust cycles together and “scratch each other’s backs” in the process. I am sorry. I just don’t think like that."

A. I am greedy so I think everyone else is greedy and if someone isn't starving for something then I can't make a fortune at their expense so I'll starve them until they will pay me everything?

B. If I can find what people don't want, buy it, and sell it to people who want it, then I can earn my keep even when there is an abundance of everything except an abundance of know-how to move things from people who don't want it to people who do want it. Since some people need help finding what they want, and other people may need help getting rid of what they don't want, that turns out to be a scarcity of know-how, and therefore worth something?

It can be said that there is a scarcity of knowledge but the premise that there is no wealth if there is an abundance of things needed, and things wanted presumes that everything is measured the same way by everyone, or in other words:

"...every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others."

A generous person can't secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others. How can that work?

I am so generous that I must make sure that no one else can be generous so that I am the only one that can supply this generosity stuff?

If generosity was abundant there would be no value in generosity?

If the power of the sun was here every day there would be no wealth, no value, in the power of the sun?

If everyone knew better there would be no value, no wealth, in knowing better?

I create a monopoly on the supply of generosity so as to then jack up the price on generosity since no other supplier is allowed to exist?

"Maybe before I read something I need to set the stage? Maybe I should ask you first?"

Maybe there is much more to learn when speaking freely compared to self censorship?

I can't imagine me being more critical of your thinking than you are of your own thinking, but I'm very able to make mistakes, going beyond good conduct.

If you prefer not to be challenged as honestly as you challenge yourself I can tone it down?

"So what are we supposed to do? Create so much competition that they cannot possible control it?"

The effect of The Internet is pushing the limits of competition in our time, we are witness to this, and this may be the most competitive time, right now, and things may start backwards toward Monopoly Power if this thing called The Internet is shut down, but if this thing called The Internet can't be shut down, then it will be exponentially more difficult to Monopolize anything as more and more people invent ways around the Monopolists and the Legal Criminals.

As Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn points out: violence must have falsehood covering it up, or the victims will have the power to avoid it. If things go the way they are going now there won't be any way for the Legal Criminals to hide their crimes.

No more falsehood means no more violence, there is a direct connection. Violence will still exist but it won't pay so well and therefore it will become relatively scarce.

Many, including me, think that it is only a matter of time before Legal Crime is no longer profitably and that will end it, and so Legal Criminals are going to become desperate; which can be bad for us but probably worse for them, they will turn on each other, and that may be the wisdom behind the story about the murderer David.

I don't know.

"Create so much competition that they cannot possible control it?"

That has happened with The Internet. If there is this Internet Kill Switch then it may be switched off, but I don't think that is possible, it is much more possible to cause World War III, it seems to me, and that is their standard routine, so the question then is: will they be able to cause World War III while the victims are growing wise to their game exponentially?

There is a horse race of epic proportions occurring in our time. The Window of opportunity to cause another World War, it seems to me, is closing rapidly, and even that tactic may not work anymore, it may actually focus even more attention on the perpetrators not less as was the case in the past when accurate information was kept from the victims easily.

Now the victims can know almost everything that is known by anyone almost immediately. It is becoming very difficult to maintain the false fronts.

Sure there are a lot of people still sleeping, and there are a lot of people still fighting each other over false battles, but the rate of improvement in knowledge is exponential, and can be exemplified in many ways.

How well could a Legal Criminal hide a crime before the Internet as compared to now when a Police beating can be uploaded on The Internet and available for viewing by hundreds of millions of people in seconds, or minutes, not hours, not days, not months, not years, and not centuries.

Take that one book titled Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention, 1787

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Proceedings-Debates-Constitutio...

Imagine having an insider recording those meetings live and sending it to Alex Jones or just feeding it live onto a web page like Youtube.

The cat is out of the bag, and it may be impossible to get it back in.

How knows?

"Thank you for educating me on Parasite City. I know you must wonder how I can continue to be so thick skulled. It is not that I don’t like spinach; I forget it is being served."

You are moving along in life, you already help other people see the way, or at least see the way you went, and that is how mankind knows so much given the personal and limited nature of individual people.

We help each other avoid some of the mistakes and we help each other along the paths that people may want to go.

Not all of us are out to get every drop of blood from each other.

Joe