Please tell me this is someone on here. Funny add

[LagerHead]

1. When people buy up all the resources at retail stores for fair market value then turn around and sell them to the same market for inflated prices because of the shortage they created, then yes that is exploitation. The very fact that there are two markets for the same product with the same consumer .... it's exploitation.

Still not exploitation. Find me a definition of exploitation/exploit that matches this, and I'll concede it's possible I am wrong. By your definition, any product that is sold through a reseller where you aren't allowed to buy directly from the factory is exploitation. In other words, every store on the planet is exploiting you.
 

2. If you're lowballing in hopes of capitalizing on someone's desperation or ignorance, then the question is one of personal ethic. Using the market as a means of personal gain at the expense of others if exploitation.

It's not at the expense of others if they agree to it, therefore not exploitation. Again, exploitation requires duress on the part of the one being exploited. Our markets don't work that way.
 

Capitalism works because it is intended to use integrity of both parties to create a win/win scenario as the end game. It is when it becomes overtly one sided with no means of correction that you end up with socialism. I would argue that what you are describing is more akin to corporate exploitation. monopoly's,  and government business.

No, capitalism works because it allows parties A and B to come to an agreement on price that benefits both parties. The great thing about capitalism is that it doesn't require the approval party C, you in this case, on the price for it to work. And there is a very simple and effective method of correction that exists here, but isn't utilized because the market hasn't reached that critical point where the prices being charged are higher than what the market will bear: people can voluntarily stop buying ammo. But they haven't. So the price hasn't surpassed that point for the market. Apparently it has for you, but you're not the market, therefore you don't get to decide for everyone what is fair and what is not. If the market worked unilaterally like that, THEN it would be Socialism. We aren't quite there, yet.
 

Just because someone agrees to being cheated doesn't clear you ethically. Now if they are being benevolent then fine no problem, but most of the scenarios prey on the ignorant or desperate.

By definition you can't agree to be cheated, therefore there is no ethical problem of which the seller needs to be cleared.
 

cheat

1. act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination.

If I tell you my price up front, you agree to it, and I actually charge it, where was I dishonest? How were you cheated?

[Smith]

Economics history disagrees with you. Kind of like how Leonard Embody wants to argue legal absolutism with the courts, ignoring precedent as an interpretive guide. You can't isolate and then define. 

I'll just leave you with this thought.

 

 

in·teg·ri·ty

noun \in-ˈte-grə-tē\

: the quality of being honest and fair

: the state of being complete or whole

 

²ex·ploit

verb \ik-ˈsplȯit, ˈek-ˌ\

: to get value or use from (something)

: to use (someone or something) in a way that helps you unfairly

[Hershmeister]

Capitalism is NOT about win/win Its about the freedom to contract - person A might sell at a lower price than person B for a multitude of reasons. Ethics have nothing to do with capitalism. That doesn't mean parties in a transaction can't consider the value of an ethical transaction, its just that the capitalist system allows for any range of ethics excepting criminality of course. Values vary - and its silly to dictate them and define an economic system in such a manner. Now back on topic - i'm hoping that Draco package comes with a genuine Mr. T chain!

[LagerHead]

Economics history disagrees with you. Kind of like how Leonard Embody wants to argue legal absolutism with the courts, ignoring precedent as an interpretive guide. You can't isolate and then define. 
I'll just leave you with this thought.

And I'll leave you with this: You don't get to unilaterally decide what is fair, especially when you aren't involved in the transaction. Neither of the definitions you provided even play into the discussion we are having because:

A: Nobody is being dishonest or unfair. The price is clearly stated and agreed upon by both the seller and the buyer. Nothing dishonest or unfair there even if you don't like it and especially if you aren't part of the transaction.

B: Nobody is being used unfairly. Nobody has to buy anything from anyone in this country, except health insurance. So as far as ammo goes, there is no way the definition of "exploit" fits here. The market has the choice to not buy ammo at the inflated prices. If that happens, supply will stabilize and so will prices. As long as demand remains higher than supply, prices will stay up. That's how the market works. Always has, always will.

I won't even respond to the Embody comparison. The comparison is beneath you and the response I would give would be beneath me. Edited June 18, 2014 by LagerHead

[Smith]

Haha, OK. :wave:

[LagerHead]

No hard feelings I hope. Though we both feel strongly about our position, I didn't type anything I wouldn't say to you if you were here, and I feel you did the same in return. I'll still buy you a beer someday, but not if it's overpriced.   :rofl:

[Smith]

No hard feelings I hope. Though we both feel strongly about our position, I didn't type anything I wouldn't say to you if you were here, and I feel you did the same in return. I'll still buy you a beer someday, but not if it's overpriced.   :rofl:

Oh, not at all. I know where you are coming from and don't disagree as much as it may seem. I just think in times like these some people tend to forget that capitalism is more than just a simple autonomous mechanical component. There is an ethical/moral component that has always carried equal weight (at least historically in the US) in order to self regulate the mechanical aspect and vice versa. It's the unique concept of personal accountability and responsibility that the Constitution and our entire free enterprise is founded upon. When you reduce it to just one of those components (either one) you end up with what the rest of the world has. Socialism or Anarchy.;)

 

So who bought the Draco?

[BigK]

I wish I could say I've never been forced to enter into a purchase with an unscrupulous seller, who was neither fair nor honest, due to circumstances beyond my control that favored him in a way that gave me little or no choice.

 

It sure didn't feel like capitalism to me, LOL.

Edited June 18, 2014 by BigK

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

didn't they revoke the permit of some guy a while back here in TN who insisted on open carrying an AK pistol in public?... don't flame me...I'm just askin

[NoBanStan]

I'm just glad he won't be using The Thunderdome/Bartertown Wheel if you reneg on an "i'll take it"!

 

Hershmeister runs Bartertown. Bust a deal, face the wheel.

 

Still better than the wheel of pain