27 May
2013
27 May
'13
1:12 p.m.
On 27 May 2013, at 14:00, "Dave McGuire" <mcguire at neurotica.com>
wrote:
On 05/27/2013 01:22 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
So you think, in other words, that forty thousand dollars for a broken
computer that cost six hundred, was unfair?
When the seller had actually researched it and was happy to accept it?
Had the seller in fact researched it? His quote indicated that he had no
idea it was worth more than the $40K that he received. He clearly didn't do
his research, and because of that, he was ignorant of the facts, which was
his mistake.
But obviously the $2000 cable is made of wire woven from the hair of sirens floating on a
heavenly cloud and it will make my dubstep sound like it's sung by a heavenly choir!
(Interpret the last joke in whichever way you please. ;))
> It's just the way I (and some others, if the
private mail is any
> indication) was brought up. There is an amount of profit that's considered
> "honorable", beyond which it becomes shady. It's a matter of opinion.
*I*
> think he screwed the old guy by taking advantage of his lesser knowledge.
> Feel free to disagree; I respect your opinion, but that is my position.
>
> Now if I were doing that deal, and I found out that the guy was a Wall
> Street banker, I'd rob him absolutely blind and he'd wake up naked in a
dumpster.
So go on then. Explain why it's OK for Hadfield to make 60? profit on
his Apple 1, but not OK for someone else to make about 12? profit.
When does this magical cutoff point appear?
Quantify it. Lay it out. No hand-waving "it's just not right".
Illustrate it with examples.
I am not the enemy here. I despise what the bankers are doing; I hate
the rampant profiteering that is vastly increasing the gap between
rich & poor.
But the old guy made a profit of ?39,300+ for keeping a computer for
30y. That is pretty awesomely good.
I see no rip-off here. I see no profiteering.
Perhaps a way to quantify it is this: Any deal that has you tiptoeing away
giggling quietly about how much money you're "gonna make off that guy" is
probably over the line. But again, it's an opinion, just like yours, only
different.
Richard's, on the other hand, is "it's capitalism!" ...which, again,
is
the phrase that suited men use every day to magically absolve themselves of
any guilt that they may have felt over screwing someone over. The Enron
mess, for example, was just capitalism. Making the maximum amount of money
regardless of who gets screwed.
I have no problem with capitalism. I do a great deal of business, and I
don't lift a finger unless I'm going to make a good-sized pile of money. But
I do it in such a way that I can look at myself in the mirror at the end of
the day. If a deal doesn't pass that simple test, it's "over the
line". *Why* is this unfair?
*Why* do you keep asking me this question? Taking advantage of someone's
ignorance is wrong. At least that's how I was raised. If you weren't,
that's ok. It's clear that not everyone feels this way, as entire big-money
industries are built around doing it. (Windows, audiophiles..)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA