Re: [Leica] Comments on a BD Colen statement & PMA

["Jack Herron" <jherron@theriver.com>]

Nathan,
    I also did not say that economists were devoid of moral judgement nor a
sense of fairness.  What I said was that economics per se avoids such
concepts, in essense agreeing with you for most broad market machinations.
I may have failed to express it, but I am sure that most economists are
moral human beings who make moral decisions.  My point was mostly that this
was a particular situation which in its microcosm possibly did not fit well
in broader market theory, much as averages and means are pointless when
discussing a single individual.
    I would like to advance some points for consideration, but before I do I
want to assure you that you have not expressed anything on this group that,
whether or not I agreed with it, has motivated me to engage in the kind of
bloodletting and hate exchange that is far too common on this list.  I do
not wish to fight with you over this topic, nor any other.  I gave great
consideration to my comment about fairness in economics, because, tho no
malice nor personal affront was intended, it was obvious that it would be
easy to make that interpretation.  From your reply it is at least possible
that you took the comment personally, and if so, I wish to apologize.
    That said,

    You are right that a fair market price is impossible to define, if you
are attempting to precisely quantify it.  However in a broader sense it is
easy to form opinions about what is fair, and these opinions, while lacking
exact metrication, have validity.  You agree that $20/gallon is disgusting,
but would $19/gallon still be?  How far would the price have to be reduced
before you would not find it disgusting?  Let's say that you can name a
price which you find for these conditions and scarcity acceptable yet
without moral taint.  It would still have to be considered an opinion, and
others would place the bar at other levels.  Yet the lack of an ability to
precisely define the point at which "disgusting" kicks in does not
invalidate the opinion that $20.00/gallon is a crime, and indeed such a
legal decision was made at the time.
    My point was that while the operations of Leica, a large multinational
corporation, can fit precisely into economic theory, to make comparisons
between them and a single proprietor smacks of arithmetical operations with
apples and oranges.  Apparently.  My OPINION of course! ;)
    We are dealing with large 18% gray areas here.  The water vendor COULD
raise his price, and you find that abhorent.  Tom COULD raise his prices,
and you find that acceptable.  Clearly we are not dealing with a logical
rule here, but with value judgements, and as human beings in addition to
market consumers, we will make such judgements, and such unquantified moral
judgements will have a market impact.
    I lean towards believing that, given his problems, Tom would have been
quite justified in a raise in price.  But I doubt that he would have raised
them to the moral equivalent of $20/gallon.
    While we are on the subject of opinion, let me make it clear that my
perception is strongly that Leica is, and has always been, a major price
gouger in the water market.  This opinion derives from my use of Leica
products.  And use is the operative term.  I buy cameras to take pictures.
I do not pack them away in presentation cases, and insist that admirers of
my jewels use lint free gloves when sharing my veneration of these items.
    But realistically, there are two types of Leica purchasers, users and
collectors.  Let me re-arrange that.  Collectors and users.  For the market
is clearly driven almost entirely by collectors.  Leica only over-charges
because the collectors are happy to support prices that are not commensurate
with the utility of the item.  Is that immoral?  Not that I can see.  The
collectors deserve to be screwed, and Leica is happy to oblige them.  No
victims here.  Between these two groups it is all consensual.
    But do I find it objectionable?  You bet!  You see my researches have,
as of yet, failed to unearth the algorithim that would permit me to predict
the winning lottery number, and, as a result, the existance of the collector
group and their actions results in a severe hinderance to my obtaining
equipment I would like to use!  Still, their approach to Leica ownership is
as morally valid as mine, and I must support their right to help deny me my
goals.
    But it does result in strong opinions!

    And since I can't resist it, let's look at ticket scalping.  Is it
unethical?  Is it unfair?  You don't think so.  I do.  For one thing, it is
illegal.  And while I am not fool enough to assert that all that is illegal
is unethical or immoral, let me just say that laws are an expression of a
majority of society that they do so believe.
    For another, it is not as simple as hiring someone to stand in line for
you, because the necessity of standing in line is, at least in part, a
result of large numbers of scalpers buying large numbers of ticket, and thus
artificially creating the shortages that cost you $500.  Morally the
equivalent of the water seller cutting the plumbing to the public fountain.
    But then, it's just an opinion! ;)
Jack
Jack Herron
8118 E. 20th St.
Tucson, AZ 85710
520 885-6933
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Wajsman (private)" <nathanw@bluewin.ch
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Comments on a BD Colen statement & PMA


> Jack,
>
> I did not say that economists are devoid of moral judgements or the
> concept of fairness in general. The example you give with people selling
> water for $20/gallon to hurricane victims clearly disgusts me as it
> would anyone else. But when we are talking about normal products
> produced in a market, like the Rapidwinder or Leicavit, then what is a
> "fair" price is impossible to define. You state that Tom sets the price
> at a level which he feels "adequately" compensates him. Fine, but if
> that level were $1000 then he would sell far fewer winders. The order
> backlog may be a result of Tom's illness last year, but it still
> indicates that the price was lower than the market clearing price. I am
> making no judgement about Tom's pricing policy. I know him personally
> and I know that he is a great guy for whom the production of the winders
> and other accessories is partly a labor of love. But I still note that
> the shortage is an indication that he *could* charge more. In fact, when
> Tom's health problems were first made public, I remember one of the
> dealers who shall remain unnamed increased the price of Rapidwinders by
> $100 or so. Was that unethical? I don't know, we are not exactly talking
> about AIDS drugs for poor Africans here or water for hurricane
> victims... But it definitely is an indication that market forces were at
> work.
>
> Life is full of examples of shortages which are "solved" by the market.
> Look at Superbowl tickets. Is scalping unethical? If I buy a ticket from
> a guy outside the stadium for $500, is that price "unfair?" I don't
> think so, it is simply the market price at that particular time and
> place. I could after all have chosen to spend 2 days (or paid someone to
> do so) camped outside the ticket office to ensure that I would get my
> tickets at the nominal price, but I choose to pay a scalper instead. In
> the old Soviet Union, which suffered endemic shortages of everything,
> pensioners and students would supplement their modest incomes in exactly
> that way: by standing in line on behalf of someone else for a fee.
>
> Nathan
>
> --
> Nathan Wajsman
> Herrliberg (ZH), Switzerland
>
> e-mail: nathanw@bluewin.ch
> mobile: +41 78 732 1430
>
> Photo-A-Week: http://www.wajsman.com/indexpaw2003.htm
> General photo site: http://www.wajsman.com/index.htm
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html