Capitalism and Firefly

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 16:21
VIEWED: 10053
PAGE 1 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

CHRISISALL

Friday, July 29, 2005 11:22 PM

As it's been made note of on another thread, Nathan Fillion got pissed at a comic book store that was tryin' to gouge the public (and HIM!!) by charging $20 for a $3 issue of Serenity. Nathan could have probably afforded it, but it was unfair what they were doing. The comic just came out. It seems Nathan is a little more like Mal than he's willing to admit (thumbs up, N).

My question here is: Do you agree with standing up to unfair pricing just because the perceived demand is so high, or do you feel Capitalism means whatever the market will bear, and Nathan should have just paid the price asked for?

I feel that Capitalism, like anything else, can be taken too far to where it hurts the little guy to make it's profit, and in this instance, Nathan, not Mal, is our hero.

Chrisisall

258WESTAUTHENTIC

Friday, July 29, 2005 11:46 PM

How can you ask someoen who is trying to make a living to take less than market value for something?

Again you as the customer can say I dont want to buy it. As the seller he has the right to sell it for what ever he feels the value of the comic is.

You have the option to buy it other places, thats the great part of capitalism.

------------------------------------------------

RON GLASS AUTOGRAPHED COMIC COVERS FOR SELL ON MY SITE FOR A LIMITED TIME ( Limited to 258 Copies )

https://258west.com/category/item.php?id=60

Serenity Comics, Action figures, RPG, Books, Trading cards... Everything Serenity can be found at my store.

http://www.bigdamnstore.com

Thanks for you support

CHRISISALL

Saturday, July 30, 2005 12:13 AM

I can totally understand charging more if it's not current, or if it's autographed. I know the object of business is to make money. There are just degrees.
But that doesn't answer my question, should he have paid or not without a ruckuss, or was he right in how he responded?

He's my he-wo Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, July 30, 2005 12:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 258westauthentic:
How can you ask someoen who is trying to make a living to take less than market value for something?

Well, price gouging is generally considered selling at well above market value when the seller has the buyer at a disadvantage. I don't think Chris is talking about someone selling anything at fair market value.

However, I think this situation with Fillion and his comic shop is not an example of price gouging. The reason it is not price gouging is that the seller does not have the buyer at a disadvantage. In fact it is the buyer who actually has the seller at a disadvantage. In a free market where competition exists the buyer can always go somewhere else to buy something, and the threat of loosing business to cheaper prices is what competition is all about.

There was nothing unfair about charging an exuberant price for something that is worth much less, as long as the seller doesn’t have the buyer at an unfair advantage (and even then it is debatable.) It was Fillion who had the advantage, I think, because he could (and probably did) go somewhere else, thereby leaving the previous seller without a purchase. So the only person who lost here was the seller, who should have reduced his prices if he wanted to stay competitive with the market, but that’s his choice. He didn’t do anything ethically wrong, if that’s all he did.

Free market Capitalism does mean whatever the market will bear, but the market is not set solely by the seller, rather by what the seller and the buyer agree upon. This is a concept that I think eludes many people. They go to Walmart and they pay whatever the seller sets; never quite understanding that the price is or should be set as much by the buyer as by the seller. So suggesting that Nathan should simply pay whatever price the seller asks is not capitalism. Nathan should argue and complain and argue and complain some more, until he gets down to a price that both the seller and the buyer can agree upon, or failing that depart and seek other sources. And that price is then what the market will bear.

So to answer Chris' question: Nathan did the right thing.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, July 30, 2005 1:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
My question here is: Do you agree with standing up to unfair pricing just because the perceived demand is so high, or do you feel Capitalism means whatever the market will bear, and Nathan should have just paid the price asked for?

Concepts like value and worth are entirely subjective. People may talk about "fair market value" but that's something of a fiction. Goods and services are worth whatever you are willing to pay for them. Probably, to some people, the comic was worth $20. Obviously Nathan thought that was kind of a rip off (as do I) and had every right to gripe about it.

I think maybe Nathan's post was prompted more by the clerk's asinine responses to his complaints than by the actual price. Either way, I think he's right to complain. On the other hand, people who want to legislate 'price gouging' laws to prevent such a thing don't seem to understand the point of a free market, imho.

EDIT: (eewwww gross! I agreed with Finn!

)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CHRISISALL

Saturday, July 30, 2005 1:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I think maybe Nathan's post was prompted more by the clerk's asinine responses to his complaints than by the actual price.
EDIT: (eewwww gross! I agreed with Finn! )

Like if the clerk just said, "I'm sorry, I know the price is really high, but small shops like ours have to pay rent, and event-driven material is unfortunatly our bread and butter...", but no, he had to go all Badger on Nathan.

And don't worry 'bout agreeing with Finn, I do it a lot (he's so warm and fuzzy and such, y'know).

Bargain huntin' Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 30, 2005 1:37 AM

Nathan did the right thing, the guy was an arse (based on his attitude alone).
Frankly he [[]Daryl, the comic book guy[]] may have done nothing wrong based on the ethics of capitalism, but I tend to think the ethics of capitalism isn't all that great anyway.
Greed isn't a great motivation for anything, yet its the guiding creed of capitalism.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

SERGEANTX

Saturday, July 30, 2005 1:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Greed isn't a great motivation for anything, yet its the guiding creed of capitalism.

That notion is widely touted, even by supposed capitalists, but the real guiding creed of free-market capitalism (as long as you leave corporate privilege out of the mix) is respect for each person's right to decide for themselves.

This example really illustrates that nicely. In any economic system, there's always the chore of determining what something is worth. In a centralized economy you have bureaucrats or elected officials making such decisions. In a free market, people make these calls for themselves. Just seems more fair to me.

(Damn you, ChrisIsAll. Don't try to pretend you didn't know what you were stirring up here....

)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 30, 2005 2:04 AM

I see your point. But it just doesn't workout like that.
The companies that make money are the most ruthless, the ones that don't mind fighting dirty. Not the ones the offer the best, cheapest service.
The companies that make it are ones that don't mind screw people over (imho), that can channel the extra profits in to pulling the wool over peoples eyes, using pyschological tricks and advertising.
Recently I saw a program on TV that highlighted that food bought in small independent butchers/grocers etc was not just better for you (which people tend to know) but was cheaper than what you can buy in the supermarket. Why do people shop at supermarkets, because they're perceived to be cheaper and more convient (this one may be true), than the small independent shops.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

CHRISISALL

Saturday, July 30, 2005 2:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
(Damn you, ChrisIsAll. Don't try to pretend you didn't know what you were stirring up here.... )

Who, me?

I just see a lot of anti-Independent like comments tossed around by die-hard Firefly fans on the RWE, and wanted to see how that thinking holds up when the man portrayin' our captain speaks out in a way that stands up for the people history rolls over.
I'm dying to see Lynchaj comment here

Words don't stir people up, Chrisisall does

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE