Originally posted by: Ken90630
Actually, it doesn't come down to any such thing. What it comes down to in this particular case is the intent of the merchant, which is obviously to take advantage of unsophisticated computer buyers and, for all intents and purposes, steal from them by engaging in profiteering at their expense.
Hi. Welcome to AOL/BestBuy/your-local-car-dealer/etc...
Originally posted by: Ken90630
They are a predatory merchant, knowingly and intentionally ripping people off. They probably plan to milk this scam for as long as they can, then close up shop and ride off into their sunset with a wad of fleeced consumers' cash. This is dispicable.
Hi. As much as I absolutely hate fraud and intentionally-malicious dealings... as long as they provide what they promise, and advertise it accurately, I have to say that regretfully, I have to draw the line at allowing those sorts of merchants to exist. Just because they overcharge and don't offer a "good value" to their customers, isn't a crime. In a free society/economy, as long as the deal isn't coerced or fraudulent, it really is the customer's job to "comparison shop". Granted, this sort of thing does happen disturbingly often, but that's the price to pay for freedom. I can't say that I would be happy either, if too many laws designed to protect people from making their own bad choices got passed, because that would reduce the people's freedoms on the whole.
Now, if they promise the PC, but never provide it, and run off with the customer's money - that's enother thing entirely, that's purely criminal, and they should be investigated and prosecuted as such. But is there any evidence to suggest that in fact that case here? I dunno.
Originally posted by: Ken90630
No human being has the time or resources to be able to properly educate him or herself on every product out there.
True. And in exchange for that, we need to accept that we are human, and from time to time, make less than perfect choices on things.
Originally posted by: Ken90630
From cars to appliances to homes to insurance to health care to home furnishings to computers, and a zillion other products and services we need here in 2005, we should all have the RIGHT to expect all merchants and manufacturers to advertise honestly, treat us honestly, and conduct their business in an ethical manner. If I go to buy, say, a refrigerator for example, it should not be my responsibility to spend dozens or hundreds of hours learning everything about refrigerators so that I won't get ripped off by a dishonest merchant.
It shouldn't be your responsibility? Why not? Please, expound upon this, I'm curious as to your reasoning. Your time is so valuable, that someone else should be responsible for you? Well, that can happen too - pay a "professional" to make your purchase decisions for you then. But asking the seller to operate both in their best interests
and in the best interests of the customer, in a capitalist society, is far too much to ask, and an impossible conflict-of-interest. (To say nothing of the affect it would have on the workings of the "invisible hand".)
As far as the vendors being outright criminal, that's something else. You do have a reasonable expectation of good-faith in dealings, and if that is not the case, then there are mechanisms in society to deal with that, however inefficient they may be at times. That inefficiency is a semi-unfortunate side-effect of the need to respect the rights of all individuals in a society. Would you like to live in a society, in which someone accused of a bad deal could be shot dead on sight, legally? Sure, that would clean up the problem of "bad dealers" fairly quickly, but it would have some horrible side-effects too.
Originally posted by: Ken90630
It should be the merchant's responsibility to treat me, the customer, ethically by telling me the truth about the refrigerators on his showroom floor, educate me about them if I need it, and help me find the appropriate one for my needs and budget -- REGARDLESS of whether or not that choice makes him the most money or not on the sale. Is this reality nowadays? Of course not -- this world if full of corrupt, dishonest people who feel they have the right to take advantage of others and if people fall for it, it's their fault. This is morally and ethically indefensible.
That's a bit of a complex question, and the general societal solution to that problem, is generally handled by communication and reputation. In fact, forums such as these act as an effective conduit for just that sort of information, that can help you educate yourself and learn which vendors/products to avoid, and which are good.
In fact, it seems slightly strange to me, that you are participating on these very forums, and yet argue against the need for their existance; perhaps in an ideal world where every human was perfect and selfless, that might be true, but unfortunately, it is not. Hence this very thread about the subject and that vendor.
Originally posted by: Ken90630
What a shockingly flawed point of view. So, Insomniak, let's say that tomorrow you start having severe headaches. You go to the doctor, and he refers you to a neurologist who tells you that you need brain surgery. You have the surgery, spend tens of thousands of dollars of your own money, then find out afterwards that a particular medication would have cured you and you didn't need the surgery at all ... AND, you find out the surgeon knew this but didn't tell you. I suppose this will have been YOUR fault, and that it was YOUR responsibility to do whatever it took to educate yourself about the brain, anatomy, medicine, etc., and then make the proper "buying decision" about your surgery? NO -- the responsibility lied with the doctor -- the responsibility to be not only competent but also honest and ethical so that you could make the "decision" WITHOUT having to "educate yourself."
Well, medical ethics are in a slightly different realm than ordinary consumer purchases, but I do somewhat agree, that the current health-care system is very topsy-turvy, and in fact, the only way that it could continue to operate ethically, IMHO, would be to be operated on a non-profit basis on the whole. (Non-profit does
not mean no money - doctors and other people would continue to get paid. But there would be no third party that exists in the equation solely to
profit off of both the medical care-giver's work, and of the patent's suffering.)
HMO's are evil profiteering corporations, far more evil than even regular profiteering corporatations, that often spread misleading information ("lies") under the guise of marketing to increase their profits. The pharmeceutical companies exist in kind of a nether-realm between the two - allowed to advertise things like prescription-only medication on television, freely to the public, without any intermediating health-industry professional (doctor) that can help you filter whether or not such things would even be applicable to your life.
Originally posted by: Ken90630
It is not only preposterous, but utterly impractical to expect every human that needs a computer to "educate" him or herself to the extent necessary to be able to protect him or herself from predatory PC merchants. Many senior citizens, housewives, teenagers, non-technically inclined people, people who work long hours to support their family, and a host of others may not have the time or aptitude to do what you're claiming is their "responsibility."
If they do not have that aptitude themselves, or the ability to call upon those that do, to act for them, then they will fail. That is the unfortunate raw nature of things. It becomes even more apparent when witnessing legal dealings between companies. Once one knows whether or not one has the "strength" advantage in the deal, then one knows whether to play the role of the appeaser or the exploiter. That's what business is about - if you have the upper hand, exploit it for all it's worth, if you don't, defend yourself as best as possible, given the situation. In this case, in the case of a company experienced in the business, versus an unsuspecting consumer, the company clearly has the upper hand.
Are you debating the point, that no party should be ethically allowed to have an upper hand in dealings such as these? How would a world/society like that work out, in practice? I'm curious as to your views.
Originally posted by: Ken90630
The aforementioned people don't deserve to be ripped off -- they deserve to get a good computer at a good price from an honest merchant who can make an honest, reasonable profit on the sale. (Not a 10 zillion percent profit on the sale.)
"Deserve"? Not "have the opportunity"?
No, only if you believe in state-controlled markets, in which the "value" of any purchase transaction is strictly regulated. That is not the situation with the vast majority of the markets in the US. If you don't like that, move. (Or get a communist/socialist elected to office, that would be a hoot.) Interestingly, the state of MA is perhaps one of the most socialist states in the US (either directly ahead or behind of CA) - for example, the prices for car insurance (and probably other types), are set down by a state commission, not subject to the whims of the free market. Why? I'm not really sure, but I think it would have something to do with the insurance companies gouging most of the residents of this state, because the state demands that all vehicle operators be insured, and the majority of the residents of this state, at least along the eastern half, have $$$. (Not exactly me though.)
Originally posted by: Ken90630
Does this company breach ethics? No more than CompUSA does with their 600% markup on USB cables.
Another display of shockingly poor critical thinking skills. If, in fact, CompUSA marks up their USB cables 600% (which I kinda doubt), how does that make it okay for PCs for All to behave unethically? So if one merchant behaves unethically or engages in profiteering, then others can do the same and that somehow no longer makes it unethical?
How is making a profit unethical? Is that your underlying belief/theme here? Even Jesus said in the Bible not to deny a man his fair profit, I believe. The idea being that everyone needs a little something to live on, materially, while we are in this world, and that no-one should deny that of them. (On the other hand, I don't believe that he was legitimizing profiteering either. I would have to go back and read about His statements about the 'tax collector', and viewpoints thereof.)
I admit that the amount of proft added on to the sale seems rather... exhorbitant... but it would also be a form of market ineffeciency. Given the presence of competition, it would seem that the number of sales to that sort of company would diminish, to the point that they would be forced to lower their price, or go out of business.
However, I conceed that the abstract theories of capitalism, are essentially predicated on both sides of the deal having "perfect knowledge" about that deal. That is generally not the case in the real world, and why there are so many profitable supply-side capitalist businessman around. Not to mention the extreme distortion of the capitalist marketplace, by things like "IP law", which are wholly against the very principles of the "free market".
Ironic, isn't it, that MS claims that Linux is somehow "un-capitalist", and yet they hide behind and exploit the very IP laws that are anti-capitalist, for their own profit.
Originally posted by: Ken90630
Justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior is the sign of a weak mind. I guess if some crack head breaks into your home, Insomniak, and steals your computer, that gives you the right to do the same and break into a neighbor's house and steal his computer, huh? You sound like the socialist political science teacher I had in college. :roll:
On the other hand, you just sound like an outright socialist, in which prices are not set by the market, and your purchases are not up to you to decide upon.
Originally posted by: Ken90630
Capitalism is an exploitationist economic system - people should realize this and act accordingly.
Undoubtedly the most patently inaccurate statement so far (and that's saying something). Capitalism is the most just, fair, uplifiting and empowering economic system this planet has ever known. Socialism (which I assume you endorse?), communism and "progessivism"are exactly the opposite -- they are designed to enslave people by making them dependent on government, stifle their creativity and individuality, take their hard earned wealth away with crushing taxes and then redistribute it, and force everyone to have a standard of living determined by the lowest common human denominator.
Interesting. Since you appear to believe that one should not have the inherent right to freely price your goods the way that you see fit, to sell into the marketplace.
Wouldn't forcing gov't-mandated pricing schemes, effectivelly essentially steal that extra potential profit from you, and re-distribute it among your customers? Isn't that socialism? Yet, isn't that what you are advocating?
Originally posted by: Ken90630
True (to an extent). But wouldn't it be an amazing world if we didn't have to?
And a very scary one as well. Keep dreaming for your perfect world.
Originally posted by: Ken90630
As long as merchants like PCs for All can fleece unwitting or unsophisticated buyers and people like Insomniak will say it's the buyers' fault, we never will live in such an amazing world. And Insomniak will get the world he deserves. Unfortunately, the rest of us too will have to live in the world he deserves.
Call me crazy, but I would much rather have my freedom, than have the "deserving" right to purchase PCs at lower prices.
I'm thinking that you might be much happier, living in a country with a completely state-controlled economy. Somewhere in Europe, perhaps France would suit you better than here. Enjoy!