Minor things that bother you

[SEWIGuy]

I don't find charging what the market bears to be greedy.

How is "taking as much money as I can without being told no" not greedy?

Because its a free-will transaction. If I am willing to pay $200 for the widget, its not greed if I feel I am getting something that is worth that amount.

I dunno, man. I think you might just not be a very good person.

Nice.

Have you ever sold something, like a house, for the best offer you could get? The last time I sold a house, I had four offers over asking price. Was I greedy for taking the most lucrative one?

[SEWIGuy]

I don't find charging what the market bears to be greedy.

How is "taking as much money as I can without being told no" not greedy?

Because its a free-will transaction. If I am willing to pay $200 for the widget, its not greed if I feel I am getting something that is worth that amount.

I dunno, man. I think you might just not be a very good person.

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." -- 1 Timothy 6:10

"Do not oppress a hired laborer who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your countrymen or one of the foreigners residing in your land. For if he is poor, he may be oppressed and cry out to the Lord, and I will hear his cry. For if you oppress him, he will cry out to the Lord, and I will hear his cry." -- Deuteronomy 24:14-15

"Do not cheat your neighbor, nor rob him of his wages." -- Leviticus 19:13

None of these are relevant to what we are talking about.

[kphoger]

Anything beyond that is charging money for the sake of charging money. That's called greed. And greed being immoral is certainly not a new concept—I seem to recall it's even a tenet of Christianity.

I know religion is an off-limits subject on the forum, but I also know you have self-identified as ignorant when it comes to religious matters.  So I'll just weigh in on this assertion to help clarify.

Greed has been included in the 'Seven Deadly Sins' of Roman Catholicism since the late 4th Century.  But you may notice that Christianity existed long before the late 4th Century.  Protestant traditions don't hold to the Seven Deadly Sins to begin with for theological reasons, nor do they consider Catholic doctrines inherently binding, and so for most Protestants greed would only be considered immoral/sinful if it is named as such in the Bible.

And I'm not aware of any verse in the Bible that actually calls greed a sin.  The closest I can come up with is I Timothy 6:6-10, which is this:

There is great gain in godliness with contentment;  for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world;  but if we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content.  But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction.  For the love of money is the root of all evils;  it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs.

In other words, greed itself isn't the sin, but it is likely to lead to other things that are.

And even in The Catholic Encyclopedia, avarice (greed) is included not because of anything immoral in and of itself but because of its proximity to other things that are:

It is called a capital vice because it has as its object that for the gaining or holding of which many other sins are committed.

Having said all of that, of course, I'd say that generosity is a tenet of Christianity, that caring for the poor is a tenet of Christianity, and that seeking heavenly riches instead of earthly riches is a tenet of Christianity.  With those tenets in mind, it would be hard to defend greed as being in keeping with them.

[JayhawkCO]

I don't find charging what the market bears to be greedy.

How is "taking as much money as I can without being told no" not greedy?

Because its a free-will transaction. If I am willing to pay $200 for the widget, its not greed if I feel I am getting something that is worth that amount.

I dunno, man. I think you might just not be a very good person.

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." -- 1 Timothy 6:10

"Do not oppress a hired laborer who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your countrymen or one of the foreigners residing in your land. For if he is poor, he may be oppressed and cry out to the Lord, and I will hear his cry. For if you oppress him, he will cry out to the Lord, and I will hear his cry." -- Deuteronomy 24:14-15

"Do not cheat your neighbor, nor rob him of his wages." -- Leviticus 19:13

None of these are relevant to what we are talking about.

I disagree.

And another:

"Do not wear yourself out to get rich; be discerning enough to desist. Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle."  -- Proverbs 23:4-5

[SEWIGuy]

I don't find charging what the market bears to be greedy.

How is "taking as much money as I can without being told no" not greedy?

Because its a free-will transaction. If I am willing to pay $200 for the widget, its not greed if I feel I am getting something that is worth that amount.

I dunno, man. I think you might just not be a very good person.

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." -- 1 Timothy 6:10

"Do not oppress a hired laborer who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your countrymen or one of the foreigners residing in your land. For if he is poor, he may be oppressed and cry out to the Lord, and I will hear his cry. For if you oppress him, he will cry out to the Lord, and I will hear his cry." -- Deuteronomy 24:14-15

"Do not cheat your neighbor, nor rob him of his wages." -- Leviticus 19:13

None of these are relevant to what we are talking about.

I disagree.

Again, a free will transaction isn't robbery. It is exchanging money for a product that the buyer believes has the same value. And, as kphoger points out, you are missing the entire point of the verse from Timothy.

[kphoger]

None of these are relevant to what we are talking about.

I disagree.

And another:

"Do not wear yourself out to get rich; be discerning enough to desist. Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle."  -- Proverbs 23:4-5

Whether they apply is a matter of biblical interpretation.  How much study have you done into the texts you quoted?  Or was that just a quick Google search?

Robbery (גָּזַל) is not the same thing as deciding what price to charge for an item you're selling in a free market.  The oppression (עָשַׁק) of workers is not the same thing either.  Nor is cheating (same Hebrew word as 'oppression') someone.  The love (φιλαργυρία) of money spoken of in Timothy's first epistle is not the same thing as charging a price that the market will bear.

[LilianaUwU]

Robbery (גָּזַל) is not the same thing as deciding what price to charge for an item you're selling in a free market.

With today's prices? Yes, yes it is.

[Max Rockatansky]

Geeze, and here I thought my pointing the finger at consumers willing to pay inflated prices would've been the controversial take.

[kphoger]

Robbery (גָּזַל) is not the same thing as deciding what price to charge for an item you're selling in a free market.

With today's prices? Yes, yes it is.

Unless you've actually looked up the word in ancient Hebrew and have a good argument to put forward, no it isn't.

The word גָּזַל literally means to strip something off.  In Job 24:9, for example, the same word is used to describe snatching an orphan child from his mother's breast.  The word's translation into English as 'robbery', therefore, carries with it the implication of the use of force or illegal means.

But, hey, you know, I'm open to counter-arguments.

[Scott5114]

I know religion is an off-limits subject on the forum, but I also know you have self-identified as ignorant when it comes to religious matters.  So I'll just weigh in on this assertion to help clarify.

Thanks for the thorough explanation. This is exactly the sort of clarification I was hoping for. (And it gives me something to think over, in that I hadn't considered that there are more subtle cultural differences besides the obvious ones that might be correlated with them being majority-Catholic vs. majority-Protestant areas.)

Have you ever sold something, like a house, for the best offer you could get? The last time I sold a house, I had four offers over asking price. Was I greedy for taking the most lucrative one?

The only time I sold a house, we got an offer within hours of the house going on the market, and it was  above asking price and carried a very short accept-or-reject deadline. Our agent advised us to accept the offer, so we did. So technically, no, I guess, since we got exactly one offer and it was the one that we took. We could have theoretically rejected that offer and maybe gotten a better one, or maybe not. We'll never know.

On the other hand, when we were buying a house here in Nevada, we had dealt with a seller that wanted us to allow them to stay in the house for two months after closing. We weren't entirely opposed to that, but we would have had to pay rent at our (much smaller) apartment, so we asked for the seller to reimburse us for the two months of rent (which since it was just the cost of the smaller apartment, would have been below fair market value for the house). They declined. At that point we felt the seller was being greedy, so we retracted our offer and did not pursue that property any further.

Real estate is very different than most transactions most people will take part in during a lifetime, since it's one of the only transactions where negotiation is actually involved and both parties normally have a knowledgeable advisor to allow them to make informed decisions. One cannot negotiate the price of a twelve-pack of Mountain Dew. I cannot make an offer—there is a price I have the option to either pay or not. I exercise that "not" option frequently enough that I mostly don't buy things at all these days. That seems like a problem, but not necessarily one on my end.

[JayhawkCO]

None of these are relevant to what we are talking about.

I disagree.

And another:

"Do not wear yourself out to get rich; be discerning enough to desist. Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle."  -- Proverbs 23:4-5

Whether they apply is a matter of biblical interpretation.  How much study have you done into the texts you quoted?  Or was that just a quick Google search?

Robbery (גָּזַל) is not the same thing as deciding what price to charge for an item you're selling in a free market.  The oppression (עָשַׁק) of workers is not the same thing either.  Nor is cheating (same Hebrew word as 'oppression') someone.  The love (φιλαργυρία) of money spoken of in Timothy's first epistle is not the same thing as charging a price that the market will bear.

Just a google search as I certainly don't claim to be a biblical scholar.

My main point is that many people in our society propose that their morality comes from their religion. And, at least from this outsider, I have a hard time reconciling following the teaching of a person who literally gave everything away to others, including his life, with trying to make sure to get every cent possible when completing a business transaction. I just can't see Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, whoever saying, "Well, I know you only have $2.50, but the market will bear $3.00, so tough luck, next time."

[roadman65]

 The word us becoming US.  It happens every time I try to write U-S to spell us.


It's annoying somewhat.


Now back to the philosophy talk 😂.

[kphoger]

I just can't see Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, whoever saying, "Well, I know you only have $2.50, but the market will bear $3.00, so tough luck, next time."

Did either Jesus, Mohammed, of the Buddha even live in a culture where any goods had a fixed price at all?  Wasn't the price of pretty much everything haggled?

(Honest question.  I'm no historian.)

[JayhawkCO]

I just can't see Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, whoever saying, "Well, I know you only have $2.50, but the market will bear $3.00, so tough luck, next time."

Did either Jesus, Mohammed, of the Buddha even live in a culture where any goods had a fixed price at all?  Wasn't the price of pretty much everything haggled?

(Honest question.  I'm no historian.)

Not an expert either, but I'm doing to assume there were some fixed rates that everyone in the society knew, a la when you go to a developing country where they don't use taxi meters. Everyone who lives there knows that a ride to the airport costs x. I highly doubt on a day to day basis, a basket of apples costs one bushel of wheat one day and two bushels the next day.

[kphoger]

Not an expert either, but I'm doing to assume there were some fixed rates that everyone in the society knew, a la when you go to a developing country where they don't use taxi meters. Everyone who lives there knows that a ride to the airport costs x. I highly doubt on a day to day basis, a basket of apples costs one bushel of wheat one day and two bushels the next day.

But it was a free market, and the vendor was free to sell a basket of apples for whatever price he thought he could sell it for.  (I think.  Again, I'm no historian.)
 It's not like, when Jesus asked his disciples how to feed the 5000 and they answered that that much food would cost more than 200 denarii, they calculated the number based on market prices set by Herod Antipas.

I'm also reminded of the fact that a taxi ride in that developing world is likely to cost more for a tourist than it is for a local.

[SEWIGuy]

None of these are relevant to what we are talking about.

I disagree.

And another:

"Do not wear yourself out to get rich; be discerning enough to desist. Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle."  -- Proverbs 23:4-5

Whether they apply is a matter of biblical interpretation.  How much study have you done into the texts you quoted?  Or was that just a quick Google search?

Robbery (גָּזַל) is not the same thing as deciding what price to charge for an item you're selling in a free market.  The oppression (עָשַׁק) of workers is not the same thing either.  Nor is cheating (same Hebrew word as 'oppression') someone.  The love (φιλαργυρία) of money spoken of in Timothy's first epistle is not the same thing as charging a price that the market will bear.

Just a google search as I certainly don't claim to be a biblical scholar.

My main point is that many people in our society propose that their morality comes from their religion. And, at least from this outsider, I have a hard time reconciling following the teaching of a person who literally gave everything away to others, including his life, with trying to make sure to get every cent possible when completing a business transaction. I just can't see Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, whoever saying, "Well, I know you only have $2.50, but the market will bear $3.00, so tough luck, next time."

Now you are shifting goalposts. What I was talking about was a willing transactions between two parties. Never once did Scott or you claim that the customer only had $180 to buy the widget. Your claim was the very act of selling the widget for $200 is "immoral" or "greedy" when it actually is neither of those things.

[JayhawkCO]

I'm also reminded of the fact that a taxi ride in that developing world is likely to cost more for a tourist than it is for a local.

And I'm also reminded that if you have a nice local around you and they hear that a cabbie is trying to rip you off, they'll yell at him and tell you what the price should be. (I've had this happen to me several times.) It seems that trying to maximize profit, despite that price probably being "fine" for me (as in cheaper than an Uber in the U.S. and certainly something I can afford), is viewed as greedy by the locals.

[JayhawkCO]

None of these are relevant to what we are talking about.

I disagree.

And another:

"Do not wear yourself out to get rich; be discerning enough to desist. Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle."  -- Proverbs 23:4-5

Whether they apply is a matter of biblical interpretation.  How much study have you done into the texts you quoted?  Or was that just a quick Google search?

Robbery (גָּזַל) is not the same thing as deciding what price to charge for an item you're selling in a free market.  The oppression (עָשַׁק) of workers is not the same thing either.  Nor is cheating (same Hebrew word as 'oppression') someone.  The love (φιλαργυρία) of money spoken of in Timothy's first epistle is not the same thing as charging a price that the market will bear.

Just a google search as I certainly don't claim to be a biblical scholar.

My main point is that many people in our society propose that their morality comes from their religion. And, at least from this outsider, I have a hard time reconciling following the teaching of a person who literally gave everything away to others, including his life, with trying to make sure to get every cent possible when completing a business transaction. I just can't see Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, whoever saying, "Well, I know you only have $2.50, but the market will bear $3.00, so tough luck, next time."

Now you are shifting goalposts. What I was talking about was a willing transactions between two parties. Never once did Scott or you claim that the customer only had $180 to buy the widget. Your claim was the very act of selling the widget for $200 is "immoral" or "greedy" when it actually is neither of those things.

You're missing, whether intentionally or not, the nuance of what I'm trying to describe. Unless I'm misunderstanding, you are saying that any willing transaction is never either greedy nor un-greedy -- it's just the market at work. I'm saying that there are plenty of times where, despite meeting equilibrium in pricing, there's plenty of greed involved.

[SEWIGuy]

None of these are relevant to what we are talking about.

I disagree.

And another:

"Do not wear yourself out to get rich; be discerning enough to desist. Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle."  -- Proverbs 23:4-5

Whether they apply is a matter of biblical interpretation.  How much study have you done into the texts you quoted?  Or was that just a quick Google search?

Robbery (גָּזַל) is not the same thing as deciding what price to charge for an item you're selling in a free market.  The oppression (עָשַׁק) of workers is not the same thing either.  Nor is cheating (same Hebrew word as 'oppression') someone.  The love (φιλαργυρία) of money spoken of in Timothy's first epistle is not the same thing as charging a price that the market will bear.

Just a google search as I certainly don't claim to be a biblical scholar.

My main point is that many people in our society propose that their morality comes from their religion. And, at least from this outsider, I have a hard time reconciling following the teaching of a person who literally gave everything away to others, including his life, with trying to make sure to get every cent possible when completing a business transaction. I just can't see Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, whoever saying, "Well, I know you only have $2.50, but the market will bear $3.00, so tough luck, next time."

Now you are shifting goalposts. What I was talking about was a willing transactions between two parties. Never once did Scott or you claim that the customer only had $180 to buy the widget. Your claim was the very act of selling the widget for $200 is "immoral" or "greedy" when it actually is neither of those things.

You're missing, whether intentionally or not, the nuance of what I'm trying to describe. Unless I'm misunderstanding, you are saying that any willing transaction is never either greedy nor un-greedy -- it's just the market at work. I'm saying that there are plenty of times where, despite meeting equilibrium in pricing, there's plenty of greed involved.

That is false. I have given multiple examples where a price could be considered immoral or greedy. See the bolded.

But these are free will transactions. Someone is willingly paying $200 for that widget. Unless it is a lifesaving widget, or the company and the competitor are colludingon the price, I have never thought that charging a price that the market dictates is immoral.

Uh...what? The price of any good has mostly do with the demand for the product. Unless we are talking about price gauging in times of scarcity, like in the aftermath of a natural disaster, thats hardly immoral.

[JayhawkCO]

That is false. I have given multiple examples where a price could be considered immoral or greedy. See the bolded.

Fair. I just also think there's plenty of greed in non-scarce, non-collusion environments.

[Scott5114]

I can consider any price I want to be greedy and immoral for any reason I want. Because those are my morals. If someone does something I think is immoral I can criticize them for that, or avoid doing business with them, or cut them out of my life, or whatever. And I can and probably should live my life according to my morals. And I do—I'm fortunate enough to be able to work in a job where I can see all the financials and comfortably say that my employer is charging a fair price.

On the other hand I do a decent amount of stuff that, as a Christian, Kyle would probably consider being immoral. That's okay because those are his morals. I don't have to follow them, but if I don't, I accept whatever consequences he thinks are appropriate for that. (Fortunately, he's a pretty cool guy who gets along with folks even if their morals don't exactly match his own.)

The fact that this has to be explicitly spelled out is kind of alarming.

[kphoger]

The root question is whether one person's willingness to pay a certain price for an item ought to influence our judgement of the seller's decision to sell it at that price.  If buyers are willing to accept the price, then does that automatically preclude greed on the part of the seller?

[kphoger]

On the other hand I do a decent amount of stuff that, as a Christian, Kyle would probably consider being immoral. That's okay because those are his morals. I don't have to follow them, but if I don't, I accept whatever consequences he thinks are appropriate for that. (Fortunately, he's a pretty cool guy who gets along with folks even if their morals don't exactly match his own.)

Thank you for the respect.

I just want to point out that I also do a decent amount of stuff that, as a Christian, I consider being immoral.  That's because we humans suck at living by our own moral standards.  Heck, even absent some higher authority decreeing those morals for us, we suck at living by the moral standards we set for ourselves.

[JayhawkCO]

The root question is whether one person's willingness to pay a certain price for an item ought to influence our judgement of the seller's decision to sell it at that price.  If buyers are willing to accept the price, then does that automatically preclude greed on the part of the seller?

Not automatically. But it also doesn't automatically exclude it either.

tl;dr my whole argument. Capitalism is not a place I want to look to as an example of morality, since it is infinitely more likely to be an example of immorality.

[SEWIGuy]

I can consider any price I want to be greedy and immoral for any reason I want. Because those are my morals. If someone does something I think is immoral I can criticize them for that, or avoid doing business with them, or cut them out of my life, or whatever. And I can and probably should live my life according to my morals. And I do—I'm fortunate enough to be able to work in a job where I can see all the financials and comfortably say that my employer is charging a fair price.

On the other hand I do a decent amount of stuff that, as a Christian, Kyle would probably consider being immoral. That's okay because those are his morals. I don't have to follow them, but if I don't, I accept whatever consequences he thinks are appropriate for that. (Fortunately, he's a pretty cool guy who gets along with folks even if their morals don't exactly match his own.)

The fact that this has to be explicitly spelled out is kind of alarming.

The fact that your morals don't seem to have any standards besides "what I want" is more alarming honestly.

I think you're misreading his first sentence if that's the conclusion you're drawing.

I think you are correct and will delete my post.