Charismatic

If I sell a thing to a person for more than market value but I'm aware they don’t know they are overpaying but I also know that they are very unlikely to find out (asymmetry of information or a very high level of complexity for example), am I being unethical?

scrubbedexpat094

On the one hand yes but on the other 'Caveat emptor'

MrsFychan

if they are happy to buy at that price then so be it.

LoCarb

This is how corporations make money.
You only have to look to the banking industry to see that.

It's also how Britain became wealthy, a blueprint for colonialism.

When you are a monopoly, you can charge what you like.

Audio: Monopoly Incomes Over Community Cohesion

https://www.mixcloud.com/RenegadeEco...nity-cohesion/

Bo-Jangles

Crikey I thought that was a basic requirement for assimilation and survival in NZ - the ability to sell things for more than they are actually worth seems to work for most shops in NZ, certainly works for Auckland homeowners and most stuff that exchanges hands via Trademe.

SSky

Yes you're running a business after all, if you can provide it and they want it then why would that be wrong. It's not like they can't do their own research if they really wanted to.
The last shop I worked in, the stuff they bought wholesale was 2.7 times more expensive by the time it made it's way onto the shop floor and a lot of it I could have found cheaper on Trademe.

dfjordan

The market value is the value at which a willing buyer and seller agree to trade the item at. That's what markets are all about.

LoCarb

This is nonsense of course.

Even taking into account the asymmetry of information between parties, there is also the monopoly aspect to consider.

For example: in the case of the drug Daraprim where the new owner of the company increased the price from $13.50 to $750 per dose.

Pulaski

This is nonsense of course.

"Market price" means symmetry of information and no monopoly/oligopoly power.

Monopoly prices, or where the buyer doesn't know there is a comparable product available for a lower price, are not "market prices".

LoCarb

Think he said "Market Value" though....

dfjordan

It would be interesting to know why you state that my definition is nonsense? Try looking for definitions of the term market value .

I question your example using a monopoly, as once again I suggest you use the correct definition as I gave. Taking your example, if Daraprim increases it price as you say, it doesnt mean because of their monopoly, they will find buyers at that price. If the buyer cant afford it, he wont be able to buy it, hence there is no market value because there is no market. Given time, the price will either fall to a level where a buyer becomes interested again, and hence a market value will be established, or alternatively, if it isnt economic for Daraprim to sell at a lower price, it will come off the market.
It's just logic, nothing else.

LoCarb

I would have thought that the term "willing" is defined by the equality of the participants in the transaction.

In the case of Daraprim the result of not consuming the product could well be death.

"Daraprim has become a single-source and specialty pharmacy item." Wiki