I’ve been lecturing (technically tutoring) someone recently on economy for economy classes. So far it’s been easy. But we often get sucked into the topic of price haggling. It always goes the same.
She asks something like “why does what people say affect a price? You either value something to the extent you value it or you don’t. It seems dishonest.”
Usually my response to that is to first mention how, if all prices were fixed, money wouldn’t go anywhere. If everyone just sold pizzas, and everyone sold them at the same price, everyone would live and die with the same amount of value in their possession. I also compare it to a captcha and say it’s like tipping them for their human-to-human time.
That’s a good point I think. Anyone in our same recurring conversation should start there. I bring up the small details and allow the ideas to converge. Especially the ones she knows.
However, I must admit, that’s where my ability to explain it ends.
She then asks something like “how do you haggle then? What kind of talking is considered haggling and then at what point does it just become price bickering?” And in my mind, as I try to define it for her, I think to myself “forgive her, she’s on the spectrum.”
I’m not like her. I like to price haggle freely and think price haggling should be protected by law in the same way religion is protected by Freedom of Religion laws. If someone comes into a pharmacy and wants to haggle, in my perfect world, it would be enforced by the authorities. Perhaps you can tell me in your answer to this if you think this is a good idea (please).
How immersed are you in the practice? Immersed enough you’ve taken a long time doing it before (how long) or do it frequently? A lot of the people here have passionate views on the economy; how do you square the practice of price haggling with your views? Is it considered “good” in your viewpoint?
To me haggling isn’t about value, its a conflict between two conflicting interests. One side wants to make as much of a profit as possible, and the other wants to spend as little as possible. Haggling is at worst manipulation and exploitation as both sides are trying to scam the other (and its heavily favors the seller), and at best its two people finding a compromise on a price both are willing to agree on.
Value is a subjective thing, it is different from person to person, thing to thing, and even time. Its part of why I’m an anarcho-communist, and to me that is relevant as you are asking this in an anarchist community. I believe an economy should be built around need, not value. Resources should go to those that need it, and I trust people to decide what they need themselves. Production should be geared towards meeting people’s needs, not about making the most profit.
Haggling fails to accomplish either this as it is purely about value. It is a competition between two different people’s perception of an objects value, and a competition that is basically rigged in the favor of the seller. I say this because the seller does not need the product, that is why they are selling it, and they can simply say no.
To emphasize this, lets run through a hypothetical. You are a baker selling your goods at a market and a buyer approaches wanting to buy a loaf of bread. [We are going to simplify the costs and such of being a baker for the sake of simplicity]. It cost you $1 for the ingredients to make that one loaf of bread. But you cant simply sell the loaf for a $1, you put work into making that so now we gotta factor in the value of the labor. Lets say you think the value of the labor for that one loaf of bread was $5 in your own opinion (cause value is subjective). So to you the value of the loaf of bread is $6. But you dont simply want to make ends meet, you want to make money.
You offer to sell the loaf of bread for $10. The buyer is a poor starving old man with very little money. You two haggle and you come to find he only has $6. You have three choices, sell it to him for the value you feel its really worth which would be all of the man’s money, you could sell it for less (if you sold it for $2 you would make double the costs of the resources to make it, even $1 would break even), or you could refuse to sell it to him and wait for a more profitable customer. What choices does the buyer have? None, if you decided you won’t drop to $6. If you drop to $6 or below he still has no choice, its pay or die of starvation.
Of course this is an overly simple hypothetical, but I feel it gets my point across.