When a deal is a steal

Andrew seems to have missed my point (hardly a surprise) and can't seem to remember "BART" as opposed to the "Bob" I was correcting.

That said….I lived in WA State for some years, and will never go back (the trees take SO MUCH C02 out of the air there that no thinking man (i.e. non-liberal) can survive)….

Next, Andrew, you restated my thesis for me – "markets always win." Precisely my point….bravo to you for missing that entirely within my wonderfully eloquent post (not, as you wrote, "diction," Andrew, which refers to the SPOKEN, not written, word).

Learn to read, Andrew, and further, stop pandering to your liberal ideologues – they won't recognize your "brilliant," contributions here.

Dear Bob,

Please never come to Washington state as I fear you may get angry at the trees for taking disproportionate amounts of CO2 out of the air and not allowing us the chance to reduce emissions. I think you've been breathing in too much smog in SA.
Take some freakin' basic economics courses and realize that no matter what government and/or GAAP says, markets always win. Unless, that is, Stalin and Mao are still in power and I just didn't realize.
You need more behind your eloquent diction than just complaining about liberals. On the political scale (if anyone paid attention in school) Repubs and Dems are on opposite sides of moderates… but not at all far apart on the complete spectrum of politics.
Stop complaining and labeling other people's statements as "liberal" without stapling a caveat of "extremely self-righteous" to your own statements.

If you've got a quote, then that means the business is willing to do the job at that price. Don't feel guilty about it. You don't know what their costs were or are now. Perhaps the price quoted before was several times what would have been a profitable price and they were perfectly willing to overcharge you then.

Chicago Bob sets up his usual straw man.

"Hungry Katrina sufferers," are NOT willing buyers under GAAP, nor would I be a willing seller of that same baby food if I sold it – for $0.01 or $100 – with a gun pointed in my general direction by that same "hungry Katrina sufferer."

I appreciate the reductio ad absurdem argument, Bob, but…please…let's focus on the issues HERE, which are willing participants engaging in a negotiation for a non-essential (though perhaps highly desirable) service.

Husband can negotiate as he pleases to any price he wishes to get. He may obtain that pricing, or may not (in which case he can search for another painter; paint the house himself; or forget the effort for now); similarly, Mr. Painter can meet the price; propose a different (presumably higher – price); or move on to another assignment.

The free market is just that – free – because both parties are legally and morally unbound to one another UNTIL they agree; agree with conditions; or fail to reach accord.

In your world, Bob, you would have ignorant government officials propose a pricing structure that would include substantial fees and power accruing to the government. No matter that for our discussion here, but let's be clear Bob: you meant to see me hang my head, sheepish, mumbling "oh, your right,"….

Not a chance, Bob: your world view condemms all who see that world your way to a livelihood of servtitude to you and your liberal ideals, which aren't about our poor downtrodden painter, Bob – they are about YOU and YOUR ILK maximizing both poverty (everyone else's but yours) and power (yours alone).

Stop dictating to the thinking men and women of the world, Bob. We don't need your liberal bent.

"An “equitable,” price is one agreed to be a willing buyer and a willing seller. Period. Motivations are irrelevant"

Bart, just so we're clear, you would find it ethical to sell jars of baby food to hungry Katrina victims at $100 a pop right? After all, the buyer and seller are willing….(period)

100%! That's the # of articles posted here, met with liberal (and often FAR off the mark) responses by the moderators.

An "equitable," price is one agreed to be a willing buyer and a willing seller. Period. Motivations are irrelevant; $5 per hour is irrelevant; the painter's need to save his house (if accurate) is irrelevant; and so on. I would question anyone's judgement in believing otherwise, or even attempting to justify NOT "taking advantage because someone is hurting." Unless this painter is your friend (in which case, why are bids being taken and dollars being exchanged for the service) you owe him two things – a quick and reasonable negotiated agreement, specifying work to be done & payment; followed by prompt payment upon completion.

Period.

You know, the entire concept of "shared sacrifice," is built on sacrifice actually being shared – not disproportionally (read that, ENTIRELY) being born by those who have chosen to be successful.

The Obama liberals are changing the very language by which we operate. "Fair share," = UNFAIR burden on the successful; "shared sacrifice," is me working hard to feed you, who contribute little; "equal distribution of burden," is in fact the liberals stealing from me FAR more than my burden to society represents.

The attitudes represented by the questioner here show this entirely liberal taint – call it the "shoulds," – with which all those who work hard are being infected by that insidious virus – "bread and circuses."

We fought a Revolution over "taxation without representation." It is now time to fight one over the slogan "NO representation without taxation!"

You read it here first.

I think that if the painter agrees to paint for a price, the price is fair regardless of his financial situation. The painter can always say no. We have lived too long paying sticker price for everything. Many items have 100% markup from the retailer (not the manufacturer) to the customer and we pay it because we don't negotiate prices anymore. I much prefer shopping abroad where you are laughed at if you pay full price.