tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5698599151422542939.post6756893989871294432..comments2023-09-21T05:14:00.254-04:00Comments on Euvoluntary Exchange: Does a "Haggle" Norm Make Euvoluntary Exchange Impossible?Mungowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02340064320347875601noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5698599151422542939.post-7560556577880313642012-12-28T13:20:56.164-05:002012-12-28T13:20:56.164-05:00Two thoughts:
First, the Quakers were among the fi...Two thoughts:<br />First, the Quakers were among the first to have a policy of menu price and they did so on ideological grounds of fairness.<br />Second, Graeber has some good stuff in Debt on haggling. (This is one of the few places in the book where he draws directly on his field work in Madagascar).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5698599151422542939.post-31280455422056771002012-12-27T20:55:41.831-05:002012-12-27T20:55:41.831-05:00Today I haggled. A tradesman came to install satel...Today I haggled. A tradesman came to install satellite internet. When he finished, it sorta worked, but not like I wanted. He wanted $100 to "configure" for me. In five minutes, I haggled him down to $0. When the thing worked like I wanted, I gave him a $20 tip. Who won?Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08574355302581451838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5698599151422542939.post-74396767112519590152012-12-27T15:03:32.153-05:002012-12-27T15:03:32.153-05:00Haggling seems to be both a means and an end. So &...Haggling seems to be both a means and an end. So "the [haggling] loser would have been better off not participating in the bargain at all" is suspect for two reasons. (1) He got his "end", either the money or the ride. (2) The classic reason: he's an adult; he knew exactly what was going on and could have walked away, but he didn't.<br /><br />I think I can read minds: I see people choosing between alternatives and I just know (somehow) what they prefer!Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08574355302581451838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5698599151422542939.post-82472185968268038712012-12-27T13:01:59.863-05:002012-12-27T13:01:59.863-05:00Haggling : Anonymous Exchange :: Civil Law : _____...Haggling : Anonymous Exchange :: Civil Law : _______________?<br /><br />In the absence of status-driven posturing, civil courts exist to cover instances where the resolution set of Coasean bargains are null. Exchange, whether it's the result of actively negotiated trade or mute offer and acceptance assumes a non-null bargaining range.<br /><br />Haggling is functional when it splits surplus. Courts are functional when they split losses. How much of the benefit is dissipated in haggling or how much pain is amplified in litigation can (perhaps?) be included in expectations. <br /><br />I would guess that it's probably easier to reform the tort rules than to switch the informal institutions that result in a haggling-intensive society. I'm not sure what, if anything, this says about the relative advantages of the political process. Governments are better at enforcing the rule of law than at, say, redistributing wealth, but does this imply that the state can just up and change an informal institution like haggling with the stroke of a pen?Samuel Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16635024719984640919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5698599151422542939.post-60705509066719301402012-12-27T12:11:20.514-05:002012-12-27T12:11:20.514-05:00An interesting point, and one I had not thought of...An interesting point, and one I had not thought of. I would have said that the legal system, particularly on the civil side, was a means of forcing private settlement by having a predictable way of adjudicating disputes that are not settled.<br /><br />And if haggling were JUST a means of settling on a price, and the two participants were about equally matched in terms of bargaining position, then yes, Sid is right.<br /><br />But if the haggle itself becomes the end, not the means, then one person wins and one loses. The loser would have been better off not participating in the bargain at all, so access to the bargain makes him worse off than his outside option. That is how I read the example: haggling becomes a martial skill, a combat, with a winer and loser. The actual transaction is incidental.<br /><br />Now that you mention it, though, Sid, your point is a deep one. The combat in the courtroom may not be a means of solving the problem equitably (here are the damages, here is the court costs, here is who pays what...), but rather a martial setting of good vs. evil. I may spend a foolish amount, or forego a foolish amount, to impose costs on you. I might spend thousands of dollars to get a judgment against you that pays damages of one dollar, for the sake of getting a "victory," of being vindicated.<br /><br />In and of itself, that's okay, but if the legal system is overrun by such nuisance suits and SLAPP suits, then the legal system is not a means of resolving disputes, but an end in itself, a way of imposing costs and humilation on other people. There is a winner, and a loser. In a euvoluntary transaction, there are two winners. This is different, and thanks for the great insight about courts!Mungowitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02340064320347875601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5698599151422542939.post-13303259850470615982012-12-27T11:47:12.252-05:002012-12-27T11:47:12.252-05:00How is this any different than a search for the tr...How is this any different than a search for the truth through adversarial process in a courtroom? Isn't the ultimate result a fair or just price for both hagglers?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08546380142764580211noreply@blogger.com