A friend of mine, WH, is an insurance guy. Economist, but works for a living. Anyway, he sent this email, which I edited slightly, as noted with brackets [ ]. And I added emphasis to the word "unfair":
Several years ago was interviewing several taxicab drivers of a large taxi operation we insured. All were immigrants from the middle east. We were discussing price and I mention US "posted price" was not the norm where they came from that "haggling" was the norm. Had been to North Africa and seen the phenomena myself.
These guys were astounded that I was acquainted with the price haggling behavior of their home countries. Was now their new best-est friend! They added some insight. Apparently "haggling" is a male [rite] of passage and considered an art and an art that differentiates one's manliness. Better the haggler, better the man.
However, they were not done. The "better the haggler, better the man" leads to a problem. Both sides of the finalized transaction feel like they should have done a better job of haggling (been a better man). That anomocity arises toward the other party in the transaction as both parties blame the other for unfair haggling. That is, the other party is at fault for the other party's inability to get a better deal through haggling.
That is interesting because it runs against the idea of mutual self-interest at exchange and the pie [changes]. The two parties in the haggling case leave the transaction in a zero sum mode in a weird way as both parties think the other party gained at the other party's expense.
Several interesting things here. What does "unfair" mean? As Duke department chair for ten years, I was often accused of unfair haggling. "Fair" seemed to mean "give me everything I want, now." Anything else was "unfair."
And, note how the haggling itself becomes an end, not a means to acquire a service or commodity. If haggling is the point ("Wow, will you look at the size of HIS haggle!"), then the conditions for euvoluntary exchange are not met. My gain is your loss. But I think there are two separate things going on. One is the transaction (I want a ride, you want money), and the bargaining space is non-empty. But after the ride, we argue and wave our haggles around in plain sight, so people can admire them. One person wins, and the other loses. Is the net effect better, or worse, than a fixed price? Would haggle-obsessed countries be better off if a single-price regulation were imposed? Is this a PD problem, in which all would be better off (on average) if haggling were outlawed?
Several years ago was interviewing several taxicab drivers of a large taxi operation we insured. All were immigrants from the middle east. We were discussing price and I mention US "posted price" was not the norm where they came from that "haggling" was the norm. Had been to North Africa and seen the phenomena myself.
These guys were astounded that I was acquainted with the price haggling behavior of their home countries. Was now their new best-est friend! They added some insight. Apparently "haggling" is a male [rite] of passage and considered an art and an art that differentiates one's manliness. Better the haggler, better the man.
However, they were not done. The "better the haggler, better the man" leads to a problem. Both sides of the finalized transaction feel like they should have done a better job of haggling (been a better man). That anomocity arises toward the other party in the transaction as both parties blame the other for unfair haggling. That is, the other party is at fault for the other party's inability to get a better deal through haggling.
That is interesting because it runs against the idea of mutual self-interest at exchange and the pie [changes]. The two parties in the haggling case leave the transaction in a zero sum mode in a weird way as both parties think the other party gained at the other party's expense.
Several interesting things here. What does "unfair" mean? As Duke department chair for ten years, I was often accused of unfair haggling. "Fair" seemed to mean "give me everything I want, now." Anything else was "unfair."
And, note how the haggling itself becomes an end, not a means to acquire a service or commodity. If haggling is the point ("Wow, will you look at the size of HIS haggle!"), then the conditions for euvoluntary exchange are not met. My gain is your loss. But I think there are two separate things going on. One is the transaction (I want a ride, you want money), and the bargaining space is non-empty. But after the ride, we argue and wave our haggles around in plain sight, so people can admire them. One person wins, and the other loses. Is the net effect better, or worse, than a fixed price? Would haggle-obsessed countries be better off if a single-price regulation were imposed? Is this a PD problem, in which all would be better off (on average) if haggling were outlawed?
