Commenter Archive

These places don't have coffeshops attached.

Sometime I go in and buy a 2-4 books at a time or more. Othertimes I go in and come out with a list of books.

Who doesn't?

So here is another ethical inquiry.

I buy plenty of books from my local bookstores. However, I write down the names of books on my phone and then take those books out the library because I don't have unlimited self-space and they looked interesting enough to read but not to buy for one reason or another.*

Is this unethical? Is it somewhat less unethical than browsing at a local book store and then going to Amazon?

Basically a manufacturer can say to a retailer: We won't give you our product if you sell it for below retail price X.

I am currently working in antitrust and took a course. I think you are looking at the wrong case.

The Supreme Court gave manufacturers the right to set the terms of the deal including refusing to deal with retailers who don't obey their price suggestions. This is called the Unilateral or Colgate doctrine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateral_Policy

My gut says unethical but I think a lot of the stereo stores now make their money by also doing installation stuff and creating full on sound systems for homes, so the guy has something else to sell.

"Actually, my real ethical concern here is the maker of this marvelous machine; that dictates it cannot be discounted. Retailers selling this are doing the manufacturer/distributor a service. I’m not sure I find it ethical that they can dictate the margin of profit the retailers can make of the sale."

I don't know if I would make this a consideration of ethics but I am curious about your logic.

The reason certain brands do this is largely for branding reasons and usually on the high-end for products. Not for big luxury companies that everyone knows like Prada, Hermes, Coach, etc but for luxury brands with a smaller and more niche appeal. Though I am not sure whether this normally happens in the coffee-maker industry.

There is a clothing brand I like a lot. They are fairly obscure and most people would consider them pretty expensive*. They make all their products in the U.S. and in much smaller batches than the GAP and even big luxury brands like Paul Smith and John Varvatos. This company has a rule that they do not allow their clothing to be sold on-line. Retail companies can show the product on-line but they always include a line about "We are not allowed to sell X on-line if you are interested please call us at...."

This is the interesting stuff about business to me. How do you maintain an elite status, how much of a product can you make and still be considered luxury. I largely like this stuff for the psychological reasons over anything else.

*And such reliable sellers than one store I know never puts it on sale. They will put every other company on sale but this one.

Good point. Most stores (especially large corporate ones) are very good at writing down all the fine print about what should and should not be included in a discount for this reason.

The grocery store mistake is clearly one of unjust enrichment. Even though you were horribly in need of the money, you were clearly making a benefit at someone else's innocent mistake. It was also a working stiff like you who could get fired for his harried but very reasonable mistake.

On the other hand, the Big Box store acted in a bit of negligence because not all employees were given knowledge about the no coupon rule. There did not seem to be any fine print on the coupon indicating that it could not be used for the Espresso Machine and I've discovered that large stores are often very good at having all the fine print on the coupon. Even if you had to argue with the manager, you probably could have made a strong and good-faith argument about why the discount should apply to the fancy coffee machine. You are not eating into the profits of either the manufacturer or the Big Box store by taking the discount that should not be applied, etc.

I have a similar story about trying to do good when a store clerk messed up. Way back in 1998 when people still bought movies on VHS tapes, I bought some anime at a local mall video store. Anime was rather expensive at the time. When I got back to my dorm room and looked at the receipt, I discovered that they only charged me for one of the two tapes. I went back to the mall, tried to explain the problem at the store, and got the biggest blank looks from the employees. They looked at me like I was the biggest idiot in the world. And then I just walked out with my 2 for the price of 1 deal.

And I am still too much of a Yank to fit in anywhere else probably.

Though there were people in Stockholm who are amused/entertained by my New York accent. I apparently sound like I am "right out of a movie"

There are plenty of complainers on the left whose complaints I find valid and compelling in the United States.

Plus no other country has New York. Though I would not say no to an opportunity to live in London or Paris.

Veronique de Rugy?

I agree with you that people are allowed to complain about things they don't like in their country. It does not mean I need to find their complaints valid or compelling though.

The left is engaged in a bit of pushback with the right about moving to another country for not liking policies from the Obama administration. I think a lot of us are tired of being considered unAmerican for our liberalism. This has been discussed numerous times this week, the American Right wing (including a small percentage of libertarians like Dunderooo) have engaged in a decades (if not longer) war against liberals and claimed that our liberalism is a contradiction to being American. Contrary to their belief, we do not hate our country or are ashamed of being American (most of us anyway). We are fed up with being called unAmerican and are now fighting back.

I agree that they are fading but there are still plenty of young guns. Paul Ryan is only 40-something and I think will still be relevant. There are still plenty of people on the right who worship Reagan and got their far-right stripes as teenagers.

However, I do think that my generation (late Gen X people born from 1977-1982) and the next generation will be much more liberal*. Mainly on social issues, economic issues is going to be more interesting. Though I think we are more kind to the idea of beneficial government.

*There are plenty of people who say "Just wait until you start moving to the suburbs", I am not sure why this is going to make us more conservative. Why would moving to the suburbs turn us against social liberalism?

I would say that there is a small silver lining in that local crazy can become national news thanks to the Internet. The Maine GOP story from today is a good example. Previously he would have been able to make his racist remarks and not become a national story.

2012 does show plenty of the 18-30 or so crowd rejecting the GOP. So maybe there is hope. Only time will tell to use the cliche.

It is also tragic that this battle seems to be going on for so long. Basically since the post-WWII era and the start of the modern civil rights movement.

I wonder if 20-30 years from now if we are going to get two rival narratives on the Obama administration. One that covers it fairly and realistically, pros and cons, warts and all. And then the Fever dreams that are currently being presented right now by the Radical Right-Reactionaries.

The question I have is that can we truly say that these people are sailing to irrelevance? There are plenty of people who lap up this stuff and sincerely believe it. As far as we can tell, the narrators are not merely sellers of snake oil but true believers in their own product. We have no conclusive evidence that they are secret P.T. Barnums. There are also plenty of young people who grow up and remain in the cocoon. See all the teenagers who made racist tweets right after the election.

I wonder how Richard Hofstadter feels about being right on his most famous essay over fifty years from the initial publication:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html

No, we sound like social liberals.

But only one form of sex is ethically wrong in this case.

If they had oral or anal sex, Kyle's hypothetical becomes moot.

I don't think so. It might be stupid, risky, and dangerous, but not wrong. Here are my reasons:

1. Fred and Wilma are presumably consenting adults.

2. They are both working with full knowledge of Wilma's condition and what the risks are.

3. And to use tort terminology, both are "willing to assume the risk".

Though I can see your point. Fred is potentially using his desire and putting Wilma at risk but he can also be accused of being paternalistic and denying Wilma her agency for denying her desire. Wilma is being a bit hard on Fred by giving him knowledge of her condition and putting him at potential grief.

I will need to ponder the above.

In this scenario: I'd like to think that I would avoid PIV intercourse.

I will refrain from making any jokes about Taxi Driver with you from now on because it would just be cliche.

I don't like the PDAs as much but there is nothing illegal about them (as far as I know) so the burden is really on me.

So I concede.

I think the only reason I would be angry at the kids is because they were smoking up and driving at the same time.

However since moving to San Francisco a few years ago, I have seen people smoke up while hanging out on the street. This has never made me act in a way you describe. Am I just seeing it as a norm of San Francisco society and going with the flow?

I don't even like the smell of marijuana very much but I put up with it because otherwise I would never be able to attend a concert in San Francisco.

Now it is interesting that you never see anyone smoke pot on the streets of New York. I did once and it might have been the fastest smoked joint in the history of mankind.

Cool but this was always during the election. During the 2000 and 2004 elections, I would always hear the pundit class say that Bush was "the kind of guy you could get a beer with"

My thought was always the same, I'd rather get a beer with Gore or Kerry. They seemed to have the ability for intellectual bar talk that undergrads and grad students love.

"Hell, he also seems like a guy who I wouldn’t mind having a beer with."

Completely random but I never got why this always gets touted as a plus among the pundit class What characteristics make someone the kind of guy people would want to have a beer with?

Conversely, I would enjoy getting a beer with Gore or Kerry, the unbeer candidates. Perhaps this says something about me. I think they would provide smart conversation.