Today in class we ended with the idea
of injustice in finical situations. If we have a shop that is over
charging all of the populous, and within the populous there is a
group of people who do not care whether they are being over charged
or not. Now this shop is not special. Everything that it sells, other
stores sell it as well. Now, I believe, that people, who wish to buy
the items that are sold at this store, will aim to go to the stores
competition, assuming lower prices. Now the people who don't care
about the amount of money they are spending, they will continue to go
to this store for purchases. Now is the store being unjust in this
circumstance? They are taking advantage of their customers' apathy to
high costs. The customers are getting what they want, and the store
is getting what it wants. There is a balance to this situation, as
well as a sense of equality, because the customers are placing a
lower value on money than the rest of the populace, which is why they
still shop at the “expensive” store. In this case, everyone gets
what they want (remembering the rest of the populace also has stores
that fit their preferences). I believe this situation is not unjust.
But there is another side to this.
What if everyone does not get what they want? What is there is only
one store in an accessible spot? I think that this has potential to
become an unjust situation. If the community is being overcharged,
and values for certain items are being skewed, it becomes difficult
for the community to reach a balance with the store. If the store has
essential items, the store ends up taking a situation of power among
the community, and they are unable to resist. The people are forces
to submit to the will of the store. If the store sells the only
medicine around, then people who could not afford the medicine would
either perish or be forced to go into debt (which could lead anywhere
from monthly payments to indentured servitude). This economic
situation allows for denial of rights, and sets the system of laws
and as well as orients the benefits toward the store. And there is no
way that the store will not be taking advantage of the villagers
situation and encroaching on their right to justice, because they
already are by overcharging the community.
What do you guys think? I would very much like to learn and know, if I have misunderstood, or ignored a certain aspect.
I believe, Zain, that you are correct in your first point that it is not unjust for a store to overcharge as long as there are alternatives, which the United States goes to great lengths to ensure. This is a natural function of the free market. As an example, consider clothing brands where the buyer pays much more than the item in question is worth. Is it wrong or unjust of the brand to overcharge? If that is what the purchaser agrees the value is, then it is not unjust.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your second point, I would like to submit a more concrete example: price gouging after natural disasters. After a hurricane, for example, there is naturally a more limited supply of certain items like gasoline, foodstuffs, or generators. Is it then just that the price of these items would rise far above what it would normally be? Is there even any kind of fair way to distribute these resources?
Like both Tyler and Zain said, I do believe it is just for a store to overcharge for goods if they are not a necessary aspect to human survival. Things such as Vineyard Vine t-shirts and Frye boots are not necessary to human existence. But things that cater to specific needs such as food, medicine, basic clothing, and education are essential to existing in society.
ReplyDeleteSo to solve this problem of unjustly overcharging for goods, the government/economy has two options: to create competition or to have government regulation. As an example, we are able to have ridiculously priced brand named t-shirts as long as somewhere like Walmart is selling affordable ones. Also, we are aloud to have very expensive private schools, as long as the government ensures free public education. But in the case of medicine, if the competition is not there, it is the job of the government to regulate the unjust overcharging for these goods.
As for Tyler's example, it is a tough situation to label exactly what to do because every natural disaster would cause a different price gouging. But I believe that in those situations, we must return to our two options previously mentioned. If this natural disaster wiped out all of the competition for a necessary good in an area, and the one place selling the good became a monopoly, it is then the government's job to intervene to make sure it's citizens each have an equal opportunity at obtaining these goods at reasonable prices. But just to make clear, this is just for the overcharge of necessary goods.
Now this might seem like a simple solution to the problem, but we all know it is much more complicated when it comes to government intervention into the economy. Does anyone have a different view on the matter? Possibly a way to solve the unjust overcharging of necessary goods without the intervention of the government?
Zain, I see where you are going with your logic on the first point that you are making. The only fallacy would be that you are assuming that there would be an equal distribution of the stores that are price gouging to those who can afford to shop there, as well as affordable stores to those of a lesser income. In a perfect system your logic would work very well, but in a more realistic situation the distribution of wealth would also be a creator of the injustice. In the economy there will always be the people that will continue to buy a majority of their goods at the lower price. This, in turn, creates an injustice because the percentage of personal income taken from the average shopper will be much different. We cannot afford to assume that in all cases that a change in income will result in a large change in shopping habits.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading the comments before:
ReplyDeleteIn the first scenario, I don't think overcharging, as it were, is unjust. People have access to alternative sources, so everyone can get what they need. However, there will be an imbalance. Those who paid more for the same item will assume the item is better than another's from a discount store. Thus, brand-whores are born, thank you Polo and American Eagle versus Faded Glory, a Kmart brand.
As far as both scenarios go, my question is: what's different than the way we function today? Is it right, fair, or just that some folks have access to healthcare while others do not? In my sociology class, I was hit with a definition of oppression that made me sit there for a minute: when an inequality CAN but is NOT resolved. Something to think about.
Economically, we've outlawed vertical monopoly, so that's our government's hand shooing this particular injustice away from the people. As this is a law, Aristotle chimes in, saying it is law that rules and not *rulers* as they would skew the distribution of good things and bad things.
After reading the comments:
haha score for like-mindedness with the t-shirt analogy.
Trey, I'm not sure if I'm reading your comment right, but I don't think it's an "injustice because the percentage of personal income taken away from the average shopper will be much different." Those with the resources to shop at Brooks Brothers are gonna shop at Brooks Brothers, because they can. Those who've found a home at Walmart are gonna stay at Walmart, more or less because the have to - it's in their means to do so. The social injustice of this is twofold, partly stated earlier: (a) everyone's already on an unequal playing field in US economics, and (b) the value of the commodity bought is assumed to be higher since the price is higher and the owner of said commodity is assumed to be socially elevated.
If someone is going to your above mentioned store, than yes, they are giving less value to their money. If a person has the option of buying something for less money at one store and more money at another, but chooses the higher priced store, what would be their reasoning? Could the store be in a nicer neighborhood? Could it be cleaner or safer? Maybe the person goes to that store because they have worked out that the cost in gas to get to the least expensive store would be more costly in the long run. However, overall, I find it just that when a person, in their right mind buys something, that whatever they pay is acceptable. The reason why it is acceptable is because the prices are set and you being the buyer decide whether or not to buy something. It is like someone telling you to do something, when they say, “Go do this!” you decide in the end whether or not to do as they say or to do otherwise. Therefore, it is just for the sales person to appropriate the price to their items as they see fit. Where the injustice may occur is within yourself for buying something overpriced. The clerk didn’t make you buy that dress, you bought it for too much, now you must live with your decision.
ReplyDelete