Morals of Trading

This is some bullshit that crossed my mind while I was thinking about marketing.

So let's say that the owner of Store A is selling an item at a higher price than Store B, and he knows that the Store B's price is cheaper. The owner of A knows this fact, but sells the item to a customer anyways.

So doesn't this mean that the owner of Store A is purposely deceiving his customer for his own good? He could've told the buyer that Store B is selling the same item for a lower price, but chose not to.

Since he is deceiving another so that he can make money, isn't it morally wrong?

Please share your thoughts

 

It's the economy, there are no morals in making money. If customer A chooses to go to store B instead of store A because the price is cheaper, then tells customer B that store B had a lower price than store A, there are your morals in trading, word gets around quicker and store A will eventually have to lower the price to sell their stock.

 

Well, I suppose each shop owner could say 'this product is cheaper in China', but, that wouldn't do much.

Also, the customer is not being deceived at all. Now, unless the shop owner stated 'Cheapest prices in the world' and meant it literally, you may have a case under 'false advertising'.

 

It's not morally wrong, it's just business. You buy an item, and you resell the item for a profit. Just because it might not be the lowest price in the world doesn't mean it's deceiving. You didn't trick the customer into entering your store, nor did you trick them into purchasing your product. Malakadang summed it up well:

 

In that case, why doesn't the shop just tell the person to go to the wholesalers that they bought all their products from the get the cheapest.
Business is business- there are no morals, and if you are willing to lose money because morals are getting in the way, don't participate in business.

 

Rejection:
Because that would be pretty damn inconvenient.
I am talking about the case in which these two stores are near each other, but one store owner sells an item at a higher price.

So let me sum up your arguments.
It's a dog-eat-dog world, so you shouldn't have to care about morals in order for your own survival?

 

If we could all get RSGP for cheap, we'd sell it for cheap.

Whatever price the seller is purchasing the product for, is relevant to his products price.

We're all entrepreneurs here, and everyone is a capitalist by nature. If you're someone like r2pleasant or a sythe admin or gold4fun, you would take advantage of the fact that your product can be advertised at a higher price and still be purchased.

 

What has the seller told the buyer that is untrue?

 

You see this everyday in gold selling sites and even on sythe.
Gold4rs sells mills for $1/m , you go on sythe and you'll see people sell gold for 34c/m-50c/m . There are many people out there that have no idea what the actual price *should* be.

It's not that they are deceiving but just to make a profit. You go buy from a botting site like rsbot.net but there are many bot sites out there that sell it for a cheaper price.

A profit is a profit and people will do anything to make a profit if its legal or illegal

 

The owner of Shop A has not told any kind of lie, he's just stated a product and a price.

This reminds me of a company called 'Tesco' in the UK, it has the largest market share for grocery shopping over here, which is about 36%. It is the most successful grocery supermarket chain in the UK yet charge higher prices on their products compared to ASDA - Which is the UK's walmart equivalent, which is actually the cheapest supermarket, the reason for this is that Tesco has a huge variety of brands and products that they sell, they just naturally attract more customers and they expand quickly, are they morally wrong? The only morally wrong thing I see is that they're trying to force a monopoly upon the grocery market, which the UK Government restricts, as it is Anti-Competitive.

 

Business would cease to exist if we applied your principles. Yes, in the business world and sense it is a dog-eat-dog world. In a free market, businesses must compete against each other for profits, in order to continue operation. The facilitation of optimizing your profits can not accommodate for good will (such as redirecting customers to a cheaper good or service), etc. This doesn't mean a total disregard for a moral code, merely, it's just competition. You do what you can to be the best, in this case, maximizing profits.

 

Unless shop A says 'I am selling for the cheapest price you will find anywhere' in the knowledge that shop B sells it cheaper then he's not deceiving anybody.

 

Shop A had never stated their prices were the best. If the customer was too lazy to search for better prices or was too impatient to wait for better prices, the fault is the consumer's. There's nothing morally wrong about it if you ask me, because(as stated above) unless there was some type of advertisement claiming to have the greatest/cheapest price, then the customer shoudn't assume they're getting it for the cheapest price.

 

I think it is morally wrong if the customer asks where they can get it cheaper and the store owner doesn't tell them or lies to them, given the circumstances described.

 

why people when they hear of use of middleman, they cancel the trade?

 

Money has no morals, ever, never.

 

Don't forget about presentation, though. If Store A and Store B sold the same exact, say, hamburger, but Store A was filthy, had poor customer service, and a shady history, I am pretty sure that people would pay a little extra for a better overall experience; after all, you aren't just buying a product, but a purchasing experience. That's sort of the reason why Apple can get away with selling inferior products for more.

 

>_<

I think it's the buyers fault for not looking into all of his options before making a purchase.