What is a Guilt-Free Sale?
There are two dominant schools of though on selling stuff.
One is a twisted blend of capitalism, economic rationality and Puritanism. It doesn’t really have a name but you know it when you see it. It states that you should always maximize your profit at all costs. To do so otherwise would be immoral as you would be giving someone else a break at the expense of your own enrichment. But how can giving someone a break be immoral? The theory goes something like this. Humans by nature are competitive and selfish and only respond to punishments and rewards. People rise and fall on their own merits. People who are hard working, intelligent and moral will be wealthy. People who are lazy, dumb and immoral will be poor. Wealth in this sense is an indicator of moral superiority. Poverty is considered a moral failing. So giving a break to someone less fortunate is rewarding them for their bad and immoral behavior. People who subscribe to this model view food stamps, section 8 housing, medicare, medical, free school lunches and virtually all social programs as enabling devices that allow immoral/poor people to continue to indulge in their wicked ways. It is only by everyone acting on their own economic self interest can our society progress. When we think of others it disrupts this “natural” process (economic Darwinism) which results in economic stagnation (economic socialism).
This philosophy manifests itself in a “buyer beware” economic model; a place where the only rights you are entitled to or the ones that you can negotiate for yourself on the free market. Under this philosophy it is not my responsibility to price my goods and services fairly or even represent them accurately. It is up to the buyer to figure out if the price I’m asking is fair or if the goods and services are genuine.
For example, let’s say there’s little old lady who is selling some old possessions at a garage sale. Among those possessions is authentic Tiffany lamp. However, she does not know that the lamp is a Tiffany and has priced it at $15.00. You however recognize it instantly for what it is and quickly give her $15.00 and run off with a lamp. Two weeks later you sell it at auction for $50,000. You congratulate yourself for “making” $49,985 and marvel at the old lady’s stupidity.
Under this model it would be absolutely crazy for you to take into consideration the buyer, or in this case the seller, when engaging in commerce. It’s not your responsibility , it undermines your own self interest and rewards weakness and stupidity. Fortunately, few people subscribe to this philosophy. Those few that do, tend to gravitate towards systems that reward this type of behavior such as banking, investing, and finance. Places where they can reap huge rewards but also cause great harm.
The other school of thought on selling stuff is based on social economics. The founding principle of social economics is that the buying and selling of goods and services is more than just the exchange of money for value, it is a social interaction. And as with all social interactions we should consider concepts such as fairness, kindness and community when interacting with others. What comes around goes around. Most people kind of do this naturally without even thinking about it because it just “feels right”. Under this principle it would be downright antisocial and immoral to rip you off by selling you an overpriced piece of junk. Claiming that the buyer should have known it was an overpriced piece of junk and it was their responsibility to detect the deceit simply won’t cut it.
For example, let’s revisit that same little old lady who is selling some old possessions at a garage sale. Among those possessions is authentic Tiffany lamp. However, she does not know that the lamp is a Tiffany and has priced it at $15.00. You however recognize it instantly for what it is. At this point three scenarios run through your head. You could tell her it’s a Tiffany and hope that she has the ability to act upon that information. You could buy it for $15.00 and sell it at auction and split the money with her. Or you can buy the lamp, sell it, but keep a standard finder’s fee and give the majority back to her. However, selling the Tiffany lamp and keeping all the money for yourself is simply not an option under social economic principals. Would you feel alright if it was your grandma who got ripped off? If the answer is no, then you shouldn’t do it to someone else’s grandma.
Under this model full disclosure is the rule as this is the only way that both parties can make an informed decision on the true value of the transaction. This nearly eliminates feelings of buyer’s remorse or seller’s guilt as both parties are 100% aware of what they are getting involved in.
It is social economic principals that are the foundation of a guilt-free sale.
How’s that for a rant?