Talk:Predatory pricing/Archives/2013

Obvious criticism
I wonder why no one cared to start the criticism subsection with something that should be obvious to any person with strong common sense: anyone is naturally free to claim any price for their property, no matter how low or high it is. For example, if I want to sell a bicycle, I'm free to put whatever price I want for it, and no one has authority to regulate it. The same idea applies globally to all trading operations, i.e. the selling party has absolute authority over prices for their property, since they have absolute rights for that property. Isn't it obvious, natural, and overall fair? ''Who is to say how much my property is worth!? I am free to deem my own stuff however cheap or expensive, and it is up to the potential customer whether to accept my price and buy or not.'' 213.131.238.28 (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and here's another question I wanted to ask: why free software is not considered a form of predatory (dumping) pricing? It is offered for free, thereby making life harder for those who sell proprietary software of the same kind. 213.131.238.28 (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately what you think about your "rights" and "freedom" has no relevance to what happens in society as a whole. Where commercial practices have anti-social consequences governments can and do step in to regulate them. It's one of the things governments are for. Your "obvious criticism" is outdated and seems to be based on nothing more than caveat emptor. In most parts of the developed world consumer protection regulations killed caveat emptor last century.86.159.20.198 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Laissez faire, not caveat emptor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.232.6 (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course, there are many, myself included, who think extending the law into pricing of private property is absurd. Put succinctly by by Frederic Bastiat: "Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation." 75.132.16.200 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)