Hacker News Reader

Comment by s1artibartfast | Hacker News Reader

Nobody was short changed. The fair price is what a buyer and seller agreed to unless someone provided false information.

The word "no" is a complete answer to a request for more information.

View on HN

That’s true only if both parties have perfect information, which is of course why Disney went to great lengths to prevent that.

There would be no such thing as fraud if “accepted transaction == definitionally fair.”

Perfect information has nothing to do with fair

There's a difference between false information and no information.

False information like

Q: Who is buying this land?

A: XYZ Shell Corp (no connection to who is actually effectively buying and coming into control of this land)?

Obviously your argument will be "it's not false that XYZ Shell Corp is buying it," and sure, but it's obviously misleading in a way that affects the transaction, as it is specifically designed to do.

I don't even think it's misleading. You don't know what XYZ show Corp does or will do with the land. It's a mystery not a deception.

On the other hand, if the buyer is called XYZ Fun Center and tells you that they're going to put in a nonprofit for Orphans, that would be deception.

It all comes back to the idea that saying I won't tell you what I'm going to do with the purchase is not a lie. It's perfectly honest

I'd say the primary concern is not with the purchasing party exercising their right not to disclose their intent post-sale. It's that they're intentionally masking their identity to prevent unwelcome influence on the transaction (i.e. If you know I'm rich, you're going to jack up the price.)

I think the argument is really over whether parties on either side are entitled to privacy/anonymity. The answer seems to be 'yes' in the form of typically legal shell corps, anonymous LLCs, and the like.

I agree that the heart it's about privacy, and what compelling reason we would have as a society that would supersede privacy.

I don't think the idea that benefiting one party's negotiation is such a compelling interest. In the case of Disney, it sounds good because it benefits the perceived Underdog, but It can just as easily cut the other way, especially if you extended to how bad you want something as some people in the thread advocate.

Maybe you want to buy a specific house cuz it's next to the Medical Center where you get treatment. That would probably influence how much you're willing to pay.

It's not about fairness, it's about letting markets work properly, reaching a market-clearing price that maximizes total welfare.

It has everything to do with price, however — and, therefore, "fair price".

Define fair price?

Fair prices when a buyer and seller agreed to as long as no one's lying. The fair price has nothing to do with how much money the buyer or seller make more lose.

When I read your comment above, I wondered if you'd gotten here by defining "fair" circularly.

And... yep.

Nothing circular. It's just a definition.

I think consent and honesty make something Fair. Nobody has refuted this and The only other counter argument I've seen is that full disclosure would mean the seller gets more money. What is getting more money have to do with fair.?

You're taking the very much not-universally-shared position that concealing something you know would make a big difference counts as "honest".

[EDIT] I retract the "circular" claim—you're right that it's not that, it's the definitions of "lying" and "honest" that are making the difference.

I think you succinctly summed up the Crux of it. The kind of begs the question of what information is relevant. When I apply for a job, I certainly don't tell the recruiter the minimum salary I would accept. When I negotiate for a house, I don't tell them my maximum theoretical offer. These information asymmetries obviously benefit me at their expense.

When I buy a 20 cent bolt for my car, I don't tell them that it's worth $20,000 to me because my car won't run without it

Reply on news.ycombinator.com