Why doesn't the average American understand the concept of haggling?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
Is he better off selling it to me than not selling it to me? If so... that's fair.

It's a complicated question. What's fair to you? Is fair a price a vendor willing to accept? That's not necessarily fair, which is an inherent problem of Capitalism.

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
Vendors make less than ideal deals sometimes, of course. If they find themselves doing it all the time, they change businesses.

How? First of all, these are third world countries. It's not like Canada when a person loses a job, the society takes care of him. Secondly, you can't just change to another business - you need to learn another kind of craft, or locate some other sources of merchandise, etc. You can't just blink an eye and switch from making ratten baskets to weaving woolen blankets.

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
And the guy selling me T-shirts at the resort is almost certainly doing better than the guy in the agave fields.

It's a complicated issue. I feel that vendors dealing with tourists should be honest, and the tourism boards should enforce a policy to see to it. That saves everybody time, and it is really better for tourism in the long run. Like the old saying goes, you shouldn't kill the goose that lays golden eggs.

[DuncanK]

It would be enough if you admit that it's not fair just because the price was agreed to by both parties. As far as anything else goes, I was just playing around in here. I don't really think you are an evil capitalist just because you haggle.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


It's a complicated question. What's fair to you? Is fair a price a vendor willing to accept? That's not necessarily fair, which is an inherent problem of Capitalism.

*sighs*

How did we get from tourists getting ripped off by not haggling, to the vendors being so poor and downtrodden?

Yes, you could of course fix the prices higher... in which case, people might stop buying. And I could have got a Senor Frog T-shirt at home, too.

How? First of all, these are third world countries. It's not like Canada when a person loses a job, the society takes care of him. Secondly, you can't just change to another business - you need to learn another kind of craft, or locate some other sources of merchandise, etc. You can't just blink an eye and switch from making ratten baskets to weaving woolen blankets.

So now, it's not enough that I fly to the country, stay in the hotel, eat the food... I now have to subsidize a non-profitable local industry as well?

I'm not really that mean spirited, but c'mon... tourists aren't responsible to fix the economic ails of the places they visit. If you expect them to be, they'll stay home.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by DuncanK
It would be enough if you admit that it's not fair just because the price was agreed to by both parties. As far as anything else goes, I was just playing around in here. I don't really think you are an evil capitalist just because you haggle.

You and I are working with different ideas of what 'fair' is, I think. If 2 people agree on something (a price)... how can something they don't agree on, be more fair to them both?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Tingkai,

That's somewhat complicated. Let's start with this and then you can ask another question if you want. Let's say that everyone should get the same price for a good if they are selling it, and everyone should be able to buy the good for the same price if they are buying it. Otherwise you have price descrimination which is actually illegal in many countries.

So if a vendor tells an American tourists that a jacket costs $50, and the American doesn't haggle and pays that price, then is it an unfair price because the Hong Kong person bargains down the price to $25?

And if that jacket costs $75 in the US, but $50 in Hong Kong, is the price still unfair? The American and the Hong Konger are both saving $25.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It's a complicated question. What's fair to you? Is fair a price a vendor willing to accept? That's not necessarily fair, which is an inherent problem of Capitalism.

*sighs*

How did we get from tourists getting ripped off by not haggling, to the vendors being so poor and downtrodden?

The ability of tourists to haggle is directly linked to them being in a buyer's market. When a lot of businesses competer for a small market, nobody does well.

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man

How? First of all, these are third world countries. It's not like Canada when a person loses a job, the society takes care of him. Secondly, you can't just change to another business - you need to learn another kind of craft, or locate some other sources of merchandise, etc. You can't just blink an eye and switch from making ratten baskets to weaving woolen blankets.

So now, it's not enough that I fly to the country, stay in the hotel, eat the food... I now have to subsidize a non-profitable local industry as well?

I don't see how not exploiting the locals is the same as subsizing "a non-profitable local industry." YMMV, however.

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
I'm not really that mean spirited, but c'mon... tourists aren't responsible to fix the economic ails of the places they visit. If you expect them to be, they'll stay home.

I don't think I have either said or imply that.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Tingkai


So if a vendor tells an American tourists that a jacket costs $50, and the American doesn't haggle and pays that price, then is it an unfair price because the Hong Kong person bargains down the price to $25?

And if that jacket costs $75 in the US, but $50 in Hong Kong, is the price still unfair? The American and the Hong Konger are both saving $25.

Just considering the final buyer and seller it is fair since the American has saved $25 and the seller has made $25 profit, but what about the person who made the jacket. They obviously did not make out as well since the store owner bought it for only $25. The jacket maker obviously worked hard to make the jacket. The store owner worked hard too and took some risk, but I think the jacket maker should get more than $25 dollars.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I agree with che and UR. There are other things than money. Time, for one, is a cost. You have to factor in the oppertunity costs of haggling and that might make it cost more than the actual cost.

[Dis]

yes new and use cars can be haggled for.

This is why it is better for men to buy cars than women

*dodges rotten fruit thrown at him for sexist remark*

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Willem
That is such a paternalistic statement!

Why? Go to any national park in the US for example and it is actually an offence punishable by a fine to feed wild animals.

If you want wild animals such as Bears and Coyotes etc terrorising people for food, go right ahead, because that is what you do by feeding them - you create a dependency as they stop hunting for themselves.

Eventually feeding the animal is harmful to it because it becomes so dangerous that it has to be killed - as happens to a lot of bears.

By feeding the wild animal, you are effectively handing it a death sentence. Nice going!

Now with tourism, before tourists ever set foot in Bali the Balinese had to look after themselves and were relatively happy doing so. Now the tourists have gone, a report said that up to 80% of the population will be out of a job because they have become over dependent on tourism and lost their traditional industries...

[MOBIUS]

Well there's a couple of good debates going on here...

As far as I can tell those against haggling seem to fall into two camps, either not wanting to waste time on something as useless as engaging in a cultural exchange - or wanting some kind of quasi-socialist protectionist economy where tourists should be made to pay over the odds in a form of enforced 'charity'...

Firstly, the act of haggling should be an enjoyable discourse, you are acting as a local more. It shouldn't even take too much time and the vendor will actually respect you more for it - in Thailand for example, people have been known to be insulted when offered a large tip. These people have pride too, you know. Besides, at any time you feel you are running out of time, you can always pay them the current price.... So this time/hassle argument is not a problem. If you feel uncomfortable about engaging in local customs, or eating the local food etc, perhaps you shouldn't visiting that country...

Secondly, I find the argument that we should pay them hugely inflated prices because they're 'poor' highly patronising - they don't want your pity, they want your business. If you pay hugely inflated prices you are merely showing your ignorance/indifference to their way of life.

Indeed, if you want to be truly charitable, you should haggle as much as possible because ultimately you will help more people - if I can buy something for a quarter of the price of an American (are you sure you don't care about being ripped off???), it means I can buy four times as many goods - thus helping four times as many people!

I am able to spread my wealth evenly, whereas with American buying patterns, only a few lucky vendors make a profit.

As for fairness, if the vendor wasn't prepared to sell at the agreed price, he/she wouldn't. The vendor is the one with the upper had because they have the item you want. This is called free market economy, I thought most you americans worshipped that particular ideal...?

Remember, as I said earlier, I'm not trying to spend less money, I'm just trying to get 'more bang for my buck'...

Quite why you should be happy getting less for your money totally escapes me?

[Willem]

Originally posted by MOBIUS

Now with tourism, before tourists ever set foot in Bali the Balinese had to look after themselves and were relatively happy doing so. Now the tourists have gone, a report said that up to 80% of the population will be out of a job because they have become over dependent on tourism and lost their traditional industries...

And why are the jobs gone? Because some fanatic blew up a bomb that killed many people! That doesn't make the tourist industry a bad choice, it only shows that they shouldn't have based their economy on a single industry. Maybe they had no other industry available, I'm not with familiar with Bali, but it's ludicrous to suggest that we keep people ignorant, primitive and impoverished simply because there may be an unforseen catastrophe in their future.

And the tourists will be back, those jobs aren't lost forever. In a couple of years, people will have forgotten all about the attack and start finding their way back. In the meantime, the government might take steps to diversify, so that when the tourists do come back, the economy will be stronger than ever.

Here in Canada, we used to trap furs and hunt for a living. Should we scrap our entire economy and go back to that way of life? Afterall, we all know there's a slight possibility of an asteroid striking the earth and decimating human society, so maybe we should keep those skills alive in the general population, just in case.

[DuncanK]

MOBIUS,

I really just wanted to demonstrate the idea that a price haggled over is not a fair price just because its agree upon. I'm sure many people do think it is, but maybe they will think now.

I don't want to make haggling illegal except where capitalism as a whole is made illegal.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Willem
And why are the jobs gone? Because some fanatic blew up a bomb that killed many people! That doesn't make the tourist industry a bad choice, it only shows that they shouldn't have based their economy on a single industry. Maybe they had no other industry available, I'm not with familiar with Bali, but it's ludicrous to suggest that we keep people ignorant, primitive and impoverished simply because there may be an unforseen catastrophe in their future.

And the tourists will be back, those jobs aren't lost forever. In a couple of years, people will have forgotten all about the attack and start finding their way back. In the meantime, the government might take steps to diversify, so that when the tourists do come back, the economy will be stronger than ever.

Here in Canada, we used to trap furs and hunt for a living. Should we scrap our entire economy and go back to that way of life? Afterall, we all know there's a slight possibility of an asteroid striking the earth and decimating human society, so maybe we should keep those skills alive in the general population, just in case.

Now you're just being pedantic, but I'm glad you had the good grace to back down over the animal comment...

We in the west have this highly patronising attitude that because we bring western 'civilisation' to people that automatically improves their way of life and standard of living, that is not always the case. I'm saying that people should improve themselves in their own time and at their own pace - tourism short circuits this and now tourism has turned it's back on Bali.

Sure things may pick up in the future, but by then it may be too late for many Balinese.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by DuncanK
MOBIUS,

I really just wanted to demonstrate the idea that a price haggled over is not a fair price just because its agree upon. I'm sure many people do think it is, but maybe they will think now.

I agree that perhaps in extreme cases this may be so, but then there are always exceptions in any rule and I still assert that I am actually helping more people by spreading my wealth evenly...

Certainly in Thailand, commerce was very healthy as being a non muslim country their tourism hasn't taken a massive nose dive - if you don't haggle there, you really are wasting your money!

I don't want to make haggling illegal except where capitalism as a whole is made illegal.

Ah well, Capitalism is the law of the jungle - even nature espouses survival of the fittest, you can't expect to fight against nature and win...