-
Website
http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle -
Original page
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/05/13/haggling/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Robert S. Porter
56 comments · 1 points
-
uknowbetter
362 comments · 19 points
-
huadpe
40 comments · 1 points
-
Vangel
43 comments · 1 points
-
Michael Drake
109 comments · 3 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
A Little Mystic Nationalism
2 days ago · 41 comments
-
Scott Winship on Income Inequality
2 weeks ago · 26 comments
-
Now Let Us Praise Results-Facilitating Virtue!
6 days ago · 8 comments
-
Why Are There So few Women in Philosophy?
2 weeks ago · 20 comments
-
Hey, I Can’t Actually Quite Imagine a World in Which Things Are Exactly as Different as the Need to Be to Give Me What I Want, but It Would Be Neat if I Could!!
2 weeks ago · 21 comments
-
A Little Mystic Nationalism
I also am terrified by the notion of haggling. It bothers me that I am -- it seems like one of the things I ought to be more comfortable with.
On the rare occasions when a purchase was made, I did overpay, but I made sure to only reward people who didn't act like dicks while trying to make a sale.
In programming, there's a common problem with developers focusing too much on local code optimizations (that are within their control) that they ignore global optimizations (that are often out of their control, instead dictated by the overall architecture of the system).
Surely. But advantageous for the individual seller, who would unilaterally forfeit gains from price discrimination by offering fixed prices.
What's the nature of the commons here? More importantly, what's the mechanism economies with more formal pricing that keeps haggling out? I think the commons is something like widespread public knowledge of prices, as opposed to keeping them private and secret, and the mechanism probably has something to do with the share of a firm's business that is from one-off transactions as opposed to repeat customers.
A prediction: the more commodified a good or service is, the less haggling we observe; the more unique the product, the more haggling. So no haggling over everyday consumer items at Wal-Mart, more haggling over (rarely purchased) cars, even more over real estate, lots of haggling over large one-off commercial transactions.
So I guess this means the Quakers were the predecessors of Wal-Mart?!
I'm struggling to understand your odd view that there's One True Price. Surely who much you're willing to pay for the item compared to what you bought it for is the measure of the surplus.
I think it's weird to think you can just look at an item and then magically intuit your reservation price.
If I could haggle with street vendors in Korea 25 years ago, not knowing a word of Hangul, anybody can do it.
"the system pre-haggles the price"
I don't think the existence of a haggling system is based on a collective action problem- no one is choosing to haggle rather than post prices, or rather, no in the US is choosing to post prices.
Set, posted prices exist when both consumers and producers in a market are capable of rapidly and accurately comparing prices. If I can query the price of 50 rug dealers in an afternoon, competitive pressure will force the market price out into the open.
In markets where you can't compare prices easily (tourist markets, fragmented economies, highly differentiated goods, collusion-prone environments) you don't get a set price because the lets-look-somewhere-else effect is blunted.
Everyone keeps the capability to price discriminate if they possibly can.
As to refraining from shopping because you quiver with terror that someone my take a taste of your surplus- I'll affectionately submit that most people aren't as crazy as you are.
In addition to the trust issue, I also hate the haggling part per se. I simply feel it isn't fair and my enjoyment is diminished if I pay a price that is higher than other people pay. I may still have a consumer surplus, but I also have a big sign on my back that says, "Sucker." Some (such as McArdle) might call that irrational, but when you are a walking wallet in a poor country, that "sucker" sign stops you from buying their trinkets.
Imagine that the silver bracelet were sold at a fixed price. How would that help you decide if it were fake or not? Why is charging a fixed $10 for a fake silver item different from asking $20 for the same fake and giving you the option of bargaining down to $10 or $5?
And assume that you buy the bracelet for $10 and you find out that it's sold elsewhere in Turkey for $5 but sold in the US for $20. Aren't you better off having paid $10 for it than not buying at all?
I think the same is true of some parts of american life, which in general is pretty weak on consumer protections. For instance there's a huge overhead of people scrutinising the fine print of their cellphone contracts for all the extra charges, or more likely, avoiding this by guestimating these on past experience, which is a similar waste. You shouldn't have to be an expert in all that, they should just print one big price and be done. Ditto restaurants and taxis and sales tax.
To use everyone's favourite example on the net, what's making Apple rich is (partly) offering fewer choices, and splitting the cost of your mental overhead in figuring out which Dell to buy with you.