Silk Road forums
Discussion => Silk Road discussion => Topic started by: solumne on October 14, 2012, 01:04 pm
-
Hi,
first of all thanks to the community & the founders of silkroad for making sr & the attached forum such a nice place. i really enjoy being here :)
it would be an even nicer place, if we could get rid of these scammers. Why don't we impose rules like this on the vendors:
Vendors who require their customers to finalize early will be banned.
To protect vendors from scamming customers, we could make an exception to this rule if the customer made less than say 5 purchases. If vendors are still afraid to get scammed, they could send their stuff with tracking. i wouldn't buy from them then anymore, cause i'm not signing for packages that contain drugs, but maybe other people would ;)
The vendors are already in a too strong position: They charge really high prices (see for example: opiates, prescriptions), they have not a high risk to get caught dealing (compared to dealing local on the streets), scamming isn't such a big problem for them as it is for their customer. Also, they can decline customers with a high refund rate.
I'm interested what you think about these ideas.
Solumne
-
simple solution to yours... Do not use vendors who require finalization early?
-
Silly idea. People that finalize early are not REQUIRED to EVER, so why should vendors be punished for a choice made by a buyer? If you want to buy something and the vendor says you must FE early (most of the time this will be in their profile), you can simply just NOT BUY FROM THAT VENDOR AT ALL. If more people refused to finalize early, vendors would likely ask for it less frequently when they see the trend and be scared to lose business.
To prevent against 'selective scamming' (or simply people falling off the face of the earth after large buys), buyers should also never FE even if they have a good relationship or past history with a vendor. Even if you think you're 'being nice' by releasing their funds early. Even if you think they are a 'trusted/respected'. Even if they are your grandmother or firstborn child. It's these exceptions that make the escrow system faulty and not work as intended.
In comment to your 'strong seller position', it's a double-edged sword. I would say buying personal use quantities from SR domestically is far less risky for both the buyer and seller, as no party has to hit the streets. For general buyers, 99.99% of the time the worst that can happen is something gets seized and you lose some money/product. No one has to deal with crazy lunatics in back alleys or form strong relationships with dealers to earn trust and buy product. The higher price on SR is due to the fact it's practically a CONVENIENCE STORE OF DRUGS THAT GET DIRECTLY SHIPPED TO ANY LOCATION YOU WANT. The reason prices are so high is because there's a demand for it and people buy it. Such is life.
-
Silly idea. People that finalize early are not REQUIRED to EVER, so why should vendors be punished for a choice made by a buyer?
That's like saying people who rent cars are not REQUIRED to EVER use a credit card.
Well guess what, good luck renting a car. Most companies won't deal with you period, or ones that do have a ton of restrictions. In other words, you DO need a credit card when renting a car *practically speaking*.
Likewise on SR. Sure it's possible to buy without FE - but get ready to lose access to all kinds of products or other hassles.
One example - I don't know anywhere you can buy ketamine without FE. There are many other examples.
-
Silly idea. People that finalize early are not REQUIRED to EVER, so why should vendors be punished for a choice made by a buyer?
That's like saying people who rent cars are not REQUIRED to EVER use a credit card.
Well guess what, good luck renting a car. Most companies won't deal with you period, or ones that do have a ton of restrictions. In other words, you DO need a credit card when renting a car *practically speaking*.
Likewise on SR. Sure it's possible to buy without FE - but get ready to lose access to all kinds of products or other hassles.
One example - I don't know anywhere you can buy ketamine without FE. There are many other examples.
It's "possible" to buy without FE? Fuck that, it is EXPECTED to buy without it. Sure sure, FE is "used so often" and you know what? Folks like you who defend it? You are a pox. :)
FE is "acceptable" in some cases. But unlike renting a car without a credit card, it is easier to find most things without it. Also, to extend your metaphor;
Good luck renting a car with your credit card, because there is a 50-75% chance you're handing your information over to an identity thief. That's going to be fun. :)
Point is, car rentals and FE are entirely different beasts. Any vendor who requires FE on all orders is a scammer, hands down(tony76, anyone? :). Any car rental place that requires a credit card for all rentals is... not going to steal your information for their own gain. See how it works?
-
I don't know what a "pox" is as you use that term. You must be from the UK.
But to be clear I do not like FE. It's a pain in my arse as you would say.
I'm saying as a buyer refusing to FE you will have much more limited access to top rated vendors here.
So there, I agree with you. As soon as you find a way to fix it let me know.
Silly idea. People that finalize early are not REQUIRED to EVER, so why should vendors be punished for a choice made by a buyer?
That's like saying people who rent cars are not REQUIRED to EVER use a credit card.
Well guess what, good luck renting a car. Most companies won't deal with you period, or ones that do have a ton of restrictions. In other words, you DO need a credit card when renting a car *practically speaking*.
Likewise on SR. Sure it's possible to buy without FE - but get ready to lose access to all kinds of products or other hassles.
One example - I don't know anywhere you can buy ketamine without FE. There are many other examples.
It's "possible" to buy without FE? Fuck that, it is EXPECTED to buy without it. Sure sure, FE is "used so often" and you know what? Folks like you who defend it? You are a pox. :)
FE is "acceptable" in some cases. But unlike renting a car without a credit card, it is easier to find most things without it. Also, to extend your metaphor;
Good luck renting a car with your credit card, because there is a 50-75% chance you're handing your information over to an identity thief. That's going to be fun. :)
Point is, car rentals and FE are entirely different beasts. Any vendor who requires FE on all orders is a scammer, hands down(tony76, anyone? :). Any car rental place that requires a credit card for all rentals is... not going to steal your information for their own gain. See how it works?
-
Chicken pox, small pox, a pox. A pox is a plague. It's just a turn of phrase, I highly doubt it has any special usage in any country. I called you a pox because you sounded like you support FE.
And no, as a buyer refusing to FE your access is only limited by your own intelligence. It is the people who don't refuse FEing that make things worse for the rest of us. I'm not one of the forum-warriors who decries it left and right, but I do certainly think that it is a pox. (See how I used it, again? :)
-
It's just the way a free market works. The vendor is in no way forcing you to FE, you agree to do so when you purchase from him. If you don't like it, then don't buy from him, simple as that.
If you don't like how you have no options for ketamine that don't involve FE, think about the fact that if the FE requiring vendor didn't exist, you would have no options for ketamine period.
Just by being there, even if he wants a million dollars a gram, and requires FE, he is already doing you a service.
If you don't like the way they run their business then just don't buy from them and leave them alone. The concept of not allowing vendors to require FE would be like not allowing a vendor to sell coke at any more than $20 a gram because you think that its unfair that they are all listing at upwards of $100 a gram, and you don't have any options for $20 a gram. If you force things on vendors to the point that the terms they have to agree with on are no longer acceptable to them, they will just leave, or find some way to pass the losses in profit down to the consumer (cutting the coke beyond recognition) and now everyone loses.
Now, I know that this is an exaggerated example, but the two scenarios differ only in magnitude, not in concept.
People trying to impose regulations on others for their own benefit is a major reason why the economy in the United States (my country) is in such a slow, inefficient, imbalanced, and generally shitty state now.
Now, that's not to say you don't have any way to fight back. Start selling ketamine, and don't require FE/do something that makes you more attractive to customers than other vendors. Set a standard of excellent communication, superior product, and sound stealth. Naturally, you will put them out of business, rake in generous profits, and build a loyal customer base. That is, until your competition finds a way to become more efficient and deliver a superior service to yours to get their business back. In the end, the vendors who deserve the most profits through their own hard work, resourcefulness, and innovation make the most profit. However, the real winner in this system is the consumer.
Such is the beauty of the free market ;)
-schmuck
-
That's not how free markets work. Not anywhere in the developed world. Check wikipedia on "Laissez-faire". That's a form of free markets with minimal regulation and even it defines protections and rules.
You're confusing free market theory with how free markets are actually practiced.
In any case, while I don't like FE I also don't think it makes sense to ban vendors from it.
I just think there is a better possible middle ground for everyone involved than what we have now.
It's just the way a free market works. The vendor is in no way forcing you to FE, you agree to do so when you purchase from him. If you don't like it, then don't buy from him, simple as that.
If you don't like how you have no options for ketamine that don't involve FE, think about the fact that if the FE requiring vendor didn't exist, you would have no options for ketamine period.
Just by being there, even if he wants a million dollars a gram, and requires FE, he is already doing you a service.
If you don't like the way they run their business then just don't buy from them and leave them alone. The concept of not allowing vendors to require FE would be like not allowing a vendor to sell coke at any more than $20 a gram because you think that its unfair that they are all listing at upwards of $100 a gram, and you don't have any options for $20 a gram. If you force things on vendors to the point that the terms they have to agree with on are no longer acceptable to them, they will just leave, or find some way to pass the losses in profit down to the consumer (cutting the coke beyond recognition) and now everyone loses.
Now, I know that this is an exaggerated example, but the two scenarios differ only in magnitude, not in concept.
People trying to impose regulations on others for their own benefit is a major reason why the economy in the United States (my country) is in such a slow, inefficient, imbalanced, and generally shitty state now.
Now, that's not to say you don't have any way to fight back. Start selling ketamine, and don't require FE/do something that makes you more attractive to customers than other vendors. Set a standard of excellent communication, superior product, and sound stealth. Naturally, you will put them out of business, rake in generous profits, and build a loyal customer base. That is, until your competition finds a way to become more efficient and deliver a superior service to yours to get their business back. In the end, the vendors who deserve the most profits through their own hard work, resourcefulness, and innovation make the most profit. However, the real winner in this system is the consumer.
Such is the beauty of the free market ;)
-schmuck
-
That's not how free markets work. Not anywhere in the developed world. Check wikipedia on "Laissez-faire". That's a form of free markets with minimal regulation and even it defines protections and rules.
You're confusing free market theory with how free markets are actually practiced.
In any case, while I don't like FE I also don't think it makes sense to ban vendors from it.
I just think there is a better possible middle ground for everyone involved than what we have now.
It's just the way a free market works. The vendor is in no way forcing you to FE, you agree to do so when you purchase from him. If you don't like it, then don't buy from him, simple as that.
If you don't like how you have no options for ketamine that don't involve FE, think about the fact that if the FE requiring vendor didn't exist, you would have no options for ketamine period.
Just by being there, even if he wants a million dollars a gram, and requires FE, he is already doing you a service.
If you don't like the way they run their business then just don't buy from them and leave them alone. The concept of not allowing vendors to require FE would be like not allowing a vendor to sell coke at any more than $20 a gram because you think that its unfair that they are all listing at upwards of $100 a gram, and you don't have any options for $20 a gram. If you force things on vendors to the point that the terms they have to agree with on are no longer acceptable to them, they will just leave, or find some way to pass the losses in profit down to the consumer (cutting the coke beyond recognition) and now everyone loses.
Now, I know that this is an exaggerated example, but the two scenarios differ only in magnitude, not in concept.
People trying to impose regulations on others for their own benefit is a major reason why the economy in the United States (my country) is in such a slow, inefficient, imbalanced, and generally shitty state now.
Now, that's not to say you don't have any way to fight back. Start selling ketamine, and don't require FE/do something that makes you more attractive to customers than other vendors. Set a standard of excellent communication, superior product, and sound stealth. Naturally, you will put them out of business, rake in generous profits, and build a loyal customer base. That is, until your competition finds a way to become more efficient and deliver a superior service to yours to get their business back. In the end, the vendors who deserve the most profits through their own hard work, resourcefulness, and innovation make the most profit. However, the real winner in this system is the consumer.
Such is the beauty of the free market ;)
-schmuck
free market (n.) an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.
That was my understanding of the "free market."
Please don't take this as any form of disrespect or hostility. If i'm misinformed, I am always happy to be corrected, and always eager to learn
-schmuck
-
^oops, that was from dictionary.com, forgot to mention it. Mirriam-webster also offers a similar definition:
Free Market (n.) an economic market operating by free competition
Rather than make a almost completely useless post, I thought that while I'm here, might as well point out that the number of scammer buyers vastly outnumber the scammer vendors we have seen here on Silk Road. They often receive much less publicity, as opposed to tony76, DrNyx, and all the others that were the subjects of widely publicized (or as widely publicized as it gets on the Silk Road forums ::)) witch hunts when they ran off with thousands of dollars of everyone else's money. Smaller vendors have had trouble starting up their businesses because of their customers allowing their transactions to auto-finalize, or finalizing late. Untimely finalizations result in the vendor's funds being tied up for long periods of time, which can be crippling for those who carry small inventories and need to constantly restock.
For some vendors, FE has become a measure of security against the scammer and auto-finalizer. Unfortunate, but understandable in many cases.
-schmuck
-
No problem man -
Your definition is correct, but that describes free market theory. In reality all markets have some regulation.
In modern times the free market debates are around things like monopolies. Should Microsoft have been sued for unfair practices? Some people say yes, some say no, but everyone agrees there has to be some level of regulation just to keep the sanity.
That's not how free markets work. Not anywhere in the developed world. Check wikipedia on "Laissez-faire". That's a form of free markets with minimal regulation and even it defines protections and rules.
You're confusing free market theory with how free markets are actually practiced.
In any case, while I don't like FE I also don't think it makes sense to ban vendors from it.
I just think there is a better possible middle ground for everyone involved than what we have now.
It's just the way a free market works. The vendor is in no way forcing you to FE, you agree to do so when you purchase from him. If you don't like it, then don't buy from him, simple as that.
If you don't like how you have no options for ketamine that don't involve FE, think about the fact that if the FE requiring vendor didn't exist, you would have no options for ketamine period.
Just by being there, even if he wants a million dollars a gram, and requires FE, he is already doing you a service.
If you don't like the way they run their business then just don't buy from them and leave them alone. The concept of not allowing vendors to require FE would be like not allowing a vendor to sell coke at any more than $20 a gram because you think that its unfair that they are all listing at upwards of $100 a gram, and you don't have any options for $20 a gram. If you force things on vendors to the point that the terms they have to agree with on are no longer acceptable to them, they will just leave, or find some way to pass the losses in profit down to the consumer (cutting the coke beyond recognition) and now everyone loses.
Now, I know that this is an exaggerated example, but the two scenarios differ only in magnitude, not in concept.
People trying to impose regulations on others for their own benefit is a major reason why the economy in the United States (my country) is in such a slow, inefficient, imbalanced, and generally shitty state now.
Now, that's not to say you don't have any way to fight back. Start selling ketamine, and don't require FE/do something that makes you more attractive to customers than other vendors. Set a standard of excellent communication, superior product, and sound stealth. Naturally, you will put them out of business, rake in generous profits, and build a loyal customer base. That is, until your competition finds a way to become more efficient and deliver a superior service to yours to get their business back. In the end, the vendors who deserve the most profits through their own hard work, resourcefulness, and innovation make the most profit. However, the real winner in this system is the consumer.
Such is the beauty of the free market ;)
-schmuck
free market (n.) an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.
That was my understanding of the "free market."
Please don't take this as any form of disrespect or hostility. If i'm misinformed, I am always happy to be corrected, and always eager to learn
-schmuck
-
The system is fine as it is....
Some people need to FE some dont..... if you dont like that you can go to the corner and do a F2F deal and not need to worry about FE-ing.
-
In modern times the free market debates are around things like monopolies. Should Microsoft have been sued for unfair practices? Some people say yes, some say no, but everyone agrees there has to be some level of regulation just to keep the sanity.
Mmm, monopolies... like that one Apple has on rectangular cellphones that have rounded edges? Seriously, patents are the new fucking monopolies... and they're being used for some awful shit.
-
I stand corrected... at least i get to say i was half right ;D
Thanks for clarifying, big oversight on my part, wonder how I didn't catch that.
-
No problem man -
Your definition is correct, but that describes free market theory. In reality all markets have some regulation.
In modern times the free market debates are around things like monopolies. Should Microsoft have been sued for unfair practices? Some people say yes, some say no, but everyone agrees there has to be some level of regulation just to keep the sanity.
Seeing as you literally have no idea what you're talking about I'll just quote my post from another thread where someone else had no idea what a free market is (http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=45437.msg497795#msg497795):
[Note that the quote was in reply to somebody else, and I'm not bothered editing it to reply to you directly; it serves its purpose just fine without doing so. If you're still confused after reading the entirety of this post, feel free to read my other posts in the thread linked above.]
[SNIP]
The "free market" DOES have a fixed, agreed-upon definition (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp#axzz287EILD8w):
"A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.
Investopedia explains 'Free Market':
In simple terms, a free market is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is a voluntary agreement between two parties who trade in the form of goods and services. In reality, this is the extent to which a free market exists since there will always be government intervention in the form of taxes, price controls and restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market. Just like supply-side economics, free market is a term used to describe a political or ideological viewpoint on policy and is not a field within economics."
The fact that there is NO "government intervention in the form of taxes, price controls and restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market" means that yes, this is the dictionary definition of a free market.
I'm not entirely sure where you studied economics but you should probably look into some way of getting refunded for the substandard schooling you received. ???
[SNIP]
- grahamgreene
And Schmuckk, you were completely correct in your understanding of what a free market actually is.
-
{BLARGH PARAPHRASE} Evanescence is wrong and Schmuckk, you were completely correct in your understanding of what a free market actually is.
God dammit grahamgreene, I can't give you more karma, yet! Couldn't you have waited to correct the silly girl?
Now you'll probably miss the +karma you so richly deserve. :(
-
{BLARGH PARAPHRASE} Evanescence is wrong and Schmuckk, you were completely correct in your understanding of what a free market actually is.
God dammit grahamgreene, I can't give you more karma, yet! Couldn't you have waited to correct the silly girl?
Now you'll probably miss the +karma you so richly deserve. :(
I appreciate the kind words BlarghRawr (and got a chuckle out of "BLARGH PARAPHRASE"! ;D) - no worries about the karma though, it's the thought behind the action - implied or otherwise - that always counts! ;)
- grahamgreene
-
Graham gimme a break. By your own citation a purely free market is an "idealized" notion.
I'll repeat it for you: Free markets with no regulation are a theoretical concept and do no exist in the developed world.
If you disagree, by all means give us a counter example to one of my statements rather than just using insults.
No problem man -
Your definition is correct, but that describes free market theory. In reality all markets have some regulation.
In modern times the free market debates are around things like monopolies. Should Microsoft have been sued for unfair practices? Some people say yes, some say no, but everyone agrees there has to be some level of regulation just to keep the sanity.
Seeing as you literally have no idea what you're talking about I'll just quote my post from another thread where someone else had no idea what a free market is (http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=45437.msg497795#msg497795):
[Note that the quote was in reply to somebody else, and I'm not bothered editing it to reply to you directly; it serves its purpose just fine without doing so. If you're still confused after reading the entirety of this post, feel free to read my other posts in the thread linked above.]
[SNIP]
The "free market" DOES have a fixed, agreed-upon definition (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp#axzz287EILD8w):
"A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.
Investopedia explains 'Free Market':
In simple terms, a free market is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is a voluntary agreement between two parties who trade in the form of goods and services. In reality, this is the extent to which a free market exists since there will always be government intervention in the form of taxes, price controls and restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market. Just like supply-side economics, free market is a term used to describe a political or ideological viewpoint on policy and is not a field within economics."
The fact that there is NO "government intervention in the form of taxes, price controls and restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market" means that yes, this is the dictionary definition of a free market.
I'm not entirely sure where you studied economics but you should probably look into some way of getting refunded for the substandard schooling you received. ???
[SNIP]
- grahamgreene
And Schmuckk, you were completely correct in your understanding of what a free market actually is.
-
Graham gimme a break. By your own citation a purely free market is an "idealized" notion.
I'll repeat it for you: Free markets with no regulation are a theoretical concept and do no exist in the developed world.
If you disagree, by all means give us a counter example to one of my statements rather than just using insults.
Why would I give you a break? I'm giving you the information you lack about a topic you clearly know very little about; despite your shortcomings in that regard you are attempting to shoot down somebody else's points as though you're a master on the subject. Hell, it's practically my duty to stand up for the person who was right in the first place. ;)
In the source I quoted it did indeed state that a free market is an idealised notion. However, it has not taken a market such as Silk Road into account; it is based purely on current real world government controlled markets. Silk Road is an agorist marketplace - you may need to read up a little about agorism if you wish to continue this debate further.
Agorism is centered around a market completely free of "government intervention in the form of taxes, price controls and restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market." - that bit in quotation marks defines a market that is not free. We do not have that here, thus we have a free market. It's really quite simple. ???
Read the quoted text again:
[SNIP]
The "free market" DOES have a fixed, agreed-upon definition (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp#axzz287EILD8w):
"A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.
Investopedia explains 'Free Market':
In simple terms, a free market is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is a voluntary agreement between two parties who trade in the form of goods and services. In reality, this is the extent to which a free market exists since there will always be government intervention in the form of taxes, price controls and restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market. Just like supply-side economics, free market is a term used to describe a political or ideological viewpoint on policy and is not a field within economics."
The fact that there is NO "government intervention in the form of taxes, price controls and restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market" means that yes, this is the dictionary definition of a free market.
I'm not entirely sure where you studied economics but you should probably look into some way of getting refunded for the substandard schooling you received. ???
[SNIP]
- grahamgreene
-
I have always had to FE for Ivory, and I do so out of........trust, history, I wanted HIS stuff ? Like said earlier in this thread, it was MY choice and MY risk to lose coin over something. I don't have $$ to lose so I would never do this for an order above $150. Other than that, I did FE one time with Trojan. He got busted (fact) and it was $100 bucks of mine. I wasn't worried about the coin, I felt bad for him rather than me duh. He was an awesome person that apparently got sloppy at home. I did one other time for another. I don't think I will be FE anymore, and that IS my choice, it is yours as well.
-
I wish we could walk over to University of Chicago or some other top economics program to chat with the faculty, let them settle this. Alas I don't think they have time for two douche bags arm-chairing economics on a illegal drug forum.
So instead we'll have to disagree, and for those who want the truth I suggest reading about free markets and related topics in Wikipedia.
Graham gimme a break. By your own citation a purely free market is an "idealized" notion.
I'll repeat it for you: Free markets with no regulation are a theoretical concept and do no exist in the developed world.
If you disagree, by all means give us a counter example to one of my statements rather than just using insults.
Why would I give you a break? I'm giving you the information you lack about a topic you clearly know very little about; despite your shortcomings in that regard you are attempting to shoot down somebody else's points as though you're a master on the subject. Hell, it's practically my duty to stand up for the person who was right in the first place. ;)
In the source I quoted it did indeed state that a free market is an idealised notion. However, it has not taken a market such as Silk Road into account; it is based purely on current real world government controlled markets. Silk Road is an agorist marketplace - you may need to read up a little about agorism if you wish to continue this debate further.
Agorism is centered around a market completely free of "government intervention in the form of taxes, price controls and restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market." - that bit in quotation marks defines a market that is not free. We do not have that here, thus we have a free market. It's really quite simple. ???
Read the quoted text again:
[SNIP]
The "free market" DOES have a fixed, agreed-upon definition (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp#axzz287EILD8w):
"A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.
Investopedia explains 'Free Market':
In simple terms, a free market is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is a voluntary agreement between two parties who trade in the form of goods and services. In reality, this is the extent to which a free market exists since there will always be government intervention in the form of taxes, price controls and restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market. Just like supply-side economics, free market is a term used to describe a political or ideological viewpoint on policy and is not a field within economics."
The fact that there is NO "government intervention in the form of taxes, price controls and restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market" means that yes, this is the dictionary definition of a free market.
I'm not entirely sure where you studied economics but you should probably look into some way of getting refunded for the substandard schooling you received. ???
[SNIP]
- grahamgreene
-
I wish we could walk over to University of Chicago or some other top economics program to chat with the faculty, let them settle this. Alas I don't think they have time for two douche bags arm-chairing economics on a illegal drug forum.
So instead we'll have to disagree, and for those who want the truth I suggest reading about free markets and related topics in Wikipedia.
You'd make a horrible whore because you keep rubbing me the wrong way. Then again...
They're being civil, you're being a cunt. Fuck off into a pit.
-
Nice rebuttal of the points I made in my previous posts.
I wish we could walk over to University of Chicago or some other top economics program to chat with the faculty, let them settle this. Alas I don't think they have time for two douche bags arm-chairing economics on a illegal drug forum.
So instead we'll have to disagree, and for those who want the truth I suggest reading about free markets and related topics in Wikipedia.
Oh.. Wait... ::)
Virtually every post that you make causes me to me die a little inside. :-\
Just so you know, you've won the accolade of being the first person I'm adding to my ignore list - as a result, I will no longer be able to see nor respond to any of the drivel that your brain forces your fingers to type. I pity those fingers; they must be so embarrassed to have to take instruction from the mush of grey matter that your body attempted to form into a brain during your embryonic stage.
By the by, when you ask for someone to "by all means give us a counter example to one of my statements rather than just using insults", and they do so, instead of responding and calling them a "douche bag", you should do as you have asked them to do.
Just a bit of advice for you to help you get along a little better in this community.
- grahamgreene
-
All sales should be done by sales CONTRACTS that way Vendor/Buyer are both covered by the agreed upon contract no stating loss or undelivered parcels anymore as this is a big claim by buyers.There is something like 87% of desputes are false claims for non delivered parcels and Buyers are safe as long as they lie their ass off.
The outcome is pretty simple also Buyers scam vendors and get caught they just go & open another account and start again about 4 mths later.Vendors do the scamming & everyone is on him in a heart beat because it gives vendors a bad name and makes SR look shady.CONTRACTS need to be implemented and used by the SR Marketplace to save Vendor/Buyer rights
-
Late to the dance here I see...all my angle have been covered.
OP - its called Free Market.
Not Free Market + your rules.
-
OP - its called Free Market.
Not Free Market + your rules.
Are you serious? SR is everything but a free market. There are so many rules imposed on the vendors. Just read the seller's guide.
Since there are already rules, we could change them a bit to keep the scammers out.
SR's rules right now attract a lot of scammers. it's just pretty easy for them to rip other people off. On the other hand side it's easy for vendors to prevent scamming by customers. The system is just lacking balance ....
solumne