[pure-silver] Re: {Disarmed} Re: Experts: Ansel Adams photos found at garage sale worth $200 million
- From: "Eric" <ej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:18:29 -0500
I’ll look into the economist, but morality is philosophical, not simply dollars
and cents. Thanks for the thoughts.
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
214-827-8301
www.ericneilsenphotography.com
SKYPE ejprinter
Let's Talk Photography
From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Harry Lock
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 12:55 AM
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: {Disarmed} Re: Experts: Ansel Adams photos found at
garage sale worth $200 million
Hi All
I agree with Tim on all accounts, especially the $200 million claim
Cheers
Harry
The only ethical or moral consideration is whether fraud or force were
involved[Eric] snip
It was (IIRC) the economist Von Hayek that got a Nobel for
demonstrating that all opportunities for profit exist because of an
imbalance of information. The mere fact that one party knew more than
another does not - prima facia - constitute fraud or a moral foul. So,
no, the buyer in this case has no moral obligation to the seller.
[Eric] snip
P.S. If this were NOT so, then the seller would be morally obligated to
make the buyer whole if they'd made a poor purchasing decision[Eric] like the
banking industry? Or is that now governments?
Other related posts:
