>a trader, knowing there has been a poor harvest, raises the

>>55169601
At what percentage/price point do you start to question his motives? 200% of his original price? 400%? 1600%?

File: disgust.png (195KB, 457x510px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 457x510px

>>55169601
>The year of our lord 2000 +17
>Almost 2000 +18
>People still use alignments for anything ever

>>55169601
That's a basic law of supply and demand. It's Lawful neutral and basically nothing else.

>obligatory Alignments are stupid, have you tried not playing D&D 3.P post.

>>55169601
None of those would be evil.

Failing to raise prices might be interpreted as evil (or un-altruistic, anyway), however; because it causes supply shortages.

>>55169619
When his prices become disconnected from a supply/demand chart.

>>55169601
It's only evil when the trader starts to put artificial barriers to entry into the trading profession, in order to keep demand high.

Profiting off other's misfortune is not evil, but causing others to be misfortunate while denying others the ability to help them IS evil.

Price hikes should and would introduce others into thinking "why can't I start trading at a slightly lower price?" and ensue that the original trader must lower prices or be priced out of the market.

except this is a crime called price gouging and is illegal in most modern countries. So it's not lawful and unethical especially to the less fortunate. It' evil

>>55169659
Fuck off you damn commie

>>55169673
Says the jew.

>>55169601
YES, WE GET IT, THE GAS PRICE HIKE ANNOYS YOU, GET THE FUCK BACK TO /POL/ WITH THIS WORTHLESS CRAP.

>>55169601
No more evil than killing him to avoid starving when he does.

>>55169659
it kind of depends. it wasn't illegal until very recently. And your view of morality is also very modern - during the nineteenth century it was considered immoral to help the poor, and even worse to artificially meddle in a famine. Queen Victoria copped it from all rungs of society for donating just one thousand pounds to Ireland for famine relief in the 1850s. Economists at the time speculated that by giving them money - thus disincentivising them from solving the famine themselves - she'd extended the famine by months and cost thousands of extra lives. By their view, she was behaving immorally.

>>55169673
Hey, if you want to increase society's disorder by having starving mobs of peasants tear this trader off his wagon and throw him off a cliff, feel free to not legislate against price gouging.

This is simply expediency.

For this same reason we have bound succubi brothels for people who need to get off but can't actually find anyone willing to fuck them. Don't rape strangers who are just "asking for it", go rape succubi!

>>55169601
How does maintaining the pre-Crisis prices put his family and workers at risk? Money as a resource is not going to worth that much in most crisis scenarios and if it's for after wouldn't that imply that pre-crisis prices were already putting said group at risk?

Also no, Price Gouging has nothing to do with Supply & Demand, that requires consumers & sellers to be acting under rational thoughts, and the mental state a crisis is going to put you under is anything but rational.

>>55169721
You are aware peasants hid their crops right?

The only ones starving were the merchants

>>55169722
Because the price of grain he uses to bake his bread has increased too?

>>55169659
> illegal in most modern countries
Communism isn't modern anon, and it's not good either.

>>55169722
It's not about him! Maintaining pre-shortage prices prevents the function of prices (solving the calculation/distribution problem) from working, which hurts the people who need bread most.

FFS. Economics 101 ought to be mandatory public education.

>>55169741
Locally it might, but in the types of scenarios this is trying to mirror unless this is a global crisis the actual cost of necessary goods to make your own product is unlikely as most modern food of medicine companies can rely on a far broader source for material then those adjacent to their retailers.

If we're going to care about that factor we're also going to have to admit it suddenly breaks away from the real world stuff it's trying to be an analogy of.

>>55169642
Shitposting isn't obligatory anywhere except /b/ and /r9k/.

>>55169601
That depends. What his motivation to do so? If he is raising to cover increasing costs, then of course he has to do that. If he is raising to take advantage of the population however then it's bad.

>>55169784
Dude, I'm a accounting major, I've taken several Economics, Macro and Micro.

Again, Supply/Demand requires rational thought, if a Crisis has happened that has destroyed your homes and is putting you at personal risk, you're not rational.

And not to mention prices only affect supply in the long run, and in the scenario that this is blatantly trying to be a analogy of, the shortage of local food isn't a long term issue, it's only one until sufficient aid from around has come.

Also you're going to have to explain to me how making it so that 90% of the population that needs food can't afford it, and that it'll all be purchased by the local rich who in their panic thinks they need all of it least they die when they only need a small fraction.

It'd be evil not to raise the price. Everyone knows that supplies are limited, so if you didn't adjust to the market you'd encourage hoarding and reduce access to food for everyone but a small minority. Better to have everyone go hungry than have a handful well fed while the rest starve to death.

>>55169601
unless he does it to explicitly make others suffer, such as raising the price far higher than anyone that goes to him is actually able to afford, it's probably lawful neutral.

>>55169896
During a Crisis what you need is to maintain a temporary price ceiling AND rationing, I.E. mandating that you can only sell X amount of a good to any individual.

>>55169932
Evil actions don't have to be motivated by cruelty. Usually they're just a result of people being selfish

>>55169984
selfishness is cruelty

It's absurd to expect market forces to resolve a humanitarian crisis. The appropriate response is forcible intervention and rationing or else you'll see a lot of needless death in the short term.

That said, insisting on pure market solutions because you believe it causes less harm overall isn't evil, it's just stupid.

>>55169601
is that a birote salado?

>>55169993
It's a survival trait.

>>55170032
surviving isn't selfish
are you a liberal or something?

>>55170032
At a certain point your survival is guaranteed damn well enough that seeking to further it at the expense of others is wrong.

Coordination is also a survival trait, and a part of that is ensuring that no one part of the group throws each other under the bus.

>>55169703
>until recently

Fucking barbarians, learnt nothing from glorious Rome.

Victorian society is some of the lowest points of humanity ofc.

>>55170021
This.

>>55169601
>Is this an Evil act?
No, that's basic supply and demand.

>>55169601
In most preindustrial societies the price of grain was legally fixed.

>>55170763
Exactly. It would only be an evil act if he also caused the grain shortage for the purpose of driving the price up.

>>55170763
>Capitalism cant be evil.

>>55170763
>>55171192
>>55171235

It's not evil, but it's not good either. It's neutral. The good act would be to keep selling at an affordable price, building up goodwill in the community and preventing food riots.

Which is what government is for, going back to the start. Ancient Egypt and Sumer basically got organized to deal with crises like bandit invasions and poor harvests. The gov. would buy up surplus grain in good years and sell it back at a standardized price in bad.

>>55169601
Depends on the intent.

If he's doing it to make sure he and his family survives, then he's at worst neutral.

If he makes a profit and helps others best as he can with some donations out of the goodness of his heart, he's good.

If he sees his chance to finally make a killing, and also uses the situation to 'donate' some bread to peasant in return for ursurous debts and bank slavery, then he's most definitely evil.

>55169635
>Muh gender fluid alignment system so I can be how I want when I want.

>>55171302
Supply and demand curves describe what the market WILL pay, not what it SHOULD pay. Just because demand goes up does not mean you must increase your prices. Its a choice which negatively impacts people for your own gain. Assuming you've run your granary at lower market values you dont NEED that extra money. Your putting your own excessive prosperity over others in a time of crisis.

>>55169601
>Is this an Evil act? I do not believe so, as it is Lawful
Evil and Law are not mutually exclusive.

>>55169784
If you had taken Economics 101 you'd know that "supply and demand" only works when you won't die if you don't get the product. If it's something you need to live then the demand curve is invalid and doesn't produce meaningful results (i.e., the intersection between supply and demand is the entire fucking chart).

You don't know shit about economics, stop posting.

>>55171329

I agree that the trader should be generous in this situation. It would be the good thing to do, and it's better to be good than neutral, especially in an emergency situation. Indeed, in this case a law should be passed to require it.

But not taking the most saintly option available isn't necessarily evil. There are degrees, here. Donating some grain to the poor would be a good act. Keeping your prices the same would be a little less good, but still good. Doubling your prices would not be an act of kindness and generosity, but it would be reasonable during a shortage. Jacking your prices to the roof so people have to pawn everything they own just to eat would be an evil act.

>>55171745
In fantasy fiction evil is judged by the good. A good man would look down on such action. Do you refute that?

>>55171329
>Its a choice which negatively impacts people for your own gain

Wrong. This is Econ 101! The monetary benefit to the seller is wholly tangential.
Price ceilings aren't selfless. They give the seller the social status of appearing more moral (to economic illiterates) at the expense of producing supply shortages. If prices don't move, the people who want stuff more have to pay the same as people who don't want it as much, so they can't get what they need because there is a finite amount to go around.

>>55171724
>inelasticity makes economics not real
No, u.

>>55171793

Which one is he looking down on? The guy who increases prices by 50%? The guy who increases prices by 10%?

Yes, there's a level of gouging that's evil. But does your worldview not include neutral acts? Everyone's either a saint or a demon?

>>55169601
>breaking no law
you do know that historically, prices of things like grain and bread were set in stone by law as industry protections, right? Either by guilds or by government, but the idea of setting any price you individually want for any essentials was unheard of until after industrialization.

>>55171837

You've proven that you don't know what you're talking about when you interpreted "supply and demand only applies in certain situations and not in others" as "economics isn't real".

Here's a hint: economics doesn't begin and end with "supply and demand", it's actually something complicated enough that you can't sum it up with three words. Then again, I bet if your Orange Lord and Savior told it to you, you'd beleive it without questions.

File: IMG_1972.jpg (54KB, 840x485px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 840x485px

>>55169601
"I'm not evil. I'm lawful neutral. Maybe even good."

>>55169601
Depends on the harm the trader believed he would cause and what he would stand to lose if he didn't

>>55169601
it's a very stupid act because the people he's gouging are liable to kill or severely injure him. There were riots in Rome over the size of loaves of bread in the middle ages, and grain has been the subject of countless peasant revolts before then.

>>55171900
The neutral act would be to go from doing nothing, to doing more nothing.

>>55169635
I agree. I know, alignments are just a quick and easy way to describe personalities, morals and motives, but they fail to take moral relativity into account. Killing a person might be an evil act, but killing an evil warlock about to shatter the heavens is definitely a good act. What if, unbeknownst to the player, the warlock just wants to free mortals of the tyranny of the gods? So much comes down to information the player might not have, making alignment of acts and people completely meaningless

Basically, if you run a business, you're probably at least a little bit of a shitlord.

>>55172695
So you base the Good and/or Evil of an act on what the character knows, rather than what the omniscient DM knows. This ain't rocket science.
If the character knows their knowledge base is full of holes, has enough time to spare that it would be reasonable to fill those holes, and still does not fill those holes? Willful ignorance is legitimately Evil, since you're choosing lower effort over a better chance of doing the actual right thing.

>>55169601
>Is this an Evil act?
No. That is not even close to how it works.

>>55172710
But why? You provide a good or service, in exchange for currency which you also need to support yourself and actually have food and shelter, and probably also provide employment for other people so they too can get money and resources for themselves and their families. And I'm the long run, by being able to provide a good or service for other people this allows people to specialise in other fields and do other work thus allowing for more efficient use of resources and time/energy to learn skills and improves survival and quality of life for the whole.

Business is the sole reason why things like modern medical care, grocery stores, and pencils can even exist. Is providing a good or service, while also expecting to be allowed the chance and ability to obtain goods and services for yourself in exchange so wrong?

File: 1471806082435.jpg (17KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x250px

>>55172770
That is a very simplified way of looking at things. Running a business, especially a very successful one, elevates you above the average citizen, to the point where you control many of the factors of life that affect those below you. What youre describing is less business and more trade, where everyone is equal to some degree. In reality, the capitalists have much more pull over society than any other person, save government officials, and even that is debatable. And to say that modern medical care is a result of capitalism is just dumb.

>>55169635
What's with the recent surge of Squid memes?

>>55169601
It breaking no law is unlikely.
For most of history we had laws governing the price of basic food necessities such as grain, bread and rice.

All these capitalism apologists in here need to be killed

>>55169601

Is he knowingly profiting off people's suffering?

Then it is a moral evil.

>>55173438
Splatoon 2

>>55173403
>and to say that modern medical care is a result of capitalism is just dumb

Of course, comrade. Corporate investors, independent inventors, and privately owned hospitals, exchanging resources independently throughout a physical and intellectual ontology are meaningless next to the centrally controlled Stalinist-Lamarckian revolution!

>>55173515
You now realize aspirin manufacturers base their entire industry around providing strictly temporary pain relief, and make massive profits in the process.

>>55169601
Your question is moot, "Acts" themselves don't fall under alignment, creatures themselves ping as "Good" or "Evil" based on their nature.

File: storymaker-nero-palace-rome-archaeology-slide-show-1104151-515x388.jpg (43KB, 516x388px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 516x388px

>>55170289
Rome outlawed volunteer fire departments.

>>55169601
>If the trader were not to raise prices, he would be putting himself, his family and his business - and thus his own employees and their families - at risk, which would be an Evil act.

No, he would merely be leaving potential profit on the table.

Which would be an Evil act.

File: 12743582_1753094448252676_196566791690427991_n.jpg (100KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 720x960px

>>55173511
>yfw there is a McDonalds in Pushkin Square
Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot killed more people than any other political or religious group in history and they still couldn't stop capitalism in the end. They couldn't even build nicer weapons. They lost the war and the peace.

>>55171302

FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THE NEUTRALS ARE EVIL

>>55173551
Im referring to advancements in medical technology and understanding dum dum!

>>55173615
And that's why we must send the neutrals to the gulags.

>>55173641
Yeah, effective use of resources has nothing to do with enabling research and development, let alone mass production!

>>55173667
Guy im not a communist, im just sayin that capitalism isnt perfect. no need to get mr sarcasm all over me.

>>55171302
>The good act would be to keep selling at an affordable price
No. That would be the chaotic act.
If you don't understand why it is, you failed basic economics and basic DND morality.
Or how pre industrial law worked.

>>55171943
It might be, but in a pre industrial society, there really existed no money as means of barter.
There is a reason tons of metal, Koku of rice, Rice, preserved meat, fresh blood, trees, fruits and other things are a medium of exchange.
But coins aren't, because they are often worthless fiat currencies, that might contain precious metals.

So to trade for bread, you most likely need to trade in food or livestock. And that means you are not buying one bread, you are buying months supplies of bread.
If you try to get services for a single bread, you will get lynced. Either by the law, the clergy, or by the locals if they don't like your shit.

>>55173906
>but in a pre industrial society, there really existed no money as means of barter.
Wow.

This thread has only proven that both the libertarians and communists need to fuck off and die.

>>55169659
>price gouging
Fuck off commie. The alternative is him not buying grain to not lose money so that no goods are exchanged at all.

>>55173967
Whats wow about that? If you trade Fiat, it means the local superpower is strong enough to make fiat valuable. Generally that is not the case.
Even in something like China, currencies is a bad medium of trade, because its hard to get your hands on it.

>>55169784
>Economics 101 ought to be mandatory public education
Ironic, since your own statements and ignorance make a case for that.

>>55169619
If he can put them that high there's either total famine or people have found a substitute staple and his product is now a luxury good

>>55169601

You wouldn't do well in Houston, anon.

>be druid
>be level 3
>cast 4 goodberries
>feed 40 people for the whole day
>literally 100% profits

fuck you, smelly trader

>>55173551
>anti-inflammatory that can slow the progression of certain auto-immune diseases
>lets people work more and get paid more
>has benefits to heart health
>is not even a very profitable drug because anyone can make it and it's easy to make

You don't know shit about acetylsalicylic acid, bruh.

>>55174302
>of coursh we can beat capitalism! all we need is some magic, guys!

>>55174246
If you've got a logical refutation of the one thing every economist since Adam Smith manages to agree on, there's a Nobel with your name on it. Don't hold back anon! Go for the gold!

>>55174368
It's what I produce, anon. Do you know anything about producing, or are you a net drain on society?

>>55174392
You mean you're an owner of capital, unless you're just LARPing completely. You obviously know nothing about what it is you're supposedly making and are riding the shoulders of somebody else who actually came up with the process and built the machines.

I'm in quality control, so yes, I am part of the necessary evil of maintaining a society without producing anything directly myself. I'm not arguing against modern society,or capitalism I'm just calling you out on being a derelict know-nothing in your own field.

>>55169601
There is a difference between raising prices due to a drop in supply and price gouging. If the increase covers a spike in expenses, he's neutral. If the increase is all profit, he's evil.

>>55174504
>is not even a very profitable drug because anyone can make it and it's easy to make
>annual gross profit margin of 60% since the 80s, even 80% at points post-Bayer renaissance

I can see why they don't pay you much, but perhaps proles just don't need historical knowledge.

>>55174579
The profit or loss of the seller has nothing to do with the moral function of a price system.

>>55174616
False. Once your basic needs are met, all else is profligacy. In times of plenty this is excusable. In times of famine, it is sinful. To take advantage of hard times in order to widen your profit margins is evil beyond question. You may raise your prices to the extent necessary to support yourself, not further.

>>55174584
>taking five minutes to google something and citing a chemistry textbook
>thinking 60% GROSS margin on a drug that costs $5 a bottle is a big deal to a pharma company

Aspiring gets produced because the demand is high. People who don't know better buy Bayer but anyone can get the stuff for 33% less than what they charge, which cuts the gross profit margin to like 15-20%.

Bayer sells name brand recognition, not drugs.

>>55174584
In the age of google it's impossible for me to demonstrate to the entire board that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to economics or what you're larping about, but I'm drawing satisfaction from pointing it out to you anyway. Thanks for trying hard!

There's five people, and the baker has enough food for two people.

If he charges the same price as always, one of two things happens - the food is distributed approximately at random (whoever gets in line first), or the person who buys it resells it (scalps) to the highest bidder.

If the baker raises prices, then he earns that profit rather than the scalper, and he's incentivized to bake more bread - even if he has to work overtime or buy the ingredients at retail markups- because he's earning tremendous profits. Other bakers will see the high prices and also come in to town to get in on the action - gladly taking on shipping and other costs - until prices restabilize.

The entire point of capitalism is that it's the best way to allocate limited resources. You can't make there be five loaves of bread no matter what, so the best way to allocate them is to the highest bidder, as that will in turn cause more bread to be available.

One rich person might buy both loaves of bread, which would be bad, as that doubles the number of lives lost. So restrictions on what each individual can purchase are reasonable.

>>55175027
>There's five people, and the baker has enough food for two people.
Then 3 people die, unless your information is false, and its more like
>There is storage of food for 2 people, for the winter. Unless somebody hunts, or forages during this harsh season, 3 people will die of malnutrition and starvation
>The baker has already substituted flour with bark, and can't push it further, unless he wants to make non edible food
Remember: Money is irrelevant

File: World-Poverty-Since-1820.png (316KB, 3000x2139px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 3000x2139px

>>55173511
Sorry for defending the greatest economic system ever tried and the single greatest force for good of the 19th and 20th centuries

>>55175027
>The entire point of capitalism is that it's the best way to allocate limited resources.
Capitalism assumes you are in a position of grand systems(low nobility with manpower for hundred at the least), and can engage in meaningful economic activity.
Which again means you are not in a system of limited resources, but limited time constraints.
So its suddenly no longer about resource allocation, but about allocation resources in a system of surplus. Which again means capitalism is meaningless on the level of a individual, because the individual do not have access to surplus of resources.

Which again mean: The activities of capitalism are limited by trade routes, resources, diversity in agriculture, means of preservations, technology. And all of those are affected by things like City States vs Feudalism, and even more so Industrialization.
So for there to be meaningful capitalism, it has to be coupled with Industrialization.


>>55173511
Capitalist apoligists are fine
Failing to understand the difference between Capitalism and Industrialization? Thats cancer on the other hand.
So is failing to understand why Communism(flat state production to deal with lack of surplus) failed to do anything productive once it hit its third generation of leaders, and collapsed within 5 generations.

>>55169601
Learn about economics. The high price of grain signals to foreign traders to rush in and undercut the seller. This brings more grain into the region and helps with the famine.

>ctrl-f 'intent'
>>55171322
>guess i don't need to be here, he's got it down.

>>55174247
Or he cornered the market within walking distance. Then again, upping bread prices 16x sounds like a very good way to end up on the guillotine.

>>55169601
Better that a man and his family might live, than another man enjoy an extra few hours, days or weeks worth of income for little to no extra work. Better to see the first man and his family in better health than to see the other man one or two trifle luxuries. If the merchant could benefit so much as to justify another man's starving, possibly to death, then it is hard to believe he was not willing to merely work a little harder to achieve those ends which make his profit benefit him so much by his own means. In which case, how could he be so lazy in the first place, yet still call his profit equal in worth to another man's great suffering?
And this is only weighing the merchant's profit against just one person or one family going without, when a famine would insist it is nearly a whole countryside, if not more.
Of course, food aught to be rationed out if there is such a dirth that someone will inevitably starve. And in defense of the merchant, there is no professional onus upon him to be capable of rationing food, much less executing such a plan. However, those who espouse free market as justification for greed without remorse have forgotten that free market causing humanity to flourish is predicated upon humanity striving for balance. A lack of understanding or forethought can bring everything crashing to a hault. Willfully giving away too freely can drive down value, and others can suffer greatly for it, and for something to become overvalued simply because those who hold and produce it are too miserly to part with it for what is a fair price for comparable resources or services is theother side of the same coin. They are undivorceable from eachother as consequences of man collectively being unfit to measure out his labors, whether by ability or by virtue. And while this coin is an inescapable consewuence of imbalance, free market is but one of many available courses we can place ourselves upon.

File: true lawful evil.jpg (95KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 750x600px

>>55169601
Unless the guy does this then no, it aint good/evil law/chaos to change prices based on available goods

>>55175174
>if you live with 2$ per day you aren't considered "living in poverty"
Do you really believe you can have a decent standard of living with 60$/month in any non shithole country ?

>>55175947
It is therefore imperative that free market be coordinated, even engineered in order to be stable. To think otherwise is akin to forgetting that having oxygen present is essential to allow breathing to be useful. It is akin to forgetting the vast amounts of planning that have almost always gone into a thriving sustainable economy. Much like the merchant, there is no professional onus upon us as individuals to grasp these concepts, much less to defend or even champion them. However, we are like children in every breath with which we say we have no good cause to be better than our former selves and our baser instincts, rather than to look to the mistakes of our collective past to drive many of the successes of our future.
Therefore, the only causes for which the merchant may be compelled to raise his prices as highly as he believes he can get away with could only be either greed, or ill will, for even indifference would be a greater service to the greater good of humanity. If one should venture to know in what way he can manipulate his prices, he already expresses the ability to measure out that same product in balance to supply and demand in at least some capacity. It is hard to believe he might defend himself by saying he has risen prices more than necessary for morally sound reasons. Any man who says such would be more sincere if he were to say that he is uncompelled by any moral onus, although his reasons for that failure can be as varied as the many people who share his deficiency.
Free Market is moral? Free Market is good? Pah! And burn the man who says that the legislations of man which allow free market to exist are themselves justification for his own predation on his fellow man during times of despair. For he has done nothing great, virtuous, or good, and everything low, despicable and dishonest by laying his culpability for his own immorality at the feet of an absense of written consequence. Such men have chosen wealth over worth.

>>55176325
TL;DR
Immoral actions do not become moral or even ambiguous simply by being couched in Free Market. Free Market does not offer adequate safeguard from the consequences of greed and other forms of moral repugnance, therefore conscious human consideration is necessary to keep it in check.

>>55175947
>>55176325
>>55176514
aka; free markets is bads, try Comunism™! Now without Stalin

File: 1477813676388.jpg (124KB, 913x900px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 913x900px

>>55169601
>Is it Evil?
No.
There is no moral obligation of ceding your private property.
Similarly, he is not exploiting anyone: he is offloading the increased costs on his customers.
It's how the market operates.


>Is it Neutral?
Yes.

Is it Good?
No. There is no voluntary act of kindness involved.

The fact this thread is still up proves that /tg/ and alignments are both useless.

File: (you) br.png (50KB, 1318x280px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1318x280px

>>55175947
He'll have increased costs. He won't be enjoying extra profit, he'll be saving himself from going under and will be able to continue producing bread.

>lol costs? nah man just like feed people
And posts like this, folks, is how ukrainians starved to death.

>>55177495
>private property
>skeletons
delete this post it's too spooky

>>55177654
I've got a bone to pick with you, Stirner.

>>55172755
Exactly. The important part here is not imperfect information; none of us are gods. The important thing is that there *is* an "actual right thing," a Good which we can aspire to reach, even if we don't always know it or fall short. Moral relativism isn't saying that shortages of information lead to people disagreeing on whether an act is good or evil- it's denying that the concept of Good has any meaning to begin with. It's saying that all viewpoints are equally valid and that morality is just an opinion.
This is a massive gap in world view, and those who believe in moral realism and those who believe in moral relativism can never see eye to eye on a great many things. There's a foundational difference that simply runs too deep.

>>55177855
just because it's good and right doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do.

I could tackle the guy robbing the bank with the gun, and save the day. But that would end up with me likely being shot dead.

>>55173511
t. College liberal from their macbook

Capitalism and Communism are extremes. Neither extreme works in reality.

Take, for example, Venezuela; A wealthy nation that went full socialist and is now a penniless ruin. They played an extreme and lost.

While the US isn't full capitalist, that 'economic disaster' back in 2008 or so is an example of a flaw in that system. Some unregulated assholes held the economy hostage for a while, or at least convinced people they did. A bit of government intervention keeps things running, since the invisible hand can only push so hard, and greed can push a whole lot harder.

>>55178225
>went full socialist
But they didn't. They went heavy on the red's playing book, but they didn't go full socialist, that would imply the state seized the means of production.

>>55169601
If he raises it at about the same amount that other traders do, and people can pay him, he would be neutral.

If he willingly gives his stock to the needy, he would be good.

If he refuses to give grain to someone who will die without it, while still having enough to ensure the survival of his family and himself, however, he is evil.

>>55178468
I guess everyone in the world that isn't donating some spare money to the third world is Evil.
True Neutral isn't the most realistic alignment, turns out it's Evil.
The ones who actually spend their spare money on luxuries are extra Evil.

>>55169601
Op demonstraits the inherent evil of capitalism

>>55177977
Depends how far you are, from which direction, how sneaky you are about it, and if his friends are willing to shoot at him to get you off him

>>55178468
That definition of evil is pretty awful. By your definition, every human being in the first world is evil for not donating any excess money they have to the third world.

Evil requires deliberate action that would detriment a person in order to be considered evil. Not giving the bread to a needy person is not an evil act, as he is treating the starving person the same as a non starving person; treating two people the same regardless of their station or circumstance is the definition of equality, which is considered by most to be a virtue.

Now, if the shop owner was giving out free bread all day, then decided to not give out the free bread to the starving family, that is evil.

>>55178468
This definition sucks. Can't believe someone actually thinks like this.

File: Inevitables.jpg (56KB, 400x414px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 400x414px

>>55169601
It's chaotic because due to his actions the prices no longer resemble those in the core rules. Expect the Inevitables responsible for economy to arrive swiftly and deal him death.

>>55169703
>immoral to help the poor
This has always been retarded, and is in fact modern revisionist history to make companies and Rich people feel better about fucking over their employees. Shaped during Christendom and Ayn Rand 'Objectivitsm'

Poor houses have been a thing since forever. A strong middle class has been a sable of market growth. Hell older religious sects were all about making sure everyone had enough to continue farming and working. This practice required a smoothing over of famine times. which meant lending a hand to those who got dicked by bad harvests.

>>55169832
Yup, >>55169784 is a perfect illustration of what happens when you take Econ 101 and nothing beyond that point.

Economists often defend the use of simplifying assumptions and abstract examples in introductory economics via analogies to the simplifying assumptions and abstract examples used in introductory physics, but for some reason nobody walks out of Physics 101 believing that the world actually consists of frictionless surfaces and perfect vacuums, while plenty of people walk out of Econ 101 believing that the simple models they've learned are unimpeachable descriptions of reality.

File: paranoia.jpg (42KB, 248x320px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 248x320px

>>55175450
Yes This is how a system of barter says the region. And it's best intended function. The good regions of harvests spill over and sell into the others. and when that region has a bad harvest it goes the opposite.

I think we can all understand where capitalism can work pretty good, but can utterly fail the individual in times of mass crisis. The modern problem is not a issue of limited food but what to do with it.

Honestly We've never before had this problem of mass wealth gap. Wealth measurement in times past could be lost more readily. Food spoils. Coins is lost. Records and countries lost. The lost of currency and wealth kept the value and distribution to manageable levels. You traded because if you didn't you'd lose it and have nothing at the end of the day. Now at days with modern banking, all coin never need be lost. and never need even be 'real'

As fucked up as Fight Club as a movie was It's ideas of credit and wage slave. Also seen in dystonia futures and Shadow run. It did have a point. Even if it is an over simplification of a complex problem. The problem we are facing today and tomorrow is not one of nuclear winter but one of What do we do with our Class turning into a Caste system

File: 1497924911577.png (163KB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 785x757px

>>55169659

>>55174247
>there's a total famine
>better milk whoever can afford it dry and leave the rest to starve to death
If there's a TOTAL famine, and he's price gouging a ridiculous amount, then it'd cross over to evil.

>>55175450
>grain sellers realize they can collude to keep the cost of grain high and all make more profits
What now?

Raising prices in a time of famine seems like a good way to end up dead anon. The desperate starving poor will lynch you before they let their family die.

>>55172233
Look at those dead eyes holy shit.

Jebeni šiptari.

File: Grapes of Wrath.jpg (625KB, 1600x1169px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 1600x1169px

>>55169601
I see your bet, and raise you with this.

There is a terrible dust storm and famine in a part of the land, causing a migration of poor farmers to greener fields.

In the green lands, the harvest is good and plentiful. But the famine has caused waves through their markets making prices plummet. The farmers of green fields themselves now risk losing their business. There is too much fruit, and not enough money to buy them.

To try and raise the prices, the farmers must destroy the food. Doing this will reduce the amount of food, and make it more valuable. This they do despite the hungry masses at their doorstep, burning huge mountains of food while people starve before the flames. If they do not do this, they will lose their farms and go hungry like the rest.

Where is the evil here?

File: uru-fruit-burning-600x375.jpg (118KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 600x375px

>>55181779
"The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth.

They really should have given the fruit away for free anyway as a write-off, and then once all the free fruit was eaten, return to selling them now that supply was low and demand was higher

>>55169601
>A starving peasant steals from the trader to feed his family
Is this an Evil act?

>>55169659
This guy is right, and it's illegal in America home of democracy and capitalism

>>55181843
Yes, but a fairly low one in the scale of things.

>>55181857
if we go by DnD standards, it depends on the god you follow/of the area.

There is no malice in the act, only survival. More chaos then evil since breakin da law.

>>55169659
https://youtu.be/h9QEkw6_O6w

>>55172695
We already have a great shorthand: "Right "and "wrong", "heroic" and "villainous".

>>55181872
Alright, but consider this: when returning from stealing the bread, he crosses a trolley track. On the other track is five people, and a trolley is rushing towards them. Is it evil to pull a switch that switches the trolley's tracks and ends with the death of the one thief, rather than the five?

>>55182049
No.

>>55169601
Failing to raise the price is an evil act. If the region is willing to bear the higher price, it will signal to traders from other regions to bring their food for trade. The higher price will bring more food. The normal price will provide no incentive for traders to enter the local market. A lower price will drive local traders away.

>>55169601

The correct answer is that it depends entirely upon the setting and how it handles morality.

>>55181779
How do they lose their farms? Shit is growing great, just eat what you grow and sell/trade excess in exchange for labor/other goods.

Is some BBEG going to magically snatch their land out from under them if they don't earn X money? There's the evil.

File: 1500775151710.png (194KB, 802x893px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 802x893px

>>55169601
If he raises prices, then will some go hungry while others still have plenty?

>>55182154
Labourers and officers will come to take their farms, as compensation because they cannot pay their debts for seed and initial investment.

Those labourers and officers are ordered by the landlord, because he owns the land the farmers work on, and if the land is bad he must take and sell it or the local Bank will take it from him for his debt.

The local bank must take the land from the landlord, who is in loan to them for his land, which he planned to make a profit from his farmers. If the bank fails to do this, and loses profit, the banking guild will close them down.

If the banking guild fails to make sure their banks make a profit by whatever means they can, the whole guild will collapse. Because they made an investment in the land, and the land is bad everywhere, and they must not collapse.

Perhaps the evil is in the land itself?

>>55182219
If he doesn't raise prices, will he limit the sale of food to each individual so that no one who can pay will go hungry?

>>55182260
>>55182219
If there is not enough food, how shall the merchant determine who lives and who dies? By selling only to those who can afford to pay?

>>55182013
>Libertarian propaganda

TRASHED! Why don't the generator distributors just allocate more generators to the disaster stricken are just for the fact that the demand is booming there, why does there need to be massive profits to be gained from each unit for to be reasonable? I don't think generators fly off the shelves in normal situations anyway.

>>55182219
>>55182260
>>55182274
Why is it when posed with difficult questions, no one seems eager to volunteer an answer?

>>55182312
>>55182320
I don't think this discussion belongs here.

>>55180739
how is that related in anyway to traditional games? Or are you just sad no one cares about you? At least shadowrun is a game, maybe you should go back to /pol

In fact this entire thread is turning into /pol thrash. MODs where are you?

>>55169601
>a trader, knowing there has been a poor harvest, raises the price of grain, breaking no law
>breaking no law
It haram under Shariah do this, thus breaking the law, an hence being an Evil act.

So then, who shall be fed and who shall go hungry?

The nobility?
The merchant?
The farmer?

The nobility claims that it exists to protect the people. But protect the people from whom? Other nobility? Themselves?

The merchant claims that he exists to facilitate trade. What labor does he contribute in this endeavor? Transportation? Storage? What service does he offer that the people can not provide for themselves?

All the bread will be sold regardless. Failing to increase the price is actually bad - the first to arrive will purchase all the bread, screwing everyone else. And high prices will incentivize more bread to be imported by industrial traders. In addition to raising prices, it is vital to ration the bread so one person cannot buy it all.

>>55182443
The nobility exists to resolve disputes over the use and distribution of resources.

The merchant exists to ensure that resources are produced and distributed in the most efficient way possible.

>>55181779
Why was the Great Depression so fucked up?

There was a big supply of food
There was a MASSIVE demand for it
And yet nobody got rich and nobody got the food

How come economics just suddenly collapsed and the food couldn't be sold?

>>55182449
my second query addresses this
>>55182260

>>55182507
There wasn't a massive demand. Demand only counts if people have money to buy the supply. There's lots of poor people out there who never factor into demand.

People wanting things =/= demand (people wanting things who also have money).

If nobody can buy anything, then there's no demand, even if millions starve

>>55182507
From what I understand, combines purchased far too much land and produced far too much food, resulting in the retail cost of food being lower than the cost of production.

>>55169703
From my point of view it is the Jedi who are actually evil

>>55182547
This drove most independent farmers to sell their land as they could not make a profit. After the combines had secured their monopoly, they refused to lower the price of food below the cost of production. Most rural communities couldn't afford to pay their prices, leading to a mass exodus to the cities.

>>55181830
>They really should have given the fruit away for free anyway as a write-off,
Not a bad idea morals-wise but it doesn't help your situation much. You still have to pay the bank at the end of the month or you lose your farm.
>then once all the free fruit was eaten, return to selling them now that supply was low and demand was higher
Demand wold be the same, and if you were the only farmer giving away your food, it would be everyone else who would profit, not you. Economicaly, people giving away things is a symptom of high supply and has no effect on supply itself.

>>55182608
The combines gobbled each other up as they began to default on their capital loans. Those with the access to the most capital drove the other combines to sell, until only a handful of very wealthy families controlled all agricultural produce in the U.S.

Given time, most economist theorize that the market would have stabilized eventually, with most farmers selling their land and acquiring new jobs in city industry.

Unfortunately, it destroyed Jefferson's dream of an agrarian economy based around small, independent farmers growing their own crops and owning their own land and businesses.

Jesus Christ, so many people assign all sorts of extra baggage to alignment.

Good is altruism. If you would be willing to inconvenience yourself for the sake of others that aren't particularly important to you, that is good.
Evil is cruelty. You do not care about others, unless they are useful or personally dear. Whether or not a Joe Schmoe gets harmed by your desires is of no consequence to you (or, possibly preferred, if you're sadistic).
Neutrality is neither cruel nor altruistic. You would not go out of your way to help somebody, but you avoid causing others undue harm.

It was basically a story of a highly unethical business practice, uses your capital to mass produce vast quantities of produce, undercutting your opponents prices by selling them below market value, then purchasing your competitors assets at depreciated prices.

It left millions of people homeless and starving. The government was forced to step in and deliver emergency services, which costs the taxpayers what would today be billions of dollars in welfare subsidies.

>>55182449
>it is vital to ration the bread so one person cannot buy it all.
but anon, isn't this is a market control? Isn't that a socialist policy?

>>55169732
>The only ones starving were the merchants
Oy vey, I'm gonna start annuda bolshevik revolution and put those uppirty kulaks in their place

>>55172770
>But why?
Partly because your customers and employees are shits and need to be kept in line, and partly because businesses are amoral.

>>55172695
>What if, unbeknownst to the player, the warlock just wants to free mortals of the tyranny of the gods?
The player can't be judged by things he cannot possibly understand
>You slay the goblin
>Little did you know, that goblin was going to throw a javelin at a king's caravan 3 years from now, killing the evil king who has been forcing a war for the past 10 years
>You fall

>>55169601
>Is this an Evil act?
Supply and demand, mate. It's just as "evil" as gravity, so I'd deem it a neutral act. It could debatably be a good act if the merchant undercut himself and sold grain at a lower price, but then that could also be evil if it means he's sending his children to bed without food or good clothes.

This is also why Robespierre standardized the price of grain in France for the duration of a famine, and wrote a public apology for interfering with the free market. Nigga really was serious about his ideals BUT WHY THE FUCK DID HE HAVE TO RUIN EVERYTHING WITH THE CULT OF THE SUPREME BEING HOLY FUCKING SHIT THE JURING PRIEST SYSTEM WAS FINE JUST FUCK OFF ALREADY

File: Farming_.jpg (3MB, 3064x4600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3064x4600px

>>55182243
>>55182608
>>55182650
You are essentially in retarded land.
If things get that bad, and you are already inside a enforced capital state? You say "fuck it", and start paying off the loan with your production, and you claim it at marked cost.
Now, there is one exceptions: You are in a country where the currency is so strong, there is laws forcing you to trade in that currency.

There is also several bonus flaws of the situation such as:
1. Nobody is willing to buy ripe fruit, to refine it. Even if Alcohol is banned, there is many other products to refine the fruits into
2. Livestock doesn't need to be slaughtered, and fruit doesn't need to be dumped. Most of it can be grinded into Fertilizer, and fermented a little. The act of burning/dumping, is basically malice at this point
3. Mechanical production methods increase yield, but also upfront cost. Which is what the prices are scaled against. Cartelling to avoid selling at loss is reasonable, but failure to do anything with the overproduction is a moral failure of great magnitude.
4. And by extension, this is also a failure of the marked forces that is next to the farmers, who failed to negotiate anything with ripe bulk overproduction, and turn it into anything.

Also why say "Combine" instead of being more honest and say "Agriculture Trade Union of US Depression Farmers".
I assume that is the idea.
I really assume that is the point.

>>55169601
>If the trader were not to raise prices, he would be putting himself, his family and his business - and thus his own employees and their families - at risk, which would be an Evil act.
Wrong. It would be entirely dependent on his motives.

If he wanted his family to suffer it's Evil.
If he is set in his prices and refused to go back on them, it's Lawful.
If he wants to ensure the poor can eat, it's Good.
If he has no comprehension of economics it's a Neutral act.

If he's Chaotic, he keeps the grain for himself and waits out the famine.

File: we just don't know.gif (1002KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

1002KB, 250x251px

>>55169601
I mean, he had to pay more for the flour right?
He's probably going to be earning less than in a normal year because with the same mark-up most of his clients wouldn't be able to afford his bread.
It doesn't seem like a great time to increase your mark-up. I don't see a way for the mercant to take advantage of this situation. Bread is a spoilable, so it's not like he could have had a surplus stored up from last year that have suddenly increased in value.

>>55183973
Unbeknownst to OP he has actually committed an evil act. Which is to attribute market forces and negative consequences to thinking minds taking advantage of the situation.
The farmer has to sell what little grain he has for more money, the baker has to sell his bread for more money to compensate for the higher grain cost. Neither is making more profit than before. But with so many steps in the value chain that gets obscured and people see the shopkeeper as taking advantage of them, which probably ends in violence and murder.

>>55169601
Lawful Neutral. He's following the letter of the law and profiting off of it, but not creating problems. If he were the cause of the famine, that would be Evil. If he were helping out in some way, it would be Good.

>>55169601
That's not evil.
Gouging prices for bread so that you can afford to build a sludge factory to dump sludge into the grand canyon is evil.

>>55169601
it is not an evil act

he has the right to charge as much as he wants for his goods

>>55181226
locals make their own grain to undercut the colluders

>>55169703
But charging too much for basic necessities has been considered a crime in many far older societies, the most obvious example being ancient Rome. If anything the 19th century phenomena where companies could force their workers to pay exorbitant prices by limiting them to company stores was a blip in the general trend of government/free market dictating food prices.

>>55173580
No, the furrow with Rome burning is that apparently Nero's goons stopped the volunteer firefighters (and the slaves whose masters "volunteered" them as firefighters) from doing their jobs.

>>55183566
>use to be paladin, fell because I killed a goblin.
>That's bullshit, become anti-paladin.
>Take over the kingdom.
>Three years later
>Gets shanked by goblin with a javelin.
>mfw

>>55182650
How are other farmers profitting more if thei food is being burned instead of eaten by the poor?

>>55169601
You need to understand that when alignment is a thing, 99% of people fall in the neutral zone. Some of them lean evil, but that's like saying a pigeon leans towards a tyrannosaurus. People who fall outside that zone are the exception, not the rule.

>>55182219
It will happen whether he raises the price or not. If you don't donate your cash right now, will someone starve and die?
The answer is yes.
If he raises his price he is, however, mantaining his production intact and signaling to others about the conditions of bread value, allowing more bread to reach the people in the long term.

File: it has become apparent that you need to be removed from the locality by force.jpg (134KB, 1080x809px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1080x809px

>>55182312
>Why dont those capitalists pigs sell their product at a price that *I* want?!

>>55182443
The merchant is part of the people, he's just the guy who poured his resources into this.
Realizing you weren't the one to do this doesn't suddenly mean he's "taking away something from the people", it just means you are stupid.
Is socialism really about envy? Just find a niche and fill it, you prick.

>>55185384
>Is socialism really about envy?
Yes

>>55173596
It's nice to know the RNC is looking at this and saying "We need to rewrite our rules so we can do that too."

That bread looks delicious

>>55169601
If it results in people starving to death for the sake of personal greed, that's pretty evil. The big issue is that the grain would be a necessary resource and there would be far less of an issue we're this a glass or paper shortage instead.

>>55169601

This assumes that anyone will sell to the merchant; with a poor harvest, they may have to keep what little they have to themselves, for sustenance, and for seed for the next year's crop.

Eat your goddamn money, Capitalist!

>>55170032

Hanging price-gouging merchants up by their balls and using them for sling practice is also a survival trait.

>>55169658
>Profiting off other's misfortune is not evil
Libertarian """ethics""", everyone

>>55178449
I don't get why this is like the standard defence "argument" we get every time someone points at countries going communist and failing horribly to thrive and eventually disappearing.

>Russia!
>Not communist because...
>Cuba
>Not communist because...
>China
>Not communist because...
>Venezuela
>Not communist because...

File: merchant.jpg (1MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1200px

>>55189458
If you don't raise the prices of your product in times of emergency then the first asshole to walk into your store can buy all your shit, then resell it everyone else at a much higher price, thus leading to the same results but with you being the one not benefitting from it.

File: wolf.png (950KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

950KB, 1680x1050px

>>55169601
Also, I know not everyone here has seen Spice and Wolf, but I think most people would consider Kraft Lawrence a true neutral character, and he's definitely the sort of guy to raise his prices during a famine. A merchants gotta merch.

File: Sockandstock_degree.jpg (20KB, 300x416px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x416px

>>55191768
>Doing import
>In a state where merchants are allowed to BUY AND SELL import gods in the same stay
Nah. At which point if you stab a merchant scouting your shop, and try to purchase your stock at marked price, you stab him
Has happened a lot of times in history.

>>55191863
B is objectively the best

>Alignment arguments
This is why I don't play D&D, and why none of you should either.

>>55188657
>Price gouging
"Price gouging is a pejorative term referring to when a seller spikes the prices of goods, services or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair, and is considered exploitative, potentially to an unethical extent."

If there is a shortage of wheat he is not being unreasonable by raising prices.
You should fuck off and die of starvation like the rest of the commies.

>>55179543
I don't know that I've ever seen any Dunning-Kruger deficient so thoroughly destroyed, goddamn.

File: a116b819.png (329KB, 400x543px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 400x543px

>>55191958
Can we once and for all OFFICIALLY designate which other RPG we are supposed to play that's not D&D? I'd like to have a definitive answer.

File: 993.gif (1MB, 800x667px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x667px

>>55191130
What? I'm not a leftist, buckaroo.
My point is that they didn't even need to seize the means of production to ===collapse===.
It wasn't full socialism because they didn't even get to be come socialists, they didn't seize everything and start up their central economy.
They ===collapsed=== before even getting done with it.

>>55169601
Here is the issue: the supple of grain on the market just went down and the demand for market grain just went up. It is rare that there is just one grain trader for a well defined area and if there is a crisis other traders will stop over. Farmers from outside the area or inside the area with a meaningful harvest will increase the price they sell to the traders at this time also, to to make sure they get their money for a "good year".

Every single trader is faced with reduced profits if they do not add their increased cost to the end buyer.

>>55169601
Price gouging is a healthy market behavior in response to local shortages.

As the supply of an object decreases, the price of that object increases (assuming that demand stays the same). As the price of that object increases, suppliers are more incentivized to ship stock to that area. Thus an area that needs more of an object will get it.

This is especially helpful in emergency situations. Price increases of bottled water, medical supplies, and food all encourage those same goods to be delivered to areas of need in an emergency.

>>55169601

Yes and no. The trader will adjust his price according to the markets demand. Otherwise he risks ruining his business. Poor harvest means less food, meaning food prices will naturally go up regardless of what he does as an individual. If he keeps the price exactly the same some other merchant will buy it all and sell it again(quite possibly marked up through the roof.) If he raises the prices to the point where noone can buy his product then he loses money, especially as its a perishable. If he raises it to the point that only nobles can buy it at those prices he won't be able to sell enough.

desu I can't really explain it all that well. The merchant will always adjust the price of aware according to the demand. It's more neutral than evil.

Now if a merchant was the CAUSE of the famine so he could sell his wares and ensured he had a monopoly, then yes that would be evil.

>>55176715
No it still has Stalin in there. How do you expect him to force the man with the goods to give them away? Force must be used to separate a person from their goods. He just enacts the idea of some morally greater force to do so.That is the reason why there has never been any examples of "true communism". Because ultimately there is no way to administrate a system without force. At least capitalism takes that into account and tries to balance itself. A communist government inevitable becomes hypocritical and corrupt.