[jonathankoren]

Price gouged? Don't you mean, fair market value? Price is always contingent based on the information shared between the buyer and seller.

No one would call selling a rare misprint 1978 US Quarter to a collector for $45,000 instead of 25 cents price gouging. (Maybe you would, I don't know what the going rate is. But this is literally an eBay auction price from a google search just now, so let's just say that it's not an exorbitant price.)

[koolba]

> Price gouged? Don't you mean, fair market value? Price is always contingent based on the information shared between the buyer and seller.

Since when? Buying and selling anything is always a game of imperfect information.

There’s nothing special about the buyer being a large corporation or the item being land.

[fnimick]

And shouldn't you support having as much information be available as possible, or do you want people to play games and try to hide info to raise prices on people?

[JackFr]

You've got a parcel of land. You are farming on it or renting it or doing something which generates income. Because of that, you discount your future cashflows and determine it is worth X. Disney comes along and estimates that with what they are going to do the land is worth Y, which is significantly higher than X.

If the land trades for any value between X and Y, you are both made better off by the trade.

There is nothing wrong with you trying to capture as much of Y-X as you can, similarly there is nothing wrong with Disney trying to capture as much as they can. Neither of you are "owed" the money and there is no such thing as an objectively "fair" price.

[koolba]

> And shouldn't you support having as much information be available as possible,

Nope. And arbitrary or subjective standards like that are impossible to enforce anyway.

> or do you want people to play games and try to hide info to raise prices on people?

The example cited is the reverse with the price being lower than would be demanded if the seller knew the buyer had fat pockets.

In either case, caveat emptor[1] (or in this case, caveat venditor).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor

[ryandrake]

Caveat emptor is a pretty terrible way to run a society. I'd argue if you deliberately misrepresent something as basic as who you are in a transaction in order to deceive your counterparty, that should be fraud.

[gowld]

Discrimination is also a a pretty terrible way to run a society.

[s1artibartfast]

It's not something that needs a uniform solution. Every buyer and seller can decide how much information they want and the price they want.

[jonathankoren]

Why are you encouraging imperfect information? Aren't you a fan of efficient market based solutions?