[vinceguidry]

That place was absolutely nothing before Disney developed it. The land was worth exactly what Disney paid for it. And there was no guarantee that it would turn into what it is now. We reward business for taking risks with their money. Disney took an immense amount of it, an absolutely outlandish amount of it. They poured money into that swamp. All on the bet that people would pay through the nose to see Mickey.

[anigbrowl]

I'm not complaining about Disney making money off their investment. I'm saying that if a large company wants to make such an investment, it shouldn't dissemble by hiding behind front companies.

[vinceguidry]

They wouldn't have gotten a fair price otherwise.

[anigbrowl]

Sure they would. Fair isn't some objective measure, it's what the market decides. If multiple market participants see that one player is trying to corner the market, raising their price is fair. It can equally be argued that those swampland owners bought the land in the first place because they had a vision that it could one day host a unique commercial enterprise.

If your business strategy depends on deceiving people, what does that make you?

[vinceguidry]

> It can equally be argued that those swampland owners bought the land in the first place because they had a vision that it could one day host a unique commercial enterprise.

Heh. On swampland? The amount of money you need to do anything with it is just huge. They bought the land for exactly what others were willing to sell it for. Nothing more, nothing less. If they thought it was worth more, they would have held out for more.

[anigbrowl]

And they made a huge commercial success out of it, as you originally pointed out. None of which is responsive the point that one should not engage in misrepresentation and deception, which undermine the competitive function of markets.

[solumunus]

They would have realised it was worth more if the true demand wasn’t obfuscated.

[comfypotato]

As if any negotiating business isn’t “deceitful”.

You’re basically arguing for discrimination to be legal.

[anigbrowl]

It isn't. I can ask for what I want in a negotiation and accept or reject counter-offers, as can my counterparty. I've never set out to deceive someone in such a situation. I don't know why you're trying to equate Disney with some downtrodden minority, but it's not very persuasive.

[comfypotato]

The laws are in place in part because of discrimination. It happens to be Disney in this case.

You confirmed that you’re dishonest by omission in your example. The fact that a counteroffer exists shows that it’s not implied you were forthwith with the price/value. Making/receiving a counteroffer implies that there was deceit, it’s just culturally acceptable deceit. If negotiations were completely honest, there would never be a counteroffer. Some Native American tribes were known for this sort of negotiation where the bottom line is stated and then accepted or rejected. They were often offended, by the implied dishonesty, by European’s counteroffers.

Extended to this situation, hiding an identity because it affects the business decisions of the other party is no different. (And I won’t continue the discussion if you want to defend your assertion that Disney is morally wrong here for being dishonest by omission.)