[netsp]

The premise of capitalism (especially capitalism as moral philosophy) is that if two parties come together & a transaction occurs, both walk away better off. Otherwise the transaction would not occur. Therefore, it cannot be considered immoral.

Protection against corruption/taking advantage is built in. Don't like it? Don't buy it.

[netsp]

I hope I am not being voted up because people think I'm saying nothing morally problematic is going on. I meant to offer support to the grandparent comment.

There is such a thing as an immoral yet free transaction.

[lionhearted]

Sort of agree with you - actually, I completely agree with you, just I was originally making a slightly different point.

The point was that this interaction wasn't a feature of "capitalism" - it wasn't a free and honest exchange. The seller here was pretty clearly trying to deceive and cheat people. This happens under all sorts of economic and political systems.

But here's some examples - it wasn't just selling something for more than the market rate. The seller is clearly trying to deceive/misinformative/cheat people. If you look in depth at the screenshots, it wasn't "borderline", it was pretty egregious:

The URLs and advertisements all list free download and don't make it clear that they're not officially with Firefox.

They change and mix up the pricing right next to each other, it's designed to look confusing:

"Get 3 years... only £9.98 per year"

"Get 2 years... only £0.99 per month"

Then there's this doozy:

"Signup now and join the millions of users that download files on the internet"

The order page (second to last image) says on the header, "Download FireFox 3.5 Instantly!" without explaining that the 76 pounds they're charging isn't for Firefox, it's for some membership support something-or-other.

It's like when people put ads for fake things on Craigslist. This particular instance probably isn't criminal, but it's really toeing the line on fraud - I'm pretty sure if anyone was refused their money back and went to small claims, they'd get their money back plus damages.

But again, this isn't a "capitalism" thing. Under theocracy, churches used to take money to help get your dead relatives into heaven faster. People pay large money in Africa and Eastern Europe to be smuggled across borders. Lots of bribery necessary to get things done in corrupt countries, or to have a shot to get into a Communist/Central run business or education system, where it becomes all about who you know instead of the more objective free enterprise exchanges.

Is what's going on here bad? Yes, definitely. Is it "capitalism"? Oh hell no. It's corruption and fraud. Humans sometimes try to cheat each other, again regardless of the economic and political system in place.

[netsp]

I think this is a feature (or bug) of capitalism. Capitalism (or socialism for that matter) is a hard to use term. No one agrees on its real meaning. Free is definitely a premise. Honest, I'm not sure. I think many free marketers argue that honesty is one of the emergent qualities of markets.

There is a capitalist core though. I think that core says that the non-market system (governments, societies, etc.) need to make sure that things are free. Emergent order will take care of the rest. Incentives & feedbacks will make sure (via the mechanism described above) that transactions are profitable for all parties, that they are safe & that they are otherwise ethical. Honesty is usually included in this.

Again, when I say 'usually included,' it's hard to nail down what I mean. Most people have obviously never considered this particular aspect. They use think in more general terms. But the Capitalism-as-philosophy guys (Libertarians in the US, Austrian-schoolers or Liberals some other places), would consider honesty as something that emerges, part of capitalism.

[sfnhltb]

Of course the slight problem is that the underlying axioms of capitalism/free marketism is that the only possible consumer is God, as you need to have perfect information about the entire universe so that you can make the correct transactions. When your economic system is based on the idea that omniscience is required of everyone taking part, it is impossible to make statements about how fool proof the system is.

[crc32]

I don't think this is an axiom of capitalism.

It might be an axiom of some models of capitalism. It would be very hard for an analyst to reason about a transaction if you were required to take imperfect information into account.

Interestingly, in a different model you might factor in the cost of obtaining information about the transaction; and still determine that it was more efficient for you to pay £75 than find the free Firefox.

You would still be rational. Just very rich, or perhaps extremely lazy. But you are not required to be omniscient in that model, only able to estimate the cost of obtaining the information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information