Markets for Everything, Minaki Edition

What do you think would have happened if you just asked if anyone was willing to give you 4 eggs, and you would buy them a half-dozen box in return tomorrow? I don't think this is an good example of "Markets for everything" unless they would not have helped unless you paid them.

The real lesson of this anecdote is that there aren't markets in everything. The "sellers" in this case consider market transactions to be morally demeaning. Only when forced to accept "payment" do they agree to the demeaning transaction. They would have preferred to do a small favor.

I think you both broke the law.

- neither of you paid sales tax on the transactions with each other.

- the domestic refrigerated storage for the eggs was not government inspected or approved.

- you did not mention whether you checked Duane's ID before offering to purchase alcohol for him.

It was a transaction that risked harming government property (i.e. making you sick) that evaded taxes and potentially abetted selling alcohol to a minor. With proper enforcement of existing regulations, this kind of "neighborly favor" can be stamped out.

Jeremy, I think Mr. Henderson was in Canada at the time, so I don't know exactly what their sales tax laws are, but in the US, neither party would be required to pay sales tax.

In the US, only the final consumer is required to pay sales tax, but if any good is resold at a later date, sales tax is not paid again. For each item, sales tax should be paid only once. If an intermediate party is forced to pay sales tax, he can record that and seek a gov't refund. Either way, from the gov't perspective, it doesn't care whether Duane's wife paid all the sales tax and Mr. Henderson none or if Duane's wife paid it all at the store, sought a refund for 4 eggs and then Mr. Henderson paid the balance. As long as it gets paid.

Anyway, I approve of the overall character of your post. It made me chuckle.

I grew up in the rural Midwest and the idea that you would lack eggs at any time of the year is unthinkable to me.

I think bjk has it right. It is a friendly indicator that economic rules about raising prices in an emergency, sensible thought it might be for purposes of allocation, don't sit right with human beings.

Taking advantage of your need, even if you were perfectly willing to pay it, felt wrong to them. Similarly, most people feel that having to pay a premium in an emergency, even when willing to pay the higher price, is doing them wrong.

On another level, David indicating his willingness to pay was so "out of the norm" that it successfully indicated his desperate need. I suspect that instead of being mildly irritated by the request if he had just asked if he could borrow four ("how could someone forget eggs?"), they probably felt good about having helped someone out of a critical situation.

Chalk one up for signaling over economics :-).