Is it immoral to attempt to run a rival out of business?

[Doctor Ludwig]

I was wondering what you thought of this.

 

Lets give a hypothetical

 

Trader A makes X Amount of money, trader B makes Y amount of Money. X>Y.

Trader A's prices are lower than trader B's. Trader B decides to lower his prices to be lower than Trader A's. Trader A realizes the advantage and lowers prices again, hoping B will do the same. He does and this continues for some time until trader B is no longer making profits from his sales, and has to leave trading.

 

Is it immoral to run someone out of business, or should some barrier be alotted?

[apollothelion]

I honestly don't think that'll work in trading. Because if he's not making profits, then he'll just change tactics.

[Faegem]

While there is competition, there's also a limit on how low item prices can go.

[Kimika-chan]

Here's the flaw in this.

 

Trader B is not an idiot

Trader A keeps lowering his buyout to outbid him

Trader B is smart so he buys out the other one on the market and brings it back to market price

Trader A cries in a corner

[Prof. TrollDemo Ph.D]

Everyone has different morals, so no, if you think it's fine; it's fine, if you think it shouldn't be done; then don't do it.

[λngelღмander]

Morality is subjective, so I'm not really sure what you're asking us. If you're asking for the difference between right and wrong in this case, there is no right or wrong here. If you feel comfortable doing it, and it's not illegal, then do it. It may be a bit unethical but Rockefeller did it and so can you. Though it won't work in tf2 trading lol

[TheWiz]

What Apollo and Lila said, the only way your scenario could happen is if Trader B only has one item that is being traded. And it would be unlikely Trader A would constantly be buying more of that item, just to try to keep forcing Trader B to drop prices. Trader B could easily enough just wait it out without dropping prices while Trader A is running a deficit.

*Edit: And Trader B is not locked into a specific item to sell like some companies in the real world (like the example Angelmander mentioned)

[Doctor Ludwig]

What Apollo and Lila said, the only way your scenario could happen is if Trader B only has one item that is being traded. And it would be unlikely Trader A would constantly be buying more of that item, just to try to keep forcing Trader B to drop prices. Trader B could easily enough just wait it out without dropping prices while Trader A is running a deficit.

*Edit: And Trader B is not locked into a specific item to sell like some companies in the real world (like the example Angelmander mentioned)

That hadn't come to mind. Thank you for clarifying that. But bear in mind that I am not asking if this MIGHT happen, but on your opinions on whether or not it is ethical.

[Doctor Ludwig]

Here's the flaw in this.

 

Trader B is not an idiot

Trader A keeps lowering his buyout to outbid him

Trader B is smart so he buys out the other one on the market and brings it back to market price

Trader A cries in a corner

I do not find that likely, as people would try to buy from the one with the lowest price. Your argument makes the assumption that market price is favoured over profitable price.

[Prof. TrollDemo Ph.D]

I do not find that likely, as people would try to buy from the one with the lowest price. Your argument makes the assumption that market price is favoured over profitable price.

 

Pretend Trader B sells at market price, which happens to be the lowest price out there for his items

Trader A undercuts him, making him the lowest price

Trader B notices, and buys all trader As lower priced stock

Trader B still makes his profit at his own price (market price)

People can't buy from Trader A (lower than market price) if Trader B buys all Trader As stock then sells it at his own price (market price)

 

Unless Trader A has a continually cheaper supplier, he will run himself out of business.

[Doctor Ludwig]

Pretend Trader B sells at market price, which happens to be the lowest price out there for his items

Trader A undercuts him, making him the lowest price

Trader B notices, and buys all trader As lower priced stock

Trader B still makes his profit at his own price (market price)

People can't buy from Trader A (lower than market price) if Trader B buys all Trader As stock then sells it at his own price (market price)

 

Unless Trader A has a continually cheaper supplier, he will run himself out of business.

This makes more sense. Thank you.