You are driving from Vegas to San Diego on a little used road and are under no time pressure. Near Barstow you come upon a luxury car stalled on the side of the road miles from civilization. The well dressed driver flags you down and asks for help. But not for a ride to a gas station but rather all the way to Los Angeles. Because if he doesn't get there in two hours, he loses a deal that is guaranteed to make him an immediate million dollars. He offers to pay you what you ask, has very big money on his person and we will stipulate that you somehow know the transaction won't be reversed.

You would take this detour for $500. But this is different, especially assuming that there is no chance he completes his deal without your help. What is the ethical amount to charge him? What would you charge?

I've seen this movie: a night with his wife, ldo.

I guess I should note that the question is an analogy to real life stuff that comes up with capitalism.

Ah. In which case, I charge him $500k and "accidentally" drive him the wrong way while I surreptitiously short whatever company's stock is going to be affected when he doesn't show up to his deal (on 10x margin, with my newly found $500k obvs).

lol d2.

Serious answer, is you charge him as much as you can reasonably negotiate. What ever deal he is doing for $1MM is not priced on any type utilitarian basis.

Since you say he would "make $1MM" I will assume you are referring to his profit. We simply cannot answer if you are referring to just the Gross Amount because his margin may be less than 1% or 89%???

You can bet he used every bit of the leverage he had to maximize his profit and share so if we assume that $1MM is all profit, you have perfect knowledge that he is going to lose it all and no one else has time to show up to save him and the deal, then I would ask to be his 50/50 partner on it. Yup half of the profit. He loses all of it without me, so getting half is still a great win for him.

Then settle for about 25% where the sticker shock is not so severe for him.

Most people are sharp enough to realize that this is price gouging hypothetical.

Giving you 95% of the profit is better than the alternative, which is a kick in the nuts.

I was going to say using the dildo I keep in my glove box, but to each his own I guess.

Dunno, I think my second response pretty much sums up capitalism (at least as practiced by investment banks), and has nothing to do with price gouging.

I'd take the $500 (probably less) and accept being called immoral for not taking far more to give to charity

I think he would likely walk away for only 5%. Not worth his time to be gauged like that.

The line of negotiation requires he also still maintains enough of a win.

The reason these type of hypotheticals are sometimes useful is that when there is a debate about an issue where the conclusion depends partially on how one would answer the question it would be helpful if it was clear whether the disagreement stems from a difference of opinion about the hypothetical or from something else. Or you could go in the opposite direction and try to come up with the hypothetical that best aligns with the key aspect of a disagreement about a complex subject.

So professional athletes and movie stars should ask for much less money because they would gladly do their jobs for much less than they are getting, rather than do other jobs they are qualified to do?

Same person advertises for a driver. I'd want more than if he was stranded and needed help.

Negotitions under duress (if that's still the right word) are different even if neither party caused it. It's the same reason I argue for a UBI so that the negotiation between employer and employee are founded on fair exchange freely entered into.

Of course I'm also a poor excuse for a capitalist. I find the idea of getting the most we can from a situation to be quite unpleasant. i dont do it and try quite hard to avoid dealing with those who do. (Poker aside of course)

Hadn't meant this to tie this in with my other OP but you did it nicely. But since you did, I would be interested in knowing if you can justify this stance if you somehow knew the guy would never help anyone with the money you saved him. Please elaborate.

Apart from possibly refusing to drive him the whole way and just helping him to get some gas, what he is like would make no difference to me.

I dont blame other peoples values for my own. I'm a selfish git, it's all about me - do I need to justify that?

Take away duress. You just happen to be the only one who can do a job that results in the guy getting a million. Perhaps spouting bleeding heart liberal ideas and simultaneously being called a Nazi enabler.

Even if chez did have a monopoly on being a hypocrite, I doubt anyone pays him a million for it.

Don't see how that explains not asking for more, either for you or others. Unless it is simply the discomfort of spending time with him in the car after he has given you 100K or so.

As yo may have gathered, I dont care what I'm called.

But there are obviously extremes where he gets no help. I'm not helping him and then taking my cut because he is a nazi. I might slash his tyres

I oppose negotiations under duress because I think they are a bad thing.

Same answer if i can get someone else to drive and just pocket the cash less a few quid. Nothign to do with my discomfort

No. And I have no idea why you ascribed that view to me.

Agents get ten percent. I'd settle for that. Two hours for a hundred grand ? Seems like a win/win.

Yes and no. The guy's invested time and effort in this deal isn't being considered. Only the fact that he's coming into a cool million if he makes his meeting.
I'm looking at is as facilitating an integral part of the deal. Also, seems like I'm stepping into a movie plot. It won't be an easy ride so I better get my juice up front.

I think there is no instance, none, where the person going to close the $1MM profit deal did not utilize all the leverage available to him to get the best deal and terms at every turn that he had the power to get.

I cannot see why anyone here would think the person with lesser power should not do the same ....they need to be moral, or whatever?? To suggest they stand down their power and leverage??

A service provided is not just a function of the actual costs associated but is also a function of the value you provide to the other.

In this case you ARE the partner he is reliant upon to complete his task. There is no him without you, and no you without him, in terms of completing this deal.