Do rich people have more leverage and 'unfair' advantage in a marketplace? Absolutely. No one denies that in a used car transaction that the wealthy owner of the car doesn't have the same need to make the sale, and the poor person - who needs an affordable car to get to work - has more to lose if the sale doesn't happen. The wealthy have the power and privilege.
That said, the stupidest and most ignorant conclusion is that poor people should be put in a different marketplace than rich people. That they shouldn't trade together. Years ago, an NGO leader told me that poor people should repair poor peoples stuff, and rich people should repair rich peoples stuff... that identity should define the legality of the transactions.
It is a kind of stupid that could only occur in a marketplace contaminated by "identity politics". Instead of talking about the transaction, and what's in the best interest of the free market participants, we are defining them as representatives of social groups. In a market where some collective guilt or social liability has been whipped into a froth such that the rich person feels liability or exposure to the idea that they have exploited the poor person in a transaction, and therefore choose to shred the car rather than allow anyone to say they sold it in a transaction, to a poor person, in a marketplace where they held the upper hand.
#360DegreeRacism is the spawn of identity politics.
 |
| Used Chevy in Poorest Rural Mexico |
