A second and final concern picks up from this point. Low, mutually accept¬able prices play a role in an economic system. But, as we have seen several times throughout this text, that economic system is itself a part of a broader social and political system. Values more at home in that social and political system can sometimes lead to an ethical rejection of low prices. Consider an example mentioned previously. A lending institution might make a decision to offer lower mortgage rates in a high-income, predominately white neighbor¬hood than it offers in a lower-income, predominately African American neigh¬borhood. Given the inequality of wealth, one could make the case that this is a prudent decision on financial grounds. But such discriminatory pricing would also be judged ethically unacceptable. Or consider pricing for such public goods as public lands, national parks, and wildlife. A true market price, based on the willingness of consumers to pay, might well see national parks sold to development companies, and endangered species sold to big-game hunters. Market price, alone, would not adequately reflect the true value of such things. When there are social costs involved in a -transaction, costs not reflected in the. price agreed upon by the two parties to the transaction, then the price agreed to would be neither fair nor socially beneficial.