In other words, I argued that you could not say economics is secondary to ethics, or that ethics is secondary to economics, because ethics and economics are inter-dependent. I don't think you can say I made an argument for 'the primacy of economic considerations' (or for the opposite) because I was arguing against the idea of there being an inherent ranking order in the importance of economics and ethics. In short, I don't like the idea of a general rule that says one is more important than the other, however people would be inclined to rank them in practice. Hence why I came up with examples where there was a small ethical 'price' versus a large economic 'gain', to illustrate that people do not tend to be absolutists in practice, even if they are inclined to endorse absolutist statements like 'all human life is price
In the context I was talking about the issue of copyright; you seemed to be talking about all political issues in general when you said economics comes before ethics.
Ethics is the basis for a belief, economics is (one of) the ways you realise that belief.