CSNbbs

(09-30-2021 06:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 06:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 05:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 05:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 09:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I enjoy the 'this is a VERY REAL concept' --- a VERY REAL concept that has to be couched in the oh-so concrete and VERY REAL AND SUBSTANTIVE term of 'reasonable' for it to be made.

Has anyone noticed that every progressive mantra has either the word 'reasonable', or 'fair' in it? Good words to evoke an emotive response but so amazingly loose and ethereal as to be utterly worthless in practice....

Price gouging is a progressive concept?

I didn’t realize that there was such an active push for allowing businesses to charge $50 a gallon for gas or $10 for a bottle of water during a natural disaster. TIL.

Hey, Im not the one that has to continually use 'reasonable' as the underlying foundation and definition of a whole policy. Nor of one of practically every facet of being.

That seems to be the guiding principle of progressive thought on governance -- i.e. telling *everyone* what is 'reasonable', and what is 'unreasonable', what is 'fair', and what is 'unfair', what is 'equitable', and what is 'inequitable'.

I mean, that is the substantive basis for progressives for more taxes, for more wealth transfers, for trying to suppress speech, for trying to disarm the populace, for rent control, for minimum wage.... and the list goes on. Kind of the magic words for progressive issues. Like the left wing version of 'Bibbity Bobbity Boo' and *flash* Insto Presto justice for the the world, life and everything --- all be the simple incantation of one or more of the magical troika of words.

I am just noting it as the fundamental cornerstone in your VERY REAL issue of price gouging.

But those guiding principles are served on a continuously subjective and ever changing basis, of course.

To the extent that racial discrimination is 'reasonable', 'fair', and 'equitable' when such racial discrimination is in favor of certain minorities (even per you in these threads), but yet the exact same racial discrimination is 'unreasonable', 'unfair', and 'inequitable' when not in favor.

Care to tell us what is 'reasonable' and what is 'not reasonable' for this? I mean, you are the proponent of the (NOT VERY ETHEREAL, mind you) progressive standard of standards for this VERY REAL issue, so I am waiting with bated breath for this go-round on the fundamental basis of progressive thought. Not that I havent heard the 'reasonable', 'fair', 'equitable' dancing bear schtick as a rule of governance a million times before (wait, actually a million and one now, since it is your backstop rule de jour in your 'rule' of governance above).

Cant wait to hear this left wing verbal tango....

A whole lot of words to say “Yes, I support businesses price gouging people in need.”

I dont 'support' the act --- but the act of government as the determiner of price decisions on an individualized basis seems pretty fing stupid.

Especially when the rationale to judge the act is the amazingly clear (sarcasm there, lad) idea of 'reasonable'.

And I might add, in light of your rather shallow response above -- quite tiny number of words to avoid answering the basic question of "Care to tell us what is 'reasonable' and what is 'not reasonable' for this?"

And again, please tell us what is 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' for prices in those situations. Please dont avoid the query like you just did. Please dont use the follow up crutches of 'just', 'equitable', or 'fair' either.

You wield that line of demarcation like a fing sword in your rationale, so now please tell us what it is. Or is it just a knee-jerk ingrained response to wield those bases on your part?

Simple follow up question: do you support forced and mandatory charity?

And seriously lad, *you* brought up the bright line of 'reasonable' as your oh-so pithy response to the issue, now tell us what the fk that actually is (that is aside from knee jerk canned ass response). And, that is as opposed to what could be taken as a clear avoidance of trying to do so above, even when asked to do so. Just so you dont miss that query, please take this as the second time in this post, and third time overall to give us such an answer.

You got the prelude in to your verbal avoidance tango in on your last reply, I look forward to a real answer shortly. And, you will actually notice that I answered your 'avoidance' rhetorical flourish and (inaccurate) insinuation pretty much head on above, mind you.

It's not worth it to engage in anything substantive when you're foaming at the mouth from the start. It's is especially so, as you're hyper focused on trying to argue over what amounts to minutia (i.e. the exact definition of what reasonable is) so you can go into legal overdrive.

There are currently laws on the books in numerous states that criminalize price gouging. A quick google search says that the definition often changes state to state and can range from banning the imposition of "unconscionable prices" (Florida) to raising prices by more than 10% (Delaware).

https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consume...state.html

I think the government's role is to protect its citizens, and when a natural disaster strikes, it seems reasonable to me for them to impose restrictions on price increases that take advantage of the increase demand imposed by the disaster. Whether that is defined as 10% or 15% or 20% increase isn't really material to the bigger picture.

(09-29-2021 04:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 04:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 03:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 03:24 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 02:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]A storekeeper sells widgets for $2. They cost him $1.20, and his overhead is .70, so his net profit before taxes is one dime. He pays 30% (.03) in taxes.

Now Hurricane Ignacio blows into town. The storekeep raises the price of widgets to
$4.00. The government sees the $2.10 margin, and instead of 30%, they want 80%.

Who is the greedy one? I say both.

But after the hurricane passes, the storekeep drops his price back to $2. The government, due to the progressives needing money to pay for seminars on white privilege, keeps the tax rate at 80% and wants to raise it.

pretty clear where the greed is now.

The Progressive motto: you got it, we want it. It's OK, because we care about the country and you are just greedy.

Also, raising prices in an area of shortage is not necessarily bad, as it tends to direct supply to meet the shortage. Your hypothetical storekeeper gets his widgets from the overall widget market.
- If the sales price of widgets in the hurricane zone is allowed to rise, the market will naturally direct more supply to that area, thus alleviating the shortage.
- If the sales price is required to stay the same (despite the higher distribution costs) as it is in non-damaged areas, then the market will not do so., thus prolonging the shortage.
Grinding an axe against the storekeeper's supposed "greed" thus hurts -- rather than helps -- the very people the axe-grinders profess to care about.

Every economist understands this; every "progressive" does not or pretends not to.

I assume you're in favor of some sort of cap on price increases. If not, you're making an argument in support of price gouging...

If your choices are $4 for a widget or no widgets at all (because you can't replace what is sold) then you have to choose your poison. This is a lesson/discussion about the free market system.

If he just price gouges as you suggest then the guy down the street can simply gouge 'less' (or not at all) and steal all his business. Two ways to arrive at the same result.

Ah, so defense of price gouging it is.

The conversation is about price changes of goods in an area being affected by a natural disaster - that occurs when prices increase above a reasonable amount due to real or potential supply decreases or demand increases during a time of emergency.

I don’t get the head bang emoji - this is a very real concept, so much so that we have laws protecting against it.

There is a subtle difference between the highly subjective inference of "price gouging" and the highly objective practice of profiteering via market power abuse. That gets lost in all of these discussions.

If supply chains are severely disrupted and people are buying replacement products for goods and services far above typical demand (say bottled water to replace tap water or gasoline to run generators), then you should definitely expect large price increases in the short term if you want any resemblance of continued supply. Sometimes these price increases "feel" like price gouging, but sometimes the costs are fully justified given the short term changes in demand and the costs required to increase supply from atypical sources & methods.

Market power abuse is when you have a pivotal supplier (say the only grocery store or gas station in a small town) jack up their prices on existing inventory in an attempt to profit from increased demand knowing full well that people in their area have limited options for buying gas, water, etc. There is probably some small acceptable amount of profiteering allowed to incentivize wholesalers and retailers to maintain excess inventories. The key metric in these situations is extraordinary short term profits and not the market clearing price.

What gives people the most heartburn is profiteering from disasters where a limited number of entities can corner supply of key goods or can inflict market power abuse on pockets of stranded customers. We should be focused on who has extraordinary profits and not so focused on what the market clearing price of goods/services may do during extreme scenarios. If people are willing to pay $5 for a bottle of water and someone can supply bottles of water with a cost of $4.50, we shouldn't call that profiteering but rather the market demanding goods from a different price level of supply that is atypical to normal market conditions. If someone is selling bottles of water for $5 from a local warehouse with a cost basis of $0.25, then we should investigate that behavior seriously. If profiteering and market power abuse were to be properly policed and punished, I think people would have more confidence in market based solutions in general.

(09-30-2021 07:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 06:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 06:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 05:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 05:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Price gouging is a progressive concept?

I didn’t realize that there was such an active push for allowing businesses to charge $50 a gallon for gas or $10 for a bottle of water during a natural disaster. TIL.

Hey, Im not the one that has to continually use 'reasonable' as the underlying foundation and definition of a whole policy. Nor of one of practically every facet of being.

That seems to be the guiding principle of progressive thought on governance -- i.e. telling *everyone* what is 'reasonable', and what is 'unreasonable', what is 'fair', and what is 'unfair', what is 'equitable', and what is 'inequitable'.

I mean, that is the substantive basis for progressives for more taxes, for more wealth transfers, for trying to suppress speech, for trying to disarm the populace, for rent control, for minimum wage.... and the list goes on. Kind of the magic words for progressive issues. Like the left wing version of 'Bibbity Bobbity Boo' and *flash* Insto Presto justice for the the world, life and everything --- all be the simple incantation of one or more of the magical troika of words.

I am just noting it as the fundamental cornerstone in your VERY REAL issue of price gouging.

But those guiding principles are served on a continuously subjective and ever changing basis, of course.

To the extent that racial discrimination is 'reasonable', 'fair', and 'equitable' when such racial discrimination is in favor of certain minorities (even per you in these threads), but yet the exact same racial discrimination is 'unreasonable', 'unfair', and 'inequitable' when not in favor.

Care to tell us what is 'reasonable' and what is 'not reasonable' for this? I mean, you are the proponent of the (NOT VERY ETHEREAL, mind you) progressive standard of standards for this VERY REAL issue, so I am waiting with bated breath for this go-round on the fundamental basis of progressive thought. Not that I havent heard the 'reasonable', 'fair', 'equitable' dancing bear schtick as a rule of governance a million times before (wait, actually a million and one now, since it is your backstop rule de jour in your 'rule' of governance above).

Cant wait to hear this left wing verbal tango....

A whole lot of words to say “Yes, I support businesses price gouging people in need.”

I dont 'support' the act --- but the act of government as the determiner of price decisions on an individualized basis seems pretty fing stupid.

Especially when the rationale to judge the act is the amazingly clear (sarcasm there, lad) idea of 'reasonable'.

And I might add, in light of your rather shallow response above -- quite tiny number of words to avoid answering the basic question of "Care to tell us what is 'reasonable' and what is 'not reasonable' for this?"

And again, please tell us what is 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' for prices in those situations. Please dont avoid the query like you just did. Please dont use the follow up crutches of 'just', 'equitable', or 'fair' either.

You wield that line of demarcation like a fing sword in your rationale, so now please tell us what it is. Or is it just a knee-jerk ingrained response to wield those bases on your part?

Simple follow up question: do you support forced and mandatory charity?

And seriously lad, *you* brought up the bright line of 'reasonable' as your oh-so pithy response to the issue, now tell us what the fk that actually is (that is aside from knee jerk canned ass response). And, that is as opposed to what could be taken as a clear avoidance of trying to do so above, even when asked to do so. Just so you dont miss that query, please take this as the second time in this post, and third time overall to give us such an answer.

You got the prelude in to your verbal avoidance tango in on your last reply, I look forward to a real answer shortly. And, you will actually notice that I answered your 'avoidance' rhetorical flourish and (inaccurate) insinuation pretty much head on above, mind you.

It's not worth it to engage in anything substantive when you're foaming at the mouth from the start. It's is especially so, as you're hyper focused on trying to argue over what amounts to minutia (i.e. the exact definition of what reasonable is) so you can go into legal overdrive.

If you think about it, its not legal overdrive. Im not the bird who is proposing government price intervention based on the (really fing blurry) concept of 'reasonable'.

Ose nose, how dare I propose that the champeen o' fairness as a guiding principle actually have to define that. The temerity.

Foaming? Not even close. Pointing out the glossy smear you attempt to put on it? Absolutely.

Quote:I think the government's role is to protect its citizens, and when a natural disaster strikes, it seems reasonable to me for them to impose restrictions on price increases that take advantage of the increase demand imposed by the disaster. Whether that is defined as 10% or 15% or 20% increase isn't really material to the bigger picture.

Actually it is. My point is that the moralistic underpinnings from you all and as the trigger for government intervention of 'price gouging' are as equally specious as those that you (the leftos) put forward for rent control.

*You* (and your ilk) think that the government should be the be all and end all of what *you* determine as 'fair'. As 'reasonable'. As 'equitable'. And not just in pricing decisions, mind you.

Here is an example, torn from your last paragraph:

Quote:I think the government's role is to protect its citizens, and when a natural disaster strikes there is a natural shortage of housing, it seems reasonable to me for them to impose restrictions on price increases that take advantage of the increase demand imposed by the disaster small relative supply. Whether that is defined as 10% or 15% or 20% increase isn't really material to the bigger picture.

I mean, good fing grief, that is how 'wash, rinse, repeat' the left stance is to anything in economics and free trade.

But kudos, you brought up the issue of the government being the arbiter of 'fair', 'reasonable', and/or 'equitable' without using those terms. But you did so as the government's role as the bright, shiny, superhero to anything economic-related in your introductory prefatory clause. <clap>

Lets take your last statement, and let's talk about that.

Quote:Whether that is defined as 10% or 15% or 20% increase isn't really material to the bigger picture.

How about forcing donations? I guess per your in depth analysis, that 'isnt really material'? I mean, 'in the bigger picture', everyone should contribute everything to such a situation, right? And since the 'government's role is to protect people', you would have no problems with the government mandating that store owners should be forced to donate, with zero payment, all such stores to 'protect people'?

I mean, you short shrift the actual numbers (in fact run the fkaway from them) to promote the primacy of the government to 'protect people'. So, why should you stop at any number? Many would say government confiscation and redistribution of such private property would be inherently 'fair', 'just', and 'equitable' --- and 'reasonable'.

So lad, the numbers are pretty fing important. Again, (for the fourth time now) what is 'reasonable', and what is 'unreasonable'? (that is, using *your* own justification words.) (and no, your answer that the 'numbers are not important' is as shallow as non-responsive to the question, and not really an answer)

(09-30-2021 08:05 AM)flash3200 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 04:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 04:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 03:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 03:24 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]Also, raising prices in an area of shortage is not necessarily bad, as it tends to direct supply to meet the shortage. Your hypothetical storekeeper gets his widgets from the overall widget market.
- If the sales price of widgets in the hurricane zone is allowed to rise, the market will naturally direct more supply to that area, thus alleviating the shortage.
- If the sales price is required to stay the same (despite the higher distribution costs) as it is in non-damaged areas, then the market will not do so., thus prolonging the shortage.
Grinding an axe against the storekeeper's supposed "greed" thus hurts -- rather than helps -- the very people the axe-grinders profess to care about.

Every economist understands this; every "progressive" does not or pretends not to.

I assume you're in favor of some sort of cap on price increases. If not, you're making an argument in support of price gouging...

If your choices are $4 for a widget or no widgets at all (because you can't replace what is sold) then you have to choose your poison. This is a lesson/discussion about the free market system.

If he just price gouges as you suggest then the guy down the street can simply gouge 'less' (or not at all) and steal all his business. Two ways to arrive at the same result.

Ah, so defense of price gouging it is.

The conversation is about price changes of goods in an area being affected by a natural disaster - that occurs when prices increase above a reasonable amount due to real or potential supply decreases or demand increases during a time of emergency.

I don’t get the head bang emoji - this is a very real concept, so much so that we have laws protecting against it.

There is a subtle difference between the highly subjective inference of "price gouging" and the highly objective practice of profiteering via market power abuse. That gets lost in all of these discussions.

If supply chains are severely disrupted and people are buying replacement products for goods and services far above typical demand (say bottled water to replace tap water or gasoline to run generators), then you should definitely expect large price increases in the short term if you want any resemblance of continued supply. Sometimes these price increases "feel" like price gouging, but sometimes the costs are fully justified given the short term changes in demand and the costs required to increase supply from atypical sources & methods.

Market power abuse is when you have a pivotal supplier (say the only grocery store or gas station in a small town) jack up their prices on existing inventory in an attempt to profit from increased demand knowing full well that people in their area have limited options for buying gas, water, etc. There is probably some small acceptable amount of profiteering allowed to incentivize wholesalers and retailers to maintain excess inventories. The key metric in these situations is extraordinary short term profits and not the market clearing price.

What gives people the most heartburn is profiteering from disasters where a limited number of entities can corner supply of key goods or can inflict market power abuse on pockets of stranded customers. We should be focused on who has extraordinary profits and not so focused on what the market clearing price of goods/services may do during extreme scenarios. If people are willing to pay $5 for a bottle of water and someone can supply bottles of water with a cost of $4.50, we shouldn't call that profiteering but rather the market demanding goods from a different price level of supply that is atypical to normal market conditions. If someone is selling bottles of water for $5 from a local warehouse with a cost basis of $0.25, then we should investigate that behavior seriously. If profiteering and market power abuse were to be properly policed and punished, I think people would have more confidence in market based solutions in general.

The best post in this back and forth, by far - appreciate it. You make a very good point with the bolded comment - if costs to supply a good to an area increases substantially, that cost is passed on to the consumer. The original hypothetical indicated nothing about increases in costs, just a 100% increase in price due to a hurricane blowing into town.

(09-30-2021 08:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 07:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 06:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 06:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 05:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Hey, Im not the one that has to continually use 'reasonable' as the underlying foundation and definition of a whole policy. Nor of one of practically every facet of being.

That seems to be the guiding principle of progressive thought on governance -- i.e. telling *everyone* what is 'reasonable', and what is 'unreasonable', what is 'fair', and what is 'unfair', what is 'equitable', and what is 'inequitable'.

I mean, that is the substantive basis for progressives for more taxes, for more wealth transfers, for trying to suppress speech, for trying to disarm the populace, for rent control, for minimum wage.... and the list goes on. Kind of the magic words for progressive issues. Like the left wing version of 'Bibbity Bobbity Boo' and *flash* Insto Presto justice for the the world, life and everything --- all be the simple incantation of one or more of the magical troika of words.

I am just noting it as the fundamental cornerstone in your VERY REAL issue of price gouging.

But those guiding principles are served on a continuously subjective and ever changing basis, of course.

To the extent that racial discrimination is 'reasonable', 'fair', and 'equitable' when such racial discrimination is in favor of certain minorities (even per you in these threads), but yet the exact same racial discrimination is 'unreasonable', 'unfair', and 'inequitable' when not in favor.

Care to tell us what is 'reasonable' and what is 'not reasonable' for this? I mean, you are the proponent of the (NOT VERY ETHEREAL, mind you) progressive standard of standards for this VERY REAL issue, so I am waiting with bated breath for this go-round on the fundamental basis of progressive thought. Not that I havent heard the 'reasonable', 'fair', 'equitable' dancing bear schtick as a rule of governance a million times before (wait, actually a million and one now, since it is your backstop rule de jour in your 'rule' of governance above).

Cant wait to hear this left wing verbal tango....

A whole lot of words to say “Yes, I support businesses price gouging people in need.”

I dont 'support' the act --- but the act of government as the determiner of price decisions on an individualized basis seems pretty fing stupid.

Especially when the rationale to judge the act is the amazingly clear (sarcasm there, lad) idea of 'reasonable'.

And I might add, in light of your rather shallow response above -- quite tiny number of words to avoid answering the basic question of "Care to tell us what is 'reasonable' and what is 'not reasonable' for this?"

And again, please tell us what is 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' for prices in those situations. Please dont avoid the query like you just did. Please dont use the follow up crutches of 'just', 'equitable', or 'fair' either.

You wield that line of demarcation like a fing sword in your rationale, so now please tell us what it is. Or is it just a knee-jerk ingrained response to wield those bases on your part?

Simple follow up question: do you support forced and mandatory charity?

And seriously lad, *you* brought up the bright line of 'reasonable' as your oh-so pithy response to the issue, now tell us what the fk that actually is (that is aside from knee jerk canned ass response). And, that is as opposed to what could be taken as a clear avoidance of trying to do so above, even when asked to do so. Just so you dont miss that query, please take this as the second time in this post, and third time overall to give us such an answer.

You got the prelude in to your verbal avoidance tango in on your last reply, I look forward to a real answer shortly. And, you will actually notice that I answered your 'avoidance' rhetorical flourish and (inaccurate) insinuation pretty much head on above, mind you.

It's not worth it to engage in anything substantive when you're foaming at the mouth from the start. It's is especially so, as you're hyper focused on trying to argue over what amounts to minutia (i.e. the exact definition of what reasonable is) so you can go into legal overdrive.

If you think about it, its not legal overdrive. Im not the bird who is proposing government intervention based on the (really fing blurry) concept of 'fairness'.

Ose nose, how dare I propose that the champeen o' fairness as a guiding principle actually have to define that. The temerity.

Foaming? Not even close. Pointing out the glossy smear you attempt to put on it? Absolutely.

Quote:I think the government's role is to protect its citizens, and when a natural disaster strikes, it seems reasonable to me for them to impose restrictions on price increases that take advantage of the increase demand imposed by the disaster. Whether that is defined as 10% or 15% or 20% increase isn't really material to the bigger picture.

Actually it is. My point is that the moralistic underpinnings from you all and as the trigger for government intervention of 'price gouging' are as equally specious as those that you (the leftos) put forward for rent control.

*You* (and your ilk) think that the government should be the be all and end all of what *you* determine as 'fair'. As 'reasonable'. As 'equitable'. And not just in pricing decisions, mind you.

Here is an example, torn from your last paragraph:

Quote:I think the government's role is to protect its citizens, and when a natural disaster strikes there is a natural shortage of housing, it seems reasonable to me for them to impose restrictions on price increases that take advantage of the increase demand imposed by the disaster small relative supply. Whether that is defined as 10% or 15% or 20% increase isn't really material to the bigger picture.

I mean, good fing grief, that is how 'wash, rinse, repeat' the left stance is to anything in economics and free trade.

But kudos, you brought up the issue of the government being the arbiter of 'fair', 'reasonable', and/or 'equitable' without using those terms. But you did so as the government's role as the bright, shiny, superhero to anything economic-related in your introductory prefatory clause. <clap>

Lets take your last statement, and let's talk about that.

Quote:Whether that is defined as 10% or 15% or 20% increase isn't really material to the bigger picture.

How about forcing donations? I guess per your in depth analysis, that 'isnt really material'? I mean, 'in the bigger picture', everyone should contribute everything to such a situation, right? And since the 'government's role is to protect people', you would have no problems with the government mandating that store owners should be forced to donate, with zero payment, all such stores to 'protect people'?

I mean, you short shrift the actual numbers (in fact run the fkaway from them) to promote the primacy of the government to 'protect people'. So, why should you stop at any number? Many would say government confiscation and redistribution of such private property would be inherently 'fair', 'just', and 'equitable' --- and 'reasonable'.

So lad, the numbers are pretty fing important. What is 'reasonable', and what is 'unreasonable'? (that is, using *your* own justification words.)

Once again, a whole lot of words to (I'll rephrase it slightly this time) object to regulating price gouging during natural disasters.

(09-30-2021 08:05 AM)flash3200 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 04:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 04:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 03:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 03:24 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]Also, raising prices in an area of shortage is not necessarily bad, as it tends to direct supply to meet the shortage. Your hypothetical storekeeper gets his widgets from the overall widget market.
- If the sales price of widgets in the hurricane zone is allowed to rise, the market will naturally direct more supply to that area, thus alleviating the shortage.
- If the sales price is required to stay the same (despite the higher distribution costs) as it is in non-damaged areas, then the market will not do so., thus prolonging the shortage.
Grinding an axe against the storekeeper's supposed "greed" thus hurts -- rather than helps -- the very people the axe-grinders profess to care about.

Every economist understands this; every "progressive" does not or pretends not to.

I assume you're in favor of some sort of cap on price increases. If not, you're making an argument in support of price gouging...

If your choices are $4 for a widget or no widgets at all (because you can't replace what is sold) then you have to choose your poison. This is a lesson/discussion about the free market system.

If he just price gouges as you suggest then the guy down the street can simply gouge 'less' (or not at all) and steal all his business. Two ways to arrive at the same result.

Ah, so defense of price gouging it is.

The conversation is about price changes of goods in an area being affected by a natural disaster - that occurs when prices increase above a reasonable amount due to real or potential supply decreases or demand increases during a time of emergency.

I don’t get the head bang emoji - this is a very real concept, so much so that we have laws protecting against it.

There is a subtle difference between the highly subjective inference of "price gouging" and the highly objective practice of profiteering via market power abuse. That gets lost in all of these discussions.

If supply chains are severely disrupted and people are buying replacement products for goods and services far above typical demand (say bottled water to replace tap water or gasoline to run generators), then you should definitely expect large price increases in the short term if you want any resemblance of continued supply. Sometimes these price increases "feel" like price gouging, but sometimes the costs are fully justified given the short term changes in demand and the costs required to increase supply from atypical sources & methods.

Market power abuse is when you have a pivotal supplier (say the only grocery store or gas station in a small town) jack up their prices on existing inventory in an attempt to profit from increased demand knowing full well that people in their area have limited options for buying gas, water, etc. There is probably some small acceptable amount of profiteering allowed to incentivize wholesalers and retailers to maintain excess inventories. The key metric in these situations is extraordinary short term profits and not the market clearing price.

What gives people the most heartburn is profiteering from disasters where a limited number of entities can corner supply of key goods or can inflict market power abuse on pockets of stranded customers. We should be focused on who has extraordinary profits and not so focused on what the market clearing price of goods/services may do during extreme scenarios. If people are willing to pay $5 for a bottle of water and someone can supply bottles of water with a cost of $4.50, we shouldn't call that profiteering but rather the market demanding goods from a different price level of supply that is atypical to normal market conditions. If someone is selling bottles of water for $5 from a local warehouse with a cost basis of $0.25, then we should investigate that behavior seriously. If profiteering and market power abuse were to be properly policed and punished, I think people would have more confidence in market based solutions in general.

Between Ft Stockton and Ozona there is a 107.3 mile stretch of road with zero gas stations.

Today in Ft Stockton the lowest price for regular gas is $2.95/gallon at WalMart. $3.05 at Stripes.

Today in Ozona, the lowest prices for gas is $2.99 at the Circle Bar Truck Corral, and $3.05 at Sunoco.

Why shouldnt it be $3.40 at the Highway 190 / I-10 intersection (i.e. the turnoff to Iraan)? If so, what is 'reasonable'? Where is the demarcation of 'unreasonable'? (Im sure lad will have an answer for us --- lolz)

(09-30-2021 08:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 08:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 07:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 06:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 06:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]A whole lot of words to say “Yes, I support businesses price gouging people in need.”

I dont 'support' the act --- but the act of government as the determiner of price decisions on an individualized basis seems pretty fing stupid.

Especially when the rationale to judge the act is the amazingly clear (sarcasm there, lad) idea of 'reasonable'.

And I might add, in light of your rather shallow response above -- quite tiny number of words to avoid answering the basic question of "Care to tell us what is 'reasonable' and what is 'not reasonable' for this?"

And again, please tell us what is 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' for prices in those situations. Please dont avoid the query like you just did. Please dont use the follow up crutches of 'just', 'equitable', or 'fair' either.

You wield that line of demarcation like a fing sword in your rationale, so now please tell us what it is. Or is it just a knee-jerk ingrained response to wield those bases on your part?

Simple follow up question: do you support forced and mandatory charity?

And seriously lad, *you* brought up the bright line of 'reasonable' as your oh-so pithy response to the issue, now tell us what the fk that actually is (that is aside from knee jerk canned ass response). And, that is as opposed to what could be taken as a clear avoidance of trying to do so above, even when asked to do so. Just so you dont miss that query, please take this as the second time in this post, and third time overall to give us such an answer.

You got the prelude in to your verbal avoidance tango in on your last reply, I look forward to a real answer shortly. And, you will actually notice that I answered your 'avoidance' rhetorical flourish and (inaccurate) insinuation pretty much head on above, mind you.

It's not worth it to engage in anything substantive when you're foaming at the mouth from the start. It's is especially so, as you're hyper focused on trying to argue over what amounts to minutia (i.e. the exact definition of what reasonable is) so you can go into legal overdrive.

If you think about it, its not legal overdrive. Im not the bird who is proposing government intervention based on the (really fing blurry) concept of 'fairness'.

Ose nose, how dare I propose that the champeen o' fairness as a guiding principle actually have to define that. The temerity.

Foaming? Not even close. Pointing out the glossy smear you attempt to put on it? Absolutely.

Quote:I think the government's role is to protect its citizens, and when a natural disaster strikes, it seems reasonable to me for them to impose restrictions on price increases that take advantage of the increase demand imposed by the disaster. Whether that is defined as 10% or 15% or 20% increase isn't really material to the bigger picture.

Actually it is. My point is that the moralistic underpinnings from you all and as the trigger for government intervention of 'price gouging' are as equally specious as those that you (the leftos) put forward for rent control.

*You* (and your ilk) think that the government should be the be all and end all of what *you* determine as 'fair'. As 'reasonable'. As 'equitable'. And not just in pricing decisions, mind you.

Here is an example, torn from your last paragraph:

Quote:I think the government's role is to protect its citizens, and when a natural disaster strikes there is a natural shortage of housing, it seems reasonable to me for them to impose restrictions on price increases that take advantage of the increase demand imposed by the disaster small relative supply. Whether that is defined as 10% or 15% or 20% increase isn't really material to the bigger picture.

I mean, good fing grief, that is how 'wash, rinse, repeat' the left stance is to anything in economics and free trade.

But kudos, you brought up the issue of the government being the arbiter of 'fair', 'reasonable', and/or 'equitable' without using those terms. But you did so as the government's role as the bright, shiny, superhero to anything economic-related in your introductory prefatory clause. <clap>

Lets take your last statement, and let's talk about that.

Quote:Whether that is defined as 10% or 15% or 20% increase isn't really material to the bigger picture.

How about forcing donations? I guess per your in depth analysis, that 'isnt really material'? I mean, 'in the bigger picture', everyone should contribute everything to such a situation, right? And since the 'government's role is to protect people', you would have no problems with the government mandating that store owners should be forced to donate, with zero payment, all such stores to 'protect people'?

I mean, you short shrift the actual numbers (in fact run the fkaway from them) to promote the primacy of the government to 'protect people'. So, why should you stop at any number? Many would say government confiscation and redistribution of such private property would be inherently 'fair', 'just', and 'equitable' --- and 'reasonable'.

So lad, the numbers are pretty fing important. What is 'reasonable', and what is 'unreasonable'? (that is, using *your* own justification words.)

Once again, a whole lot of words to (I'll rephrase it slightly this time) object to regulating price gouging during natural disasters.

And once again a tiny number of words to run away from actually denoting what is 'reasonable' and what is not. Can you even answer the question? I mean you wield the concept like a sword previously......

If I recall correctly, I am not the one to invoke 'reasonable' in the first instance as some evil, giant killer short depth panacea. You are.

So (for the fifth time), please tell us what that is? Or just try and (rather monotonously) change the topic...

Here it is again:

Quote:So lad, the numbers are pretty fing important. What is 'reasonable', and what is 'unreasonable'? (that is, using *your* own justification words.)

tik tok tik tok, lad.

(09-30-2021 08:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 08:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 08:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 07:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 06:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I dont 'support' the act --- but the act of government as the determiner of price decisions on an individualized basis seems pretty fing stupid.

Especially when the rationale to judge the act is the amazingly clear (sarcasm there, lad) idea of 'reasonable'.

And I might add, in light of your rather shallow response above -- quite tiny number of words to avoid answering the basic question of "Care to tell us what is 'reasonable' and what is 'not reasonable' for this?"

And again, please tell us what is 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' for prices in those situations. Please dont avoid the query like you just did. Please dont use the follow up crutches of 'just', 'equitable', or 'fair' either.

You wield that line of demarcation like a fing sword in your rationale, so now please tell us what it is. Or is it just a knee-jerk ingrained response to wield those bases on your part?

Simple follow up question: do you support forced and mandatory charity?

And seriously lad, *you* brought up the bright line of 'reasonable' as your oh-so pithy response to the issue, now tell us what the fk that actually is (that is aside from knee jerk canned ass response). And, that is as opposed to what could be taken as a clear avoidance of trying to do so above, even when asked to do so. Just so you dont miss that query, please take this as the second time in this post, and third time overall to give us such an answer.

You got the prelude in to your verbal avoidance tango in on your last reply, I look forward to a real answer shortly. And, you will actually notice that I answered your 'avoidance' rhetorical flourish and (inaccurate) insinuation pretty much head on above, mind you.

It's not worth it to engage in anything substantive when you're foaming at the mouth from the start. It's is especially so, as you're hyper focused on trying to argue over what amounts to minutia (i.e. the exact definition of what reasonable is) so you can go into legal overdrive.

If you think about it, its not legal overdrive. Im not the bird who is proposing government intervention based on the (really fing blurry) concept of 'fairness'.

Ose nose, how dare I propose that the champeen o' fairness as a guiding principle actually have to define that. The temerity.

Foaming? Not even close. Pointing out the glossy smear you attempt to put on it? Absolutely.

Quote:I think the government's role is to protect its citizens, and when a natural disaster strikes, it seems reasonable to me for them to impose restrictions on price increases that take advantage of the increase demand imposed by the disaster. Whether that is defined as 10% or 15% or 20% increase isn't really material to the bigger picture.

Actually it is. My point is that the moralistic underpinnings from you all and as the trigger for government intervention of 'price gouging' are as equally specious as those that you (the leftos) put forward for rent control.

*You* (and your ilk) think that the government should be the be all and end all of what *you* determine as 'fair'. As 'reasonable'. As 'equitable'. And not just in pricing decisions, mind you.

Here is an example, torn from your last paragraph:

Quote:I think the government's role is to protect its citizens, and when a natural disaster strikes there is a natural shortage of housing, it seems reasonable to me for them to impose restrictions on price increases that take advantage of the increase demand imposed by the disaster small relative supply. Whether that is defined as 10% or 15% or 20% increase isn't really material to the bigger picture.

I mean, good fing grief, that is how 'wash, rinse, repeat' the left stance is to anything in economics and free trade.

But kudos, you brought up the issue of the government being the arbiter of 'fair', 'reasonable', and/or 'equitable' without using those terms. But you did so as the government's role as the bright, shiny, superhero to anything economic-related in your introductory prefatory clause. <clap>

Lets take your last statement, and let's talk about that.

Quote:Whether that is defined as 10% or 15% or 20% increase isn't really material to the bigger picture.

How about forcing donations? I guess per your in depth analysis, that 'isnt really material'? I mean, 'in the bigger picture', everyone should contribute everything to such a situation, right? And since the 'government's role is to protect people', you would have no problems with the government mandating that store owners should be forced to donate, with zero payment, all such stores to 'protect people'?

I mean, you short shrift the actual numbers (in fact run the fkaway from them) to promote the primacy of the government to 'protect people'. So, why should you stop at any number? Many would say government confiscation and redistribution of such private property would be inherently 'fair', 'just', and 'equitable' --- and 'reasonable'.

So lad, the numbers are pretty fing important. What is 'reasonable', and what is 'unreasonable'? (that is, using *your* own justification words.)

Once again, a whole lot of words to (I'll rephrase it slightly this time) object to regulating price gouging during natural disasters.

And once again a tiny number of words to run away from actually denoting what is 'reasonable' and what is not. Can you even answer the question? I mean you wield the concept like a sword previously......

You're arguing minutiae at the expense of the broader concept.

What's the point of arguing about a 5% or 50% increase in cost if you're against the government stepping in a regulating price gouging during a natural disaster?

I must apologize to my friends for creating an imperfect example that allowed "certain people" to redefine the topic from greed to price-gouging.


My intent was to show that that Progressives are just as "greedy' - or way more greedy - as anybody else, just that the focus of their greed is not keeping what is theirs, but taking what is somebody else's.

AOC and Bernie do not want my money for themselves - but they want it, and in this little tug-o-war, one side is labeled greedy by the other. "Give me your money, you greedy little _____ ." Which side is saying that?

I bet even Lad, or AOC, would resist somebody stealing their wallet. That's not greed.

Progressives, as a group, are greedy and rapacious takers of other people's property.

Back to the sub-topic, consider the replacement cost of the goods sold, not the original cost. Maybe the bottles of water cost .25 - but it will cost 1.00 to replace them. What should the sales price be?

(09-30-2021 08:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]What's the point of arguing about a 5% or 50% increase in cost if you're against the government stepping in a regulating price gouging during a natural disaster?

Why not argue for a 100% reduction in cost if the amounts are supposedly 'minutiae'?

(09-30-2021 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The best post in this back and forth, by far - appreciate it. You make a very good point with the bolded comment - if costs to supply a good to an area increases substantially, that cost is passed on to the consumer. The original hypothetical indicated nothing about increases in costs, just a 100% increase in price due to a hurricane blowing into town.

Most national gas chains hedge their inventories with RBOB futures, even those inventories in the ground at retail locations. This is how if oil gets crushed one day, the price at the gas station will be lower the next day. If a hurricane is coming and RBOB futures go up $1.00/gallon, then gas stations have to raise their price at least that much just to break even. This goes back to a profits test, not a price test being the most appropriate if you are looking for unethical/illegal behavior. Price is a red herring for proles to talk about and is an instant indicator for unsophisticated market participants.

Notice how there is no discussion about price gouging on vaccine costs since the end use consumer isn't the one stroking the check. I would argue these vaccines are perhaps the most egregious form of price gouging and a profits test would support that conclusion. There was very little economic risk to these vaccine developers (especially if you were MRNA and already had the sequence of the virus pre-pandemic) and these people are becoming 0.001% billionaires on the backs of tax payer money during a generational emergency. IMO, much worse than some crappy gas station owner trying to make an extra $10k over a few days when everyone is hoarding gasoline unnecessarily.

(09-30-2021 08:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 08:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 08:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 08:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 07:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]It's not worth it to engage in anything substantive when you're foaming at the mouth from the start. It's is especially so, as you're hyper focused on trying to argue over what amounts to minutia (i.e. the exact definition of what reasonable is) so you can go into legal overdrive.

If you think about it, its not legal overdrive. Im not the bird who is proposing government intervention based on the (really fing blurry) concept of 'fairness'.

Ose nose, how dare I propose that the champeen o' fairness as a guiding principle actually have to define that. The temerity.

Foaming? Not even close. Pointing out the glossy smear you attempt to put on it? Absolutely.

Quote:I think the government's role is to protect its citizens, and when a natural disaster strikes, it seems reasonable to me for them to impose restrictions on price increases that take advantage of the increase demand imposed by the disaster. Whether that is defined as 10% or 15% or 20% increase isn't really material to the bigger picture.

Actually it is. My point is that the moralistic underpinnings from you all and as the trigger for government intervention of 'price gouging' are as equally specious as those that you (the leftos) put forward for rent control.

*You* (and your ilk) think that the government should be the be all and end all of what *you* determine as 'fair'. As 'reasonable'. As 'equitable'. And not just in pricing decisions, mind you.

Here is an example, torn from your last paragraph:

Quote:I think the government's role is to protect its citizens, and when a natural disaster strikes there is a natural shortage of housing, it seems reasonable to me for them to impose restrictions on price increases that take advantage of the increase demand imposed by the disaster small relative supply. Whether that is defined as 10% or 15% or 20% increase isn't really material to the bigger picture.

I mean, good fing grief, that is how 'wash, rinse, repeat' the left stance is to anything in economics and free trade.

But kudos, you brought up the issue of the government being the arbiter of 'fair', 'reasonable', and/or 'equitable' without using those terms. But you did so as the government's role as the bright, shiny, superhero to anything economic-related in your introductory prefatory clause. <clap>

Lets take your last statement, and let's talk about that.

Quote:Whether that is defined as 10% or 15% or 20% increase isn't really material to the bigger picture.

How about forcing donations? I guess per your in depth analysis, that 'isnt really material'? I mean, 'in the bigger picture', everyone should contribute everything to such a situation, right? And since the 'government's role is to protect people', you would have no problems with the government mandating that store owners should be forced to donate, with zero payment, all such stores to 'protect people'?

I mean, you short shrift the actual numbers (in fact run the fkaway from them) to promote the primacy of the government to 'protect people'. So, why should you stop at any number? Many would say government confiscation and redistribution of such private property would be inherently 'fair', 'just', and 'equitable' --- and 'reasonable'.

So lad, the numbers are pretty fing important. What is 'reasonable', and what is 'unreasonable'? (that is, using *your* own justification words.)

Once again, a whole lot of words to (I'll rephrase it slightly this time) object to regulating price gouging during natural disasters.

And once again a tiny number of words to run away from actually denoting what is 'reasonable' and what is not. Can you even answer the question? I mean you wield the concept like a sword previously......

You're arguing minutiae at the expense of the broader concept.

What's the point of arguing about a 5% or 50% increase in cost if you're against the government stepping in a regulating price gouging during a natural disaster?

I am not arguing minutiae. I am asking you what is something less than an infinitely stretchable feel good standard that *you* put forth as a supposed sin qua non of life, justice, and everything (i.e. reasonable).

I assume asking for *any* clarification of that term is 'minutiae' (especially to those whom initially promulgated that amazingly clear standard for government price intervention).

My suggestion is that *you* shouldnt open that rhetoric filled world if you are going to be so fing evasive about it. But hey, I am just a dum ol redneck who *should* just swallow the shallow as hell pablum of 'fair', 'equitable', and 'reasonable' like fine red wine.

(09-29-2021 04:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 04:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 03:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 03:24 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 02:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]A storekeeper sells widgets for $2. They cost him $1.20, and his overhead is .70, so his net profit before taxes is one dime. He pays 30% (.03) in taxes.

Now Hurricane Ignacio blows into town. The storekeep raises the price of widgets to
$4.00. The government sees the $2.10 margin, and instead of 30%, they want 80%.

Who is the greedy one? I say both.

But after the hurricane passes, the storekeep drops his price back to $2. The government, due to the progressives needing money to pay for seminars on white privilege, keeps the tax rate at 80% and wants to raise it.

pretty clear where the greed is now.

The Progressive motto: you got it, we want it. It's OK, because we care about the country and you are just greedy.

Also, raising prices in an area of shortage is not necessarily bad, as it tends to direct supply to meet the shortage. Your hypothetical storekeeper gets his widgets from the overall widget market.
- If the sales price of widgets in the hurricane zone is allowed to rise, the market will naturally direct more supply to that area, thus alleviating the shortage.
- If the sales price is required to stay the same (despite the higher distribution costs) as it is in non-damaged areas, then the market will not do so., thus prolonging the shortage.
Grinding an axe against the storekeeper's supposed "greed" thus hurts -- rather than helps -- the very people the axe-grinders profess to care about.

Every economist understands this; every "progressive" does not or pretends not to.

I assume you're in favor of some sort of cap on price increases. If not, you're making an argument in support of price gouging...

If your choices are $4 for a widget or no widgets at all (because you can't replace what is sold) then you have to choose your poison. This is a lesson/discussion about the free market system.

If he just price gouges as you suggest then the guy down the street can simply gouge 'less' (or not at all) and steal all his business. Two ways to arrive at the same result.

Ah, so defense of price gouging it is.

The conversation is about price changes of goods in an area being affected by a natural disaster - that occurs when prices increase above a reasonable amount due to real or potential supply decreases or demand increases during a time of emergency.

I don’t get the head bang emoji - this is a very real concept, so much so that we have laws protecting against it.

You're perhaps the biggest 'dick' I've ever encountered.... I mean really... You accuse me of 'defending' price gouging when what I very clearly did was say this was a purely academic discussion about the free market system. In a free market system, the laws of supply and demand rule everything and are ultimately 'fair'. That was the basis of George's comment. This is the basis of most conversations that come from the right on the subject... and you just can't HELP but to try and assign some sort of BS to me so you can argue with that.... or at the very least, try and cast shade at me.

There is a difference between prices rising to reflect the supply and demand of a product and 'price gouging'. If the price of art doubled during a natural disaster that wiped out other art for some reason, I doubt you'd expect the government to step in and limit price increases. The discussion is about 'widgets'... which by definition are NOT 'real'.

The head bang is that for the purposes of this academic discussion, your suggestion is just another in years of deflections and rabbit trails. I could throw in thousands more 'what if' situations that would change the calculus of any given discussion... what if the buyer needed the item immediately to save someone's life and had ZERO money?? Should the seller just GIVE it to him?? I think we'd all argue 'yes' as a humanitarian act... SHould we also just give away 'art' as a humanitarian act?? Those are all anecdotes and have nothing to do with the free market system...NOR does it have to do with collectivism, since in 99.99% of situations, someone's life doesn't literally depend on being able to acquire that item.

Let me be a little more clear so you understand the concept....
In a disaster, the supply lines can become very problematic. Industry often adapts (as it did during COVID and as in George's example) to move supply and supply lines to prioritize items of necessity (like PPM, TP and bread) over 'luxury' items like cars. Look at the cost of shipping containers today. IF for some reason, wealthy people decided to spend a bunch of money on non-necessary items... like perhaps physical gold.... their purchases COULD interrupt/delay/raise the price of delivering NECESSARY items like toilet paper or PPM. You understand why there is (to the extent there still is) a coin shortage, right??

A discussion of 'price gouging' (the concept you added that is nothing but a leftist talking point and finger wag towards capitalism) is a COMPLETE distraction from any constructive discussion about capitalism vs collectivism. It is a perfect example of how you CLAIM not to support socialism, but you characterize 'the right' in the same, myopic way that they do... so your position on the issue is a distinction without a difference.

Lad -- here is a real world question for you.

During the snowpocolypse this last February, a neighbor received a call from a family who had lost power on the Friday before it all went to hell (i.e. the real whallop hit Monday-ish). The electric coop said to the family that it would be a minimum of four weeks to get their isolated ranch back on the grid, which meant four weeks to water service (on well, pumps need electricity).

The neighbor had a small one bedroom apartment/building set back from their main house and separated by a 20 foot walkway/patio. The unit was not lived in, nor rented out.

They agreed to a rental of $75/week. The family stayed for 4 weeks.

The cost basis margin for my neighbor was plumb near infinity for that space. The 'increase in price' was infinite.

Reasonable or not?

(09-30-2021 09:33 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]If the price of art doubled during a natural disaster that wiped out other art for some reason, I doubt you'd expect the government to step in and limit price increases.

If some disaster wiped out the world's entire supply of Jackson Pollack paintings, I would consider that an improvement to the world.

But it wiped out all but one, I would expect the price tag on that last one to go sky high, just on supply/demand - and there would be no wailing from the left or from Lad about price-gouging.

(09-30-2021 09:33 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 04:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 04:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 03:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2021 03:24 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]Also, raising prices in an area of shortage is not necessarily bad, as it tends to direct supply to meet the shortage. Your hypothetical storekeeper gets his widgets from the overall widget market.
- If the sales price of widgets in the hurricane zone is allowed to rise, the market will naturally direct more supply to that area, thus alleviating the shortage.
- If the sales price is required to stay the same (despite the higher distribution costs) as it is in non-damaged areas, then the market will not do so., thus prolonging the shortage.
Grinding an axe against the storekeeper's supposed "greed" thus hurts -- rather than helps -- the very people the axe-grinders profess to care about.

Every economist understands this; every "progressive" does not or pretends not to.

I assume you're in favor of some sort of cap on price increases. If not, you're making an argument in support of price gouging...

If your choices are $4 for a widget or no widgets at all (because you can't replace what is sold) then you have to choose your poison. This is a lesson/discussion about the free market system.

If he just price gouges as you suggest then the guy down the street can simply gouge 'less' (or not at all) and steal all his business. Two ways to arrive at the same result.

Ah, so defense of price gouging it is.

The conversation is about price changes of goods in an area being affected by a natural disaster - that occurs when prices increase above a reasonable amount due to real or potential supply decreases or demand increases during a time of emergency.

I don’t get the head bang emoji - this is a very real concept, so much so that we have laws protecting against it.

You're perhaps the biggest 'dick' I've ever encountered.... I mean really...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Quote:You accuse me of 'defending' price gouging when what I very clearly did was say this was a purely academic discussion about the free market system. In a free market system, the laws of supply and demand rule everything and are ultimately 'fair'. That was the basis of George's comment. This is the basis of most conversations that come from the right on the subject... and you just can't HELP but to try and assign some sort of BS to me so you can argue with that.... or at the very least, try and cast shade at me.

There is a difference between prices rising to reflect the supply and demand of a product and 'price gouging'. If the price of art doubled during a natural disaster that wiped out other art for some reason, I doubt you'd expect the government to step in and limit price increases. The discussion is about 'widgets'... which by definition are NOT 'real'.

The head bang is that for the purposes of this academic discussion, your suggestion is just another in years of deflections and rabbit trails. I could throw in thousands more 'what if' situations that would change the calculus of any given discussion... what if the buyer needed the item immediately to save someone's life and had ZERO money?? Should the seller just GIVE it to him?? I think we'd all argue 'yes' as a humanitarian act... SHould we also just give away 'art' as a humanitarian act?? Those are all anecdotes and have nothing to do with the free market system...NOR does it have to do with collectivism, since in 99.99% of situations, someone's life doesn't literally depend on being able to acquire that item.

Let me be a little more clear so you understand the concept....
In a disaster, the supply lines can become very problematic. Industry often adapts (as it did during COVID and as in George's example) to move supply and supply lines to prioritize items of necessity (like PPM, TP and bread) over 'luxury' items like cars. Look at the cost of shipping containers today. IF for some reason, wealthy people decided to spend a bunch of money on non-necessary items... like perhaps physical gold.... their purchases COULD interrupt/delay/raise the price of delivering NECESSARY items like toilet paper or PPM. You understand why there is (to the extent there still is) a coin shortage, right??

A discussion of 'price gouging' (the concept you added that is nothing but a leftist talking point and finger wag towards capitalism) is a COMPLETE distraction from any constructive discussion about capitalism vs collectivism. It is a perfect example of how you CLAIM not to support socialism, but you characterize 'the right' in the same, myopic way that they do... so your position on the issue is a distinction without a difference.

The entire conversation was predicated on a natural disaster - how was I the one that added that?

Quote:A storekeeper sells widgets for $2. They cost him $1.20, and his overhead is .70, so his net profit before taxes is one dime. He pays 30% (.03) in taxes.

Now Hurricane Ignacio blows into town. The storekeep raises the price of widgets to $4.00. The government sees the $2.10 margin, and instead of 30%, they want 80%.

If OO didn't bring up a hurricane blowing into town, I wouldn't have brought up price gouging.

(09-30-2021 09:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Lad -- here is a real world question for you.

During the snowpocolypse this last February, a neighbor received a call from a family who had lost power on the Friday before it all went to hell (i.e. the real whallop hit Monday-ish). The electric coop said to the family that it would be a minimum of four weeks to get their isolated ranch back on the grid, which meant four weeks to water service (on well, pumps need electricity).

The neighbor had a small one bedroom apartment/building set back from their main house and separated by a 20 foot walkway/patio. The unit was not lived in, nor rented out.

They agreed to a rental of $75/week. The family stayed for 4 weeks.

The cost basis margin for my neighbor was plumb near infinity for that space. The 'increase in price' was infinite.

Reasonable or not?

Was $75/week reasonable? Or was charging infinite reasonable? What was the normal rental rate of the unit?

A better question in that scenario would be whether it would have been reasonable for power generators to charge users $1,000 kWh if there hadn't been a supply shortage in natural gas driving up those prices.

(09-30-2021 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]If OO didn't bring up a hurricane blowing into town, I wouldn't have brought up price gouging.

Yeah, sorry about that, I accidentally created a situation that allowed you derail the discussion on greed.

But the greediest group of people on this planet, after tin pot dictators, are the Progressives.

(09-30-2021 09:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 09:33 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]If the price of art doubled during a natural disaster that wiped out other art for some reason, I doubt you'd expect the government to step in and limit price increases.

If some disaster wiped out the world's entire supply of Jackson Pollack paintings, I would consider that an improvement to the world.

New levels of grumpy old man posting have been reached on the Quad.

This is for you, OO:

https://jonmcnaughton.com/

(09-30-2021 10:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2021 09:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Lad -- here is a real world question for you.

During the snowpocolypse this last February, a neighbor received a call from a family who had lost power on the Friday before it all went to hell (i.e. the real whallop hit Monday-ish). The electric coop said to the family that it would be a minimum of four weeks to get their isolated ranch back on the grid, which meant four weeks to water service (on well, pumps need electricity).

The neighbor had a small one bedroom apartment/building set back from their main house and separated by a 20 foot walkway/patio. The unit was not lived in, nor rented out.

They agreed to a rental of $75/week. The family stayed for 4 weeks.

The cost basis margin for my neighbor was plumb near infinity for that space. The 'increase in price' was infinite.

Reasonable or not?

Was $75/week reasonable?

Is the scenario above reasonable.

Quote:Or was charging infinite reasonable?

Not the question posed. Nor was that fact presented.

Quote:What was the normal rental rate of the unit?

Those facts were given in the above.

Quote:A better question in that scenario would be whether it would have been reasonable for power generators to charge users $1,000 kWh if there hadn't been a supply shortage in natural gas driving up those prices.

Perhaps *you* start out with the question of what you deign 'reasonable' or not? You know, the question you seemingly studiously avoid like the plague.

Nice sidestep, slough off to a particularized question. You are the fing master at that. Imagine that.