What's wrong with PRICE-GOUGING? during a DISASTER or any other time?

[fast]

Are you talking about sales tax? I used to think the seller was responsible, and though I understood (or at least thought I understood) the confusion as why so many people thought incorrectly, I was ultimately the one that was mistaken--a hard to pill to swallow, that one. At any rate, my new view is that the buyer is the one responsible.

No. Seriously. I think the buyer should formally indicate the proportion of the agreed price the seller should pay to the government at the time of transaction. Something that obviously isn't in the books right now.

Well damn, I hope it doesn't exceed the cost.

 

[Elixir]

Actually the consumer, rightly named, is recipient of most services and provider of most labor. It should be the consumer who makes the tax determination rather than some elected, primarily government, administrative group which is playing this need against that want for staying in power purposes.

Just as the seller and employer determines a price which permits her to make profit or have services in competition so should the buyer and employee determine what are her needs form society and labor to survive in competition with others. We are talking about willing participants here aren't we?

I've always felt the mediator, government, is very lax in constraining either wage or tax attrition screwing the consumer on both ends. Placing the authority for taxing should be from individuals who should pay no taxes. rather consumers should determine how much of gross product is spent for necessary services and guide the government in taking it in the marketplace.

That is damned confusing. Are you saying that the seller should set his selling price that will give him the profit they need to stay in business then the buyer determines how much more they want to pay, as taxes, for the purchase?

I'm laughing out loud. The California Department of Justice sent back a quote we had provided, saying we needed to add 8.75% for CA taxes - which they pay, but we have to include on our quote in order for them to get budget approval. It was all I could do to refrain from asking: "So... if you don't pay the tax, do you get hauled up in front of yourself?"

 

[bilby]

The twisted world of stunted minds that see suffering human beings as prey. Libertarians and capitalists are sociopathic predators at heart.

The issue is what happens when there isn't enough to go around. The issues that occur are how do you make sure people have a chance to get it. How do you prevent people who don't need it from taking it from people who do. And how do you get it so things are quickly restored.

There are a LOT of different ways to ration scarce goods. Allowing prices to rise unchecked is one; It's also probably the worst one, in terms of outcomes.

That people won't even consider (or cannot even imagine) any better way to do it would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How about the fact that in addition to losing their homes people now have to pay for overpriced food to survive? This isn't that complicated to figure out. There is no debate here.

Your side keeps looking at it as normal priced items vs expensive items.

In practice it's usually expensive items vs no items.

Whoever already had a stock in the disaster area benefits but the people also benefit in that more gets shipped in when that normally wouldn't happen. If you have to ship goods into the disaster area but can only sell them for normal price you're not going to bother.

- - - Updated - - -

If you think price gouging is just fine, you're implying that it's the person's fault that they can't afford food during a natural disaster, where they lost everything.

Most of us are not saying it's fine. Rather, we are questioning which is the lesser evil.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Indeed. Arguably, markets for essentials should be suspended for the duration of the emergency and essentials rationed per capita and/or need. Vendors would be compensated later at the going rate.

Which still does nothing to get them shipped in.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The issue is what happens when there isn't enough to go around. The issues that occur are how do you make sure people have a chance to get it. How do you prevent people who don't need it from taking it from people who do. And how do you get it so things are quickly restored.

There are a LOT of different ways to ration scarce goods. Allowing prices to rise unchecked is one; It's also probably the worst one, in terms of outcomes.

That people won't even consider (or cannot even imagine) any better way to do it would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

1) Price increases happen much faster than any rationing setup will get into place.

2) Rationing does nothing about increasing supply, price increases do increase the supply.

 

[Angry Floof]

The issue is what happens when there isn't enough to go around. The issues that occur are how do you make sure people have a chance to get it. How do you prevent people who don't need it from taking it from people who do. And how do you get it so things are quickly restored.

There are a LOT of different ways to ration scarce goods. Allowing prices to rise unchecked is one; It's also probably the worst one, in terms of outcomes.

That people won't even consider (or cannot even imagine) any better way to do it would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

Not only not consider other possibilities but go to all kinds of tap dancing bullshit to justify the most stunted, inhumane approach possible.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Indeed. Arguably, markets for essentials should be suspended for the duration of the emergency and essentials rationed per capita and/or need. Vendors would be compensated later at the going rate.

Which still does nothing to get them shipped in.

Or to prevent them getting shipped in. And it's hard to imagine a worse way of doing so than relying on psycho/sociopaths marking them up to exorbitant prices.

 

[bilby]

Your side keeps looking at it as normal priced items vs expensive items.

In practice it's usually expensive items vs no items.

Whoever already had a stock in the disaster area benefits but the people also benefit in that more gets shipped in when that normally wouldn't happen. If you have to ship goods into the disaster area but can only sell them for normal price you're not going to bother.

- - - Updated - - -

If you think price gouging is just fine, you're implying that it's the person's fault that they can't afford food during a natural disaster, where they lost everything.

Most of us are not saying it's fine. Rather, we are questioning which is the lesser evil.

You can always tell Loren has lost an argument; He starts referring to 'Your side' instead of directly responding to actual claims by other posters. It's a tell that he is engaging in a strawman fallacy.

Nonetheless, the idea that it is a lesser evil (and apparently self evidently so) that good should be in stores at unaffordable prices, rather than absent from stores entirely, is nonsense.

Goods that are in stores are doing nothing useful; Goods that have been sold are (presumably) benefiting the buyers. Goods in a store at a price you cannot afford are EXACTLY as little use to you as goods that do not exist; The ONLY beneficiary of such goods are those who are wealthy enough to buy them anyway. Price-gouging is a rationing system that allocates scarce resources on the basis of the wealth of the purchaser - it is a physical embodiment of the principle that rich people are better or more deserving than poor people.

During a crisis, the allocation of goods should ideally be based on need. Rationing by price increases tends to do the EXACT opposite - the only people with access to goods in such situations are the wealthy people, who likely have less need than others, and who are more justifiably blameworthy for having failed to adequately prepare.

 

[coloradoatheist]

There are a LOT of different ways to ration scarce goods. Allowing prices to rise unchecked is one; It's also probably the worst one, in terms of outcomes.

That people won't even consider (or cannot even imagine) any better way to do it would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

Not only not consider other possibilities but go to all kinds of tap dancing bullshit to justify the most stunted, inhumane approach possible.

There are pros and cons to each of the situations. We see the pros of the price gouging outweigh its cons.

 

[fromderinside]

Bilby wrote:

During a crisis, the allocation of goods should ideally be based on need. Rationing by price increases tends to do the EXACT opposite - the only people with access to goods in such situations are the wealthy people, who likely have less need than others, and who are more justifiably blameworthy for having failed to adequately prepare.

So few words so many problems with them. How does one come to the meaning of 'crisis' 'ideally', 'need'. Rationing" Is it by distribution limitations , potential supply, government dictate and operation, etc. One can test that meaning by situation. Are supply normal, least costly, supply routes unavailable? Then government or civil spirit dictate would be the determined thing rather than a price thing.

So all we're talking about here are those situations where price would be an incentive and constraint. Then the wealthy benefit to the detriment of the less wealthy. But these conditions arise only when an equitable -fair to all - competitive marketing system breaks down which is usually generated by marketing greed and supplier advantage determining equity in competitive status such as patent or other limited or sole right condition. In effect supply inequity determined the wealthy manipulating the market. So the arguments created are those of those who control the market which issues as a failure of civil society to equitably regulate making them straw man arguments.

The real problem is with equity balance in society, a condition where there is an agreed trade off between wealth and privilege and individual consumer need. It is a problem caused by money in politics and government which, in a democratic society should be reparable through legislation and regulation.

My comments are not very pointy. They just suggest the solution is not just regulation and government control. They suggest the problem is with the means by which the 'democratic' will is determined focusing on either the elimination or radical control of it's use in making governments.

 

[ksen]

Not only not consider other possibilities but go to all kinds of tap dancing bullshit to justify the most stunted, inhumane approach possible.

There are pros and cons to each of the situations. We see the pros of the price gouging outweigh its cons.

Because you guys are sociopaths.

 

[coloradoatheist]

There are pros and cons to each of the situations. We see the pros of the price gouging outweigh its cons.

Because you guys are sociopaths.

By increasing the likelyhood that people who need the supplies can have access to them or by encouraging resources to be diverted from elsewhere to make sure they have these good in a more timely fashion. Not sociopath.

 

[skepticalbip]

Because you guys are sociopaths.

By increasing the likelyhood that people who need the supplies can have access to them or by encouraging resources to be diverted from elsewhere to make sure they have these good in a more timely fashion. Not sociopath.

Apparently since the "argument" of racist, or sexist, or homophobe, or xenophobe, etc., etc. couldn't be made he resorted to "sociopath" as an "argument".

 

[lpetrich]

All the capitalism apologists here, they are claiming that the only possible alternative to price gouging is no supply. But if there is some alternative, like a supply without price gouging, then their argument fails.

As to Lumpenproletariat's position, it's a big contrast from what he says about employees' pay. It's as if business leaders have a right to deprive consumers of money, but employees don't.

 

[skepticalbip]

All the capitalism apologists here, they are claiming that the only possible alternative to price gouging is no supply. But if there is some alternative, like a supply without price gouging, then their argument fails.

As to Lumpenproletariat's position, it's a big contrast from what he says about employees' pay. It's as if business leaders have a right to deprive consumers of money, but employees don't.

That is a terrible mis-statement of the capitalist's position. There are many methods of getting supplies into the area but the most important consideration is that a hell of a lot of supplies need to be shipped in quickly and continually. Those making a profit doing it are contributing to the well being of those who need them as are those who bring in supplies and distribute them freely. The point is, a hell of a lot of supplies are desperately needed. Now if everyone who claims to care about the victims but are condemning those making a profit actually acted on their claims and rushed in with supplies to distribute freely then there would be no need for those making a profit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which still does nothing to get them shipped in.

Or to prevent them getting shipped in. And it's hard to imagine a worse way of doing so than relying on psycho/sociopaths marking them up to exorbitant prices.

If there were adequate supplies being shipped in there would be no market for price gouging. If price gouging exists it's evidence that the other methods aren't working. And it also shows a simple means of preventing it--ship in enough supplies.

 

[ksen]

Because you guys are sociopaths.

By increasing the likelyhood that people who need the supplies can have access to them or by encouraging resources to be diverted from elsewhere to make sure they have these good in a more timely fashion. Not sociopath.

Just what a sociopath would say.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are pros and cons to each of the situations. We see the pros of the price gouging outweigh its cons.

Because you guys are sociopaths.

No. We are looking deeper, not just at the surface of what feels good.

 

[ksen]

Or to prevent them getting shipped in. And it's hard to imagine a worse way of doing so than relying on psycho/sociopaths marking them up to exorbitant prices.

If there were adequate supplies being shipped in there would be no market for price gouging. If price gouging exists it's evidence that the other methods aren't working. And it also shows a simple means of preventing it--ship in enough supplies.

Why would a good capitalist want to prevent, or decrease the amount of, price gouging?