Price Gouging - Fair and balanced, or unfair

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Price Gouging - Fair and balanced, or unfair

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/17/charley.gouging.charges/index.html

im against this law - its the free market at use.

It's only a free market if there's a practically unlimited supply and suppliers compete on price alone.

Otherwise, we are start looking at monopolistic practices.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Re: Price Gouging - Fair and balanced, or unfair

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


It's only a free market if there's a practically unlimited supply and suppliers compete on price alone.

Otherwise, we are start looking at monopolistic practices.

No. You can have free markets with monopolistic power. Markets are only planned when there is a third party determining the level of production or the price.

[Urban Ranger]

No, when there's a monopoly or cartel in a market, it's no longer free.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
No, when there's a monopoly or cartel in a market, it's no longer free.

I've got the Oxford Dictionary of Economics.

You have a point though. If a monoploy or cartel is solid enough it's basically planned, but not by definition.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I've got the Oxford Dictionary of Economics.

You have a point though. If a monoploy or cartel is solid enough it's basically planned, but not by definition.

And I've got Ricardo

Seriously, even the Neoclassicists agreed that a completely hands-off attitude for the govenment no longer worked, as monopolies (etc.) were appearing in various industries, completely wrecking "The Invisble Hand."

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


And I've got Ricardo

Seriously, even the Neoclassicists agreed that a completely hands-off attitude for the govenment no longer worked, as monopolies (etc.) were appearing in various industries, completely wrecking "The Invisble Hand."

I definitely need a source.

[Kuciwalker]

Monopolies don't wreck the invisible hand in the long term. Of course, you could be talking about the very long term. But eventually someone will acquire enough capital to overthrow the monopoly.

I'm all for anti-trust, though - the alternative is a long and painful process.

[Kidlicious]

Smith was definitely against anti-trust. I don't know about Ricardo. He was kind of a strange one. I'm curious to know for sure.

[mrmitchell]

Monopolies don't wreck the invisible hand in the long term. Of course, you could be talking about the very long term. But eventually someone will acquire enough capital to overthrow the monopoly.

Just like those questions for voting aptitude tests would be fair, right?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Monopolies don't wreck the invisible hand in the long term. Of course, you could be talking about the very long term. But eventually someone will acquire enough capital to overthrow the monopoly.

First of all, if a market becomes dysfunctional, it loses the power to regulate. That's when the government needs to come in to take up the slack, at the very least.

Secondly, it's extrmely hard to say if somebody would acquire enough capital at an indefinite point in the future. OPEC has been around for ages, and so is de Beers.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Just like those questions for voting aptitude tests would be fair, right?

Huh?

It's like evolution - it may take a lot of time for the right circumstances to occur, but the monopoly will eventually be destroyed.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
First of all, if a market becomes dysfunctional, it loses the power to regulate. That's when the government needs to come in to take up the slack, at the very least.

But the mainstream theory is that govt regulation causes monopolies. Ricardo assumed perfect copetition in all his theories.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
First of all, if a market becomes dysfunctional, it loses the power to regulate. That's when the government needs to come in to take up the slack, at the very least.

The market doesn't become "dysfunctional". It's like evolution. It always happens, but sometimes slowly and with a lot of pain. Evolution always increases the fitness of an organism; the market always increases the fairness (not using Kid's definition here, you understand what I mean by "fair") of the prices. Other circumstances besides the market (natural disasters, new technology, etc) can make things worse for a time, just like climate changes can decrease organisms' fitness for a time.

Secondly, it's extrmely hard to say if somebody would acquire enough capital at an indefinite point in the future. OPEC has been around for ages, and so is de Beers.

OPEC is a multinational organization, not merely some industrial conglomerate. The State (or States) meddling in the market throws all guarantees out the window.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Secondly, it's extrmely hard to say if somebody would acquire enough capital at an indefinite point in the future. OPEC has been around for ages, and so is de Beers.

Hmm. This reminds me of the Snowball Earth theory.

750 million years ago, Earth froze over down to the ocean bottoms. By 580 million years ago, enough CO2 had accumulated from volcanic eruptions for Earth to instamelt and go tropical.

[mrmitchell]

h?

It's like evolution - it may take a lot of time for the right circumstances to occur, but the monopoly will eventually be destroyed.

When Whaleboy proposed voter-aptitude tests, you said it would never happen without an ideal situation.

Now you're using an ideal situation to defend monopolies.