Price Gouging - Fair and balanced, or unfair

[Berzerker]

Well part of the complaint is fraud. Lying to customers, even those who HAD reservations at lower prices in order to get them to pay more.

Ouch!

Prices aren't fair in the free market. If you want fair you're advocating the wrong economic system.

OUCH!



Shall I tempt fate?

Aaah, so people's capacity to pay is based on the extent of their home damage? All this time, I thought it related to net income.

And you're right - this is the perfect demonstration of why the liberterarium has no place in the real world. ****ing people over when a hurricane hits.

Hotel owners have the freedom to charge what they want even if it's gouging and people in the area can report it to news outlets and boycott the hotel owners.
In a free market consumers will react negatively to such immorality just as they do now and those businesses will end up paying in the long run.

A commitment to freedom allows others to do things we often find immoral. You claim we like it? Of course we don't, but when a reaction to an immoral act is far worse, then we have a problem.

- "Charge what we say or we'll throw you in a cage or a coffin and take your money".

[Berzerker]

Kid -

You're losing this one to LoA. Capitalism is dependent on price gouging. That's the driving force behind the allocation of resources

Henry Ford got rich selling cars cheap enough for the common man, I don't recall anyone accusing him of gouging.

UR -

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.

The first time two or more people came together and made a deal, that was the creation of a free market and they didn't have unlimited supplies. And yes, the person selling the spear or knife has a monopoly on that item. If he angers his trading partners by charging too much, they'll stop doing business with him.

No one ever said freedom was perfect but it sure is a helluva lot better than employing a state to run around threatening us with violence for not charging a "fair" price... Look at how many laws we have now and we started down that path with the "life should be fair" delusion.

[Sikander]

Preacher: You can't throw all of our brothers and sisters out of the hotel! Where are they going to stay? This is a god fearing town! These are god fearing people!

High Plains Drifter: Are all of these people your brothers and sisters?

Preacher: Yes, we are all brothers and sisters in the eyes of the lord!

High Plains Drifter: Then you won't mind if they all come and stay with you then.

Preacher: [hesitates for a second, then speaks so that all can hear him] Now don't you folks worry! Aint no one gonna be thrown out on the streets. We will take every one of you into our homes! And it won't cost you a penny... [a small outcry of delight is murmured by the erstwhile hotel guests] .... more than regular hotel rates.

[Berzerker]

Hehe, one of my favorite scenes from HPD

[Stuie]

We should nationalize all forms of lodging, home improvement stores, supermarkets and chain resteraunts in times of declared emergencies. Then a local committee (let's call it a "soviet") could be formed to distribute items based on need.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I agree with Lawrence of Arabia, hotel owners should be allowed to charge what they can get. If a hotel owner has a conscience they can throw a bunch of cots and sleeping bags into their hotel's banquet/conference room and let the less affluent customers pay for a slot in there.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Hotel owners have the freedom to charge what they want even if it's gouging and people in the area can report it to news outlets and boycott the hotel owners.
In a free market consumers will react negatively to such immorality just as they do now and those businesses will end up paying in the long run.

A commitment to freedom allows others to do things we often find immoral. You claim we like it? Of course we don't, but when a reaction to an immoral act is far worse, then we have a problem.

- "Charge what we say or we'll throw you in a cage or a coffin and take your money".

Oh man, I literally burst out laughing when I read this!

The non-coercive libertarian solution: "Charge what we say or we'll humiliate you and destroy your business".

[Dauphin]

What you want to do is beat up the hotel manager (or at least the wreck the hotel lobby) and get thrown in jail for the night. Sorts out accomodation and makes you feel better for releasing the anger at the hotel.

[Dauphin]

The bad PR will probably cost them more than the extra revenue, in the longer term.

[Flubber]

hmmm-- it looks like there was some shady dealings here if people lost their pre-reserved rooms but as for not giving rooms at an advertised price , that happens every day.

A reporter did a TV piece on it here in Calgary and found that on a normal day you could routinely find a difference of 50% in hotel room prices (for the same room) depending on how you booked it. i did the same look recently and found you COULD pay DOUBLE if you did not watch what you were doing.

Airlines do the same thing.. They sell a lot of tickets at reduced prices but save a number of seats for the last-minute traveller who will pay through the nose.


My bottom line is I place no blame on a hotel if they don't have a room available at their lowest rate for drop-in travellers . .. Thats life. But they should and must honor reservations

[The Emperor Fabulous]

I agree with Lawrence of Arabia, hotel owners should be allowed to charge what they can get. If a hotel owner has a conscience they can throw a bunch of cots and sleeping bags into their hotel's banquet/conference room and let the less affluent customers pay for a slot in there.

I like how you've qualified conscience as "willing to charge you less for something worse than help you out of my own goodness".

Who said that right-wingers have no inherent goodness?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I'm for laws preventing price gouging in declared emergencies like hurricanes and such.

commie!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
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.

No, I'm not. The two are completely unrelated!

Under capitalism, there's always an element of chance, like in evolution. As t -> infinity, the chance of the monopoly being overthrown -> 1. Except it goes much faster, because the monopoly's inefficiency means that once a competitor is secure (which merely requires a substantial capital investment), the monopoly is dead.

In the other case, I said that politicians would never create a balanced test. It's completely unrelated!

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Under capitalism, there's always an element of chance, like in evolution. As t -> infinity, the chance of the monopoly being overthrown -> 1.

As t-> infinity a lot of things tend to 1.

Everyone will eventually almost definitely win the lottery.

[Kuciwalker]

Now, to clarify, a) I'm talking about a completely laissez-faire capitalist system and b) I don't support one.

I think it is possible, through very careful and limited regulation, to achieve the same effects in a shorter time with less pain on all sides involved. That's why I support anti-trust, and regulation against price gouging during declared emergencies.