Price Gouging - Fair and balanced, or unfair

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous


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?

See?! We're not all greedy, heartless bastards! Some of us are greedy, loveable bastards.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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

Originally posted by Kidicious


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

Ah, so prices set by some group of party apparachiki regardless of costs, supply or demand are "fair" while prices set in an appropriately regulated open market aren't fair.

Sorry for all the would-be state welfare sponges, but "fair" price doesn't mean "dirt cheap subsidized by the state off of someone else's back" price.

[MichaeltheGreat]

doo-DOO-doo-DOO You are now entering... the Commie Zone

Originally posted by Kidicious


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

I love how Commies convenient invent concepts or redefine standard terms the same way Scientologists do. It shows that the validity of both of those systems is about the same.

Capitalism is in no way dependent on price gouging. Price gouging can only occur in a market with an imbalance between supply and demand, which is not a normal condition in a free market.

In most markets at most times, there are multiple resource providers and multiple alternative resources (including a no use alternative) such that there is a balance between supply and demand on average.

[Sava]

I think price gouging is Capitalism in its purest form... extortion. I don't necessarily mind a market system as long as it's TV's, computers, video games, groceries, or other goods... but I mind it where demand is artificially high, as the case with health care. Supply and demand is somewhat of a natural protection for consumers. If a good is too high priced, demand for it will fall and the price will have to come down... but the demand for health care is beyond the realm of protection for consumers. Everybody wants to live, everyone wants to recover from injuries... and in cases where a service or good is a need, perhaps a free market system isn't best to regulate prices. Basically, things should be done in the most efficient manner. And like it or not, profit is inefficient. By nature, it's money into the pocket of the business... unless that money is put back into the business, it's wasted in the pockets of some fat-cat.

My goal is to have an economic system that takes the best parts of capitalism and sets up protections against price gouging and other abuses. But Communism is just dumb. That won't ever work unless the very nature of human beings changes.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Sava
My goal is to have an economic system that takes the best parts of capitalism and sets up protections against price gouging and other abuses. But Communism is just dumb. That won't ever work unless the very nature of human beings changes.

I agree 100%.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sava
I think price gouging is Capitalism in its purest form... extortion.

Price gouging is laissez-faire capitalism after some severe problem that occured outside the system. It's not "capitalism in its purest form", it's an extreme case.

[Berzerker]

Kontiki -

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".

Refusing to do business with you is non-coercive. Threatening your life is coercive... That is the difference between a moral and immoral response to gouging...

Lot's of people stopped buying music by the Dixie Chicks, that isn't coercion. But telling the Dixie Chicks to stop criticising Bush or risk being killed is coercive.


...the sound of insane giggling dissipates into the cluttered attic we call Canada as Kontiki learns a new concept...

[Agathon]

That won't ever work unless the very nature of human beings changes.

GE?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kontiki -

Refusing to do business with you is non-coercive. Threatening your life is coercive... That is the difference between a moral and immoral response to gouging...

Lot's of people stopped buying music by the Dixie Chicks, that isn't coercion. But telling the Dixie Chicks to stop criticising Bush or risk being killed is coercive.


...the sound of insane giggling dissipates into the cluttered attic we call Canada as Kontiki learns a new concept...

Ooooo....you got me there. I forgot that the motel owners were currently facing death sentences from the state of Florida. My bad.

[Berzerker]

Ooooo....you got me there. I forgot that the motel owners were currently facing death sentences from the state of Florida. My bad.

What do you think will happen if they ignore the "law"? Death will be the end result if they don't comply at some point in the process, the fact most people comply short of being killed doesn't negate the fact that death is a likely consequence of not doing as told. So, they won't charge what you want them to charge and they'll be killed or caged for dis-obeying your orders...

It's very easy for people to dis-associate themselves from the results of their behavior when politicians are employed to do their dirty deeds... Hell, you can't even see that you're advocating violence against the peaceful in the name of "fairness"...

[Kuciwalker]

I don't mind coercing people into providing their goods at normal cost during natural disasters.

[Urban Ranger]

Kidicious,

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

Which "mainstream theory" is that? AFAIK, even the neoclassicists admitted that government regulations were necessary. The appearance of monopolies, oligopolies and cartels destroyed the regulatory ability of a market.


Kuciwalker,

The market doesn't become "dysfunctional".

It does when it losses the regulatory ability through supply and demand. If supply could be restricted by one or a few players, the market becomes useless.

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.

No, not when the supplies can be restricted. A monopoly (etc.) always maximise marginal profit.

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

That is an example of a cartel. It really doesn't matter if the player is a state, a local company or a TNC. It's the relative strength that counts.

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.

Hm. A monopoly is only inefficient in terms of not maximising the allocation of resources. It does not mean said monopoly isn't efficient in production or driving out competitors. In fact, one of the consequences of a monopoly forming in an industry is the threshold of entry is increased enormously. Therefore, your argument is dubious at best.

Price gouging is laissez-faire capitalism after some severe problem that occured outside the system. It's not "capitalism in its purest form", it's an extreme case.

Not at all. The formation of monopolies is a natural consequence of capitalism due to economy of scale.

I don't mind coercing people into providing their goods at normal cost during natural disasters.

Commie! Capitalist hater!


Berz,

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.

Yes. That's what happens when a new market opens up. As time goes by, though, new players would enter a market if it is profitable, so eventually a perfectly competitive market is reached. Clearly, that is not a good situation for companies, thus, they would attempt to convert it to a monopolistic competitive market, at the very least.

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.

The problem with this view is you forgot that a company is entirely a social constract. Only through special permission granted by a society could a company be established. As part of the deal, a company agrees to be abide by any laws and regulations such a society may want to apply as conditions for such a permission.

[Berzerker]

I don't mind coercing people into providing their goods at normal cost during natural disasters.

I do, that's what makes me a libertarian and you
a _____

I don't want people putting me in cage or coffin because I was "unfair", so I can't support doing that to others in the name of fairness... It's just too arbitrary...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Kuciwalker,

The market doesn't become "dysfunctional".

It does when it losses the regulatory ability through supply and demand. If supply could be restricted by one or a few players, the market becomes useless.

As I said, it doesn't become dysfunctional. You clearly don't understand it at all. The market is always functioning; there may be temporary effects we call negative, but concluding that the market is therefore "dysfunctional" is like saying that evolution is "dysfunctional" because humans are causing mass extinctions and pollution.

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

That is an example of a cartel. It really doesn't matter if the player is a state, a local company or a TNC. It's the relative strength that counts.

It does matter. It's not a free market by any means.

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.

Hm. A monopoly is only inefficient in terms of not maximising the allocation of resources.

Monopolies tend to be inefficient because they can afford to be (inneficient both from the PoV of the consumer and in the sense of maximizing profit - in the latter part, it's the complacency that allows the buildup of an innefficient bureaucracy without jepardizing the monopoly).

It does not mean said monopoly isn't efficient in production or driving out competitors. In fact, one of the consequences of a monopoly forming in an industry is the threshold of entry is increased enormously. Therefore, your argument is dubious at best.

You didn't disagree with me at all. The threshold of entry is increased enormously; however, it's like an enzyme that causes a reaction to slow down; some molecules will have enough energy to go through the reaction, just a reduced number. Similarly, sometimes evolution ends up decreasing the rate of evolution for a time, by making it more difficult for a successful competitor to evolve. Eventually, however, enough capital will amass in one place to overthrow the monopoly.

Price gouging is laissez-faire capitalism after some severe problem that occured outside the system. It's not "capitalism in its purest form", it's an extreme case.

Not at all. The formation of monopolies is a natural consequence of capitalism due to economy of scale.

I'm talking about price gouging in the sense of charging a lot more for necessities during a hurricane or natural disaster, not just monopolies in general.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I do, that's what makes me a libertarian and you
a _____

Realist? Moderate libertarian? Free-market liberal? Practical?

I don't want people putting me in cage or coffin because I was "unfair", so I can't support doing that to others in the name of fairness... It's just too arbitrary...

It's not arbitrary at all. I don't give a **** about fairness, it's a simple calculation that there's so much more good to be done by forcing you to sell your wares at normal price that it justifies that. Just like I support the draft, and progressive income taxes, and anti-trust... I'm not an absolutist.