Price Gouging - Fair and balanced, or unfair

[Velociryx]

ARGH and ahoy, Matey! This IS the electroshock therapy!

Kid even gave me a PM invite to this thread...

-=Vel=-

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't know why you guys put these ideas to me. Debt-ridden? I don't know what to do with that. We don't advocate a debt system.

Debt exists whether you acknowledge it or not - just ask any now unemployed former central planner in Moscow. If you consume more value than you produce, there is a net negative flow of wealth, value, or whatever else you want to call it. Those losses are either subsidized by someone (producers, consumers, the state), or the enterprise incurs debt to balance things out over time, or the enterprise goes out of business.

If I take two dollars of value (input materials, facility value and labor) to produce 1.90 of value, that's not going to work well for very long. Someone has to pick up the negative balance. In the Soviet model, incentives were designed such that efficient enterprises were punished while inefficient enterprises were rewarded, and there were absolut disincentives for innovation. The only "exception" was in some (but by no means a majority) of defense enterprises, particularly those which were R&D focused.

You can deny debt, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means you're covering it up by subsidizing it from somewhere else.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Berzerker
MtG -

Very good I hear, 4th largest producer in the states.

Try not paying that "fine" and you'll see the violence. Isn't that obvious?

Nope, what usually happens with a business is that they send a lien notice to your bank, and the bank complies with the law and transfers the money.

Strawman, I never said they had to hole up and shoot it out (but if they did it would be self-defense). What happens if they simply refuse to pay the fine? Are they still peaceful? Yes. And your reaction? To break into their business or home with guns drawn to ensure their removal from existence or their property? And you accuse your victim of not being peaceful?

I'm glad you disclaimed that as a strawman. Nope, you simply place a lien against their assets. They knew the law, they accepted the law as part of operating in that business environment. If they didn't like it, they could sell out and start a new hotel in some Libertarian paradise where they could gouge at will.

If a cop pulls you over for a speeding ticket, and you continue to escalate and the cop continues to escalate in kind until you have a violent confrontation, you're certainly not blameless.

Millions of peaceful people have died for not complying with governments...

And how many of them have been Florida hotel owners who refused to pay a fine for price gouging? If Kansas is the fourth biggest producer of dope(s) in the states, it must be the biggest producer of straw.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Velociryx
ARGH and ahoy, Matey! This IS the electroshock therapy!

Kid even gave me a PM invite to this thread...

-=Vel=-

and you accepted ???

Why not do something productive like playing smax??

and I see MTG is getting sucked back into this vortex.


This should be dubbed the neverending argument.

I just have visions of kid in his old age shouting into his voice recognition device " NO no No . .. to charge interest is oppressive .. . . what MTG?- no we would not permit debt in our society so interest would be moot.. . .. . what vel?? I don't care if you invented a machine, it must be provided equally to all .. . no Vel we would give you a fair wage for your effort"

etc etc etc etc etc

I only wish Kid could be given a country or two to test out these ideas . .. . WAIT--- Wasn't there a whole bunch of countries that tried varieties on this theme and failed miserably?? Oh must have been the capitalists fault.

[Velociryx]

I'm going to arrange for us all to be in the same retirement home together....

And to answer a question Kid posed earlier...something to the effect that he wanted to know why everybody was dissing the commies for having a variety of "flavors" of communism....the answer, kid, is simple.

Most, if not all of the reds here are calling for a globalized implementation of communism.

Globalized implementation means...well, just one.

So before the glorious revolution gets here, it seems to me that one important bit of prep work would be to determine what, exactly, is gonna be implemented (and some thought given to how might not be a bad thing either).

One thing's true tho.

Global implementation don't leave room for lots of flavors of communism.

You gotta pick one and stick with it.

That's another strength of capitalism. There are so many flavors cos it doesn't have to be (and is not) a system which requires everybody to be under the same umbrella.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Oh...and I can't play smax...I'm at work...

-=Vel=-
(note that I did not say "working"...only that I was "at work")

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
In a nutshell, yes! Price gouging is fair and balanced.

You have the advantage of seeing the mistake that Berzerker and MtG made. If you want to say that price gouging is fair I will just let that stand, based on it's absurdity.

[Velociryx]

Nope.

What's absurd is you thinking that you have ANY right to tell me what I can and can't do with MY stuff.

There's a reason it's mine.



-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

and to be fair, the part you're missing, Kid, is that they'll get theirs.

They had an opportunity before them to help. To do some real GOOD, *and* earn lossa brownie points at the same time.

They blew that chance. I'd be willing to bet that the net cost to their company will far outweigh any short term gains by riding the supply/demand curve.

It would have served them much better, IMO, to ignore the trend (rates remain flat) or even give the rooms to those fleeing the storm.

Goodwill is pure gold, and they'll be kicking themselves later.

But the fact remains, it was their decision to make.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
and to be fair, the part you're missing, Kid, is that they'll get theirs.

You're making about as much sense as ever. If it's fair, why should they recieve punishment?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Debt exists whether you acknowledge it or not - just ask any now unemployed former central planner in Moscow. If you consume more value than you produce, there is a net negative flow of wealth, value, or whatever else you want to call it. Those losses are either subsidized by someone (producers, consumers, the state), or the enterprise incurs debt to balance things out over time, or the enterprise goes out of business.

If I take two dollars of value (input materials, facility value and labor) to produce 1.90 of value, that's not going to work well for very long. Someone has to pick up the negative balance. In the Soviet model, incentives were designed such that efficient enterprises were punished while inefficient enterprises were rewarded, and there were absolut disincentives for innovation. The only "exception" was in some (but by no means a majority) of defense enterprises, particularly those which were R&D focused.

You can deny debt, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means you're covering it up by subsidizing it from somewhere else.

Words like debt and subsidies don't make any sense in a true communist society. There is simply a transfer of resources.

[Velociryx]

It's fair, Kid, in the sense that they own the hotel!

Since it's theirs...they get to decide what to do with it and how to use it.

What's "not fair" is for your party bosses to step in with your jackboots and put guns to their heads and FORCE them to do it your way.

Let them be. Their stuff...not yours.

Of course, that sword has a two-edged blade.

It's also fair if the connsuming public doesn't like what they're doing with it, they can boycott (ie "punish") the hotel owners.

That too, is fair.

How does that not make sense again?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
How does that not make sense again?

-=Vel=-

Is that two rights make a wrong, or two wrongs make a right?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Globalized implementation means...well, just one.

Why don't you let us handle the details? You're not a very good communist. Maybe if you tried harder.

Yes there is the option of local variability, without the horrors of global conflict.

[Velociryx]

No...that's what happens as a natural extension of respecting property rights.

Or...have you flipped your position on those again, and are now *against* property? (cos last time we crossed swords, you were for property rights...which is wonky for a Red, but... )

As to letting you guys handle it...ummm....no.

And the REASON for that answer is that you will be expecting me to live under the glorious new system.

So....I think I have a right to ask some questions about how it's all going to work.

Of course, given that you guys can't even flippin decide on WHAT to implement if (another) chance suddently presented itself, so I'd say the world is quite safe from the Red Tide....

-=Vel=-