DC Braces for megastorm

[Imran Siddiqui]

I understand the point you are driving at. I merely disagree with it. It limits the amount of supplies and help people can receive in situations like this and doesn't adequately protect the people price controls are supposed to serve.

I know (that you'd disagree). Though it seems my hope is not misplaced that you would have understood my point.

Anyways, that was just the point I was trying to make - different POV involving a different starting & ending point.

[giblets]

Not entirely. A lot of morality is subjective, however.

There are general principles of morality that I think exist (not that this is going to earn me any favors but, ones that I think match God's views on what just society should look like); however, I don't necessarily think they are consonant with what is most economically efficient (once again, I know I'm appealing to God, but forgive me - if you treat your neighbor as yourself that may not be efficient).

I don't see how treating your neighbor as yourself is incompatible with Pareto efficiency. If we truly care about each other we should be trying to find ways to make people better off without making others worse off, in addition to redistribution of resources.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't see how treating your neighbor as yourself is incompatible with Pareto efficiency. If we truly care about each other we should be trying to find ways to make people better off without making others worse off, in addition to redistribution of resources.

Isn't Pareto 80-20? As in do what's best for the 80%? Or am I remembering incorrectly?

Though in that case, if you cared about your neighbor as yourself, then you'd want to make sure those 20% were taken care of as much as possible, even if less efficient for the 80%

[Felch]

Preventing a moral bad, not doing unto others as we would have done unto us.

Before the storm, I went out to get bread. In order to avoid the insane lines at the grocery stores, I went to 7-11, and I paid 2.99 for a one pound loaf of bread. I wasn't being ripped off, I was paying a price for convenience. If people are willing to pay more, then why not let them?

Another example. When I order a book from Amazon, I can either get the slow Amazon Prime shipping for free, or I can pay a whole lot for a quicker delivery. If I were buying a textbook I needed for a class, and I waited until the last minute, should Amazon be prohibited from charging extra for faster shipping? Should I be forced to wait just so I can save money?

Plenty of people are willing to spend a little extra money to get what matters to them. Why are you entitled to deny them that liberty? What qualifies you to run other people's affairs?

[Felch]

If I put a gun to your head and said give me all of your money or I will blow your brains out then there would be nothing wrong with that? I mean you did agree to it, right, champ? Stop being such a ****. Extorting from desperate people is immoral you religious hypocrite.

"Give me what I want or you'll die! I see nothing immoral about this!"

You think this is an example of a free transaction between free people?

[Kidlicious]

Before the storm, I went out to get bread. In order to avoid the insane lines at the grocery stores, I went to 7-11, and I paid 2.99 for a one pound loaf of bread. I wasn't being ripped off, I was paying a price for convenience. If people are willing to pay more, then why not let them?

Another example. When I order a book from Amazon, I can either get the slow Amazon Prime shipping for free, or I can pay a whole lot for a quicker delivery. If I were buying a textbook I needed for a class, and I waited until the last minute, should Amazon be prohibited from charging extra for faster shipping? Should I be forced to wait just so I can save money?

Plenty of people are willing to spend a little extra money to get what matters to them. Why are you entitled to deny them that liberty? What qualifies you to run other people's affairs?

Because in both of your examples the consumer is getting more surplus because they have more options. In the case of price gouging the seller is taking advantage of the consumer because he has no better option and the consumer loses his surplus.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why are you entitled to deny them that liberty? What qualifies you to run other people's affairs?

Because we, as a society, have decided to limit that liberty because we believe it is immoral in certain instances.

[giblets]

Isn't Pareto 80-20? As in do what's best for the 80%? Or am I remembering incorrectly?

Though in that case, if you cared about your neighbor as yourself, then you'd want to make sure those 20% were taken care of as much as possible, even if less efficient for the 80%

That was a different idea of his, I was referring to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

edit: you're confusing it with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

[regexcellent]

Wait, what law actually prevents people from charging reasonable market prices again?

And if that's true, as a society we're ****ing retarded. There is no more important liberty than being able to exchange goods and services freely.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wait, what law actually prevents people from charging reasonable market prices again?

Price Gouging Laws.

[Felch]

Actually, let me save some steps and get to the core of the disagreement (though I honestly thought DD would get it where HC and others may not): moral decisions made by people aren't necessarily the most economically rational decisions. Hell, they may not be rational in any sense - it may just be a collective offending of conscience. However, my belief is that that isn't always bad and may not be that bad the majority of the time (one example - we aren't that keen, morally, on 15 year olds getting married, even if they may as rationally mature as 18 year olds - I'm sure Ozzy can come up with something on this - based on our ideas of when people are able to fully 'consent'). Others will likely disagree. I also believe that our society has become too indebted to rationality and the pendulum of the Enlightenment has swung too far (so to speak).

Have I encapsulated the issues here sufficiently?

You're right about a lot of what you say here. I don't believe that the market is perfect, and I don't mistake it for a moral code. I sympathize more with Distributivists like Belloc and Chesterton than I do Ayn Rand and her vicious cadres. But I don't think that government coercion is the way to be compassionate. Governments exist to provide a legal framework that protects and upholds rights and liberties. Virtue must come from individuals. I wouldn't personally engage in price gouging, partly for the reasons that TMM pointed out (it poisons relationships, and is bad in the long term), and partly because I find it distasteful. But I absolutely abhor the idea of government inspectors fining people who adjust their prices to reflect a change in demand. If people don't want to be gouged, then they should be prudent in their preparations, and thrifty in their use of resources after a disaster. If people don't mind being gouged, what right do we have to stop them?

[Felch]

Because in both of your examples the consumer is getting more surplus because they have more options. In the case of price gouging the seller is taking advantage of the consumer because he has no better option and the consumer loses his surplus.

So it's better to remove all options entirely? You realize that supply will only meet demand when the price is set by the market, right? Without that, people who need things like gas or food, simply won't be able to find them.

[Felch]

Because we, as a society, have decided to limit that liberty because we believe it is immoral in certain instances.

The exact same rationalization used to persecute homosexuals. Congratulations on your hypocrisy.

[Kidlicious]

Wait, what law actually prevents people from charging reasonable market prices again?

And if that's true, as a society we're ****ing retarded. There is no more important liberty than being able to exchange goods and services freely.

Actually, even the military has laws against price gouging during shortages.

[Felch]

There is no more important liberty than being able to exchange goods and services freely.

Don't you realize that it's better to have nothing at all than to be charged slightly more for something?