DC Braces for megastorm

[MrFun]

HC, so what are your opinions about charities like the Red Cross or others that provide supplies and necessities during disasters? Are you opposed to those, because - GASP - they are not selling their goods, but giving them away!!

[Dinner]

... free transactions ...

And people who would suffer either great suffering or death as a result of not getting the needed food/supplies/water/what ever suddenly are beneath your consideration? We both know there is a lot of coercion behind the "I must have this or I will die" proposition so stop pretending there is not. You're just a liar if you pretend there is not.

You're an immoral piece of garbage so stop pretending you're anything but. "They'll do without this, but they AGREED to it so therefor it is ok!" It's an immoral proposition just like Imran said. It is the exact same as holding a gun to their head and extorting money from them because the result is the same.

[Hauldren Collider]

HC, so what are your opinions about charities like the Red Cross or others that provide supplies and necessities during disasters? Are you opposed to those, because - GASP - they are not selling their goods, but giving them away!!

I have absolutely no problem with charities filling in demand where goods are scarce. None at all. The problem is where the government comes in and prevents goods from getting there by pretending that it can improve the situation by interfering in the free market.

The difference between the Red Cross and the government price controls is that the price controls do not increase the availability of scarce goods. They're just making it unprofitable to improve the situation. The Red Cross is operating at a loss, which is their prerogative, but they are actually providing real goods to real people.

[giblets]

HC, so what are your opinions about charities like the Red Cross or others that provide supplies and necessities during disasters? Are you opposed to those, because - GASP - they are not selling their goods, but giving them away!!

You can be in favor of redistribution of wealth, and against market distortions.

[SlowwHand]

Free trade is free trade. If one accepts that, then speculation is the evil partner.

[Hauldren Collider]

Free trade is free trade. If one accepts that, then speculation is the evil partner.

You don't even know or understand what speculation is, do you? This statement is incoherent.

[Felch]

HC, so what are your opinions about charities like the Red Cross or others that provide supplies and necessities during disasters? Are you opposed to those, because - GASP - they are not selling their goods, but giving them away!!

Charities operate on a voluntary basis. The Red Cross doesn't break into my house and steal food from me. I either donate to them or I don't.

And people who would suffer either great suffering or death as a result of not getting the needed food/supplies/water/what ever suddenly are beneath your consideration? We both know there is a lot of coercion behind the "I must have this or I will die" proposition so stop pretending there is not. You're just a liar if you pretend there is not.

You're an immoral piece of garbage so stop pretending you're anything but. "They'll due without this, but they AGREED to it so therefor it is ok!"

I realize you're an idiot, so I'll try to make this simple.

With price controls, supplies dwindle, and many people are left without basic necessities.

Without price controls, the market functions, additional supplies are brought into the area (because selfish merchants want a piece of the action), and everybody is able to get basic necessities. The prices are slightly higher than normal, but because competition exists between the sellers, people will still get a fair price. Remember, if I price my food so high that nobody can afford it, then nobody is going to buy it. If nobody buys it, then I don't make any money.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Since when?

Have you already forgotten I was defending Mourdock's comments last week?

HC... your response?

[Hauldren Collider]

HC... your response?

I might have been mixing you up with Asher. If that is the case, my deepest apologies.

[Hauldren Collider]

MrFun, I want to make something clear--the reason gribbler, Felch, regexcellent and I are making a case for this is not because we believe it's fair for the rich to have all the food and gas and blankets and stuff. It's because it turns out, that if you do things this way, everyone is better off--ESPECIALLY the poor. These policies hurt the very people they are supposed to help the most.

[Felch]

Here's a hypothetical scenario, and I'd like to hear what y'all think.

Bill is a selfish bastard, and he lives in New Jersey. Long before any news of the storm, he's built a stockpile of canned food, sufficient to feed his household for a few weeks. After the storm, Bill hears that the grocery store is keeping its prices at pre-storm levels, but is rationing food, and even so can only serve half the people in town. Bill gets in line, buys food he doesn't need, and then flips it on the black market for three times what he spent.

Would that bother anybody but me? Wouldn't it be better to let the grocery store set realistic prices so that people like Bill can't game the system? Do any of you think that this is wildly unrealistic or implausible?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I might have been mixing you up with Asher. If that is the case, my deepest apologies.

No worries - just wanted to make sure no one confused me with being against religious basis for policy for the right while being for it for the left (I may disagree with the policy some of the right push forward, but not with the basis they start from).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Bill is a selfish bastard, and he lives in New Jersey. Long before any news of the storm, he's built a stockpile of canned food, sufficient to feed his household for a few weeks. After the storm, Bill hears that the grocery store is keeping its prices at pre-storm levels, but is rationing food, and even so can only serve half the people in town. Bill gets in line, buys food he doesn't need, and then flips it on the black market for three times what he spent.

Would that bother anybody but me?

No, I would also consider it morally reprehensible. And it wouldn't be unrealistic or implausible.

Though some places have anti-hording laws (get mad now ).

[DinoDoc]

they are not selling their goods, but giving them away!!

Some people want to be heroic (and they should be justly praised), but we can't expect enough heroes to fill the need in situations like this. Most entrepreneurs will travel for the same reason most Americans work: to make money. Tradesmen will more often go to a disaster area only if it wins him higher pay than he would get in his hometown. Yet if they charge enough to justify the venture, they are likely to be condemned morally or legally by people like you rather than praised for the people they were helping.

[Hauldren Collider]

Right cause the fuzz who are busy stopping looting and getting power restored and saving lives are gonna go around banging down doors for that contraband stash of Campbell's Tomato Soup you've been hiding under your floorboards

xpost