NationStates Jolt Archive

I hear a lot of people complaining about price gouging, but I can't understand why.
As far as I see it, price gouging is merly capitalism working. Example, a hurricane has just hit,you need batteries so you go to the kind old man's shop who would NEVER even THINK of charging you more for batteries than he did last week. Unfourtunatly he's all out because of the price, people bought extras and now you have none. However, down the street theres a man who will sell you batteries at his store for 6 TIMES the price he did last week. However, you need batteries so you pay him anyway.
Thoughts?

... Oh price gouging,.. I thought it was EYE gouging.

Anyways,... supply and demand law. It's bad at the same time good. Though I think if it keeps up it will lead into a devaluation of the currency.

Yeah that’s pretty much how I see it, part and parcel of a free market. And to be honest every regulation against it is a step away from a completely free market. That said I entertain thoughts of a public economy and community owned enterprises so I may be biased. I have heard people argue against this kind of behaviour after just looking down on me for suggesting more government intervention in the economy in other areas. This, to me, is simply the flip side of the way we decided to order our economy, the darker side of the individualist impulse if you will. To make an argument against disaster profiteering and or price gouging is to attack a central tenant of capitalism.

I believe it is fine in normal circumstances. Markets should be left alone in most cases. Now when there is a declared natural disaster then there should be laws preventing price gouging. I believe there are laws like that on the books in the south due to hurricanes.

Ultimately, it is a bad thing. Money, in a price gouging economy, becomes worthless. If the guy who is gouging on the batteries wants bottled water, you gouge him. Then when you need toilet paper, he gouges you. Soon, the money itself is worth more AS toilet paper than as a means of exchanging value.

So in the short term, it is a selfish way to get a little more from someone who has no other choice. In the long term, it is a way to shoot the entire economy (and yourself) in the foot. Either way is not so good, as I see it.

Price gouging in the middle of a disaster is a bad thing. Replace your battery example with water.

Price gouging is bad when you have no choice as in AIDS meds.

For all it's talk about "free market" this country doesn't practice it. If we truly did, we would be buying our meds from Canada.

Price gouging is bad in many circumstances, it often occurs in places and times where the market can not realistically cope with normal supply and demand situations and to people with no other choice.

For example trying to sell watter during a natural disaster where the market can not compete to bring the prices within reason. Or in some cases with very specialized services that are for life critical processes or live preserving medication...

I hear a lot of people complaining about price gouging, but I can't understand why.

because in a large number of circumstances, market distribution is flagrantly in violation of our moral intuitions. hth.

If you can only give so much and you have to give it to someone, I really don't see how determining it based on how much money they can (or are willing) to give you for it is any worse then any other method. The real crime is that you ran out.

Ultimately, it is a bad thing. Money, in a price gouging economy, becomes worthless. If the guy who is gouging on the batteries wants bottled water, you gouge him. Then when you need toilet paper, he gouges you. Soon, the money itself is worth more AS toilet paper than as a means of exchanging value.


Not if you want him to buy more bottled water from you in the future, and thus actually make more money for you in the long run. After all, there's no reason he has to buy it from YOU.

I hear a lot of people complaining about price gouging, but I can't understand why.
As far as I see it, price gouging is merly capitalism working. Example, a hurricane has just hit,you need batteries so you go to the kind old man's shop who would NEVER even THINK of charging you more for batteries than he did last week. Unfourtunatly he's all out because of the price, people bought extras and now you have none. However, down the street theres a man who will sell you batteries at his store for 6 TIMES the price he did last week. However, you need batteries so you pay him anyway.
Thoughts?

So... one shopkeeper has such a poor grasp of market forces that he managed to run out of the product... and thus it's okay for other people to make an easy profit based on emergency needs...?

As far as I see it, price gouging is merly capitalism working.One could indeed argue that is; however that has nothing to do with whether it's good or bad, or whether or not it is reason to complain.
People complain about the weather too, fat lot of good it does them. You might say, "well, that's just nature at work", and you'd be right; but that's no reason not to complain.
Now getting kicked in the face when you complain, that's a reason not to.

Price gouging is anti-social. Regardless of 'economic merits'.
And of course, when the situation improves, would you ever buy anything else from the person that ripped you off? As capitalism goes it's shortsighted and alienates you from your customers. You'd probably be better off in the long term to give the batteries for free to your well-known customers and foster customer loyalty.

Not if you want him to buy more bottled water from you in the future, and thus actually make more money for you in the long run. After all, there's no reason he has to buy it from YOU.

The next shop might be 3 blocks away and people are lazy. That's why corner shops work... people pay more to accomodate their laziness. And Aldi can't be everywhere.

Price gouging is anti-social. Regardless of 'economic merits'.
And of course, when the situation improves, would you ever buy anything else from the person that ripped you off? As capitalism goes it's shortsighted and alienates you from your customers. You'd probably be better off in the long term to give the batteries for free to your well-known customers and foster customer loyalty.

True, true... but when it comes to even having a long-term strategy companies and private businesses have an even worse record than politicians ....

Pfft, if you're such a fan of the free market at work I suggest you look up the business practices of Rockefeller and the entrepreneurs of his time.

*goes to check that it is Rockefeller that he's thinking of*

I believe it is fine in normal circumstances. Markets should be left alone in most cases. Now when there is a declared natural disaster then there should be laws preventing price gouging. I believe there are laws like that on the books in the south due to hurricanes.
And those same laws delay reconstruction due to materials shortages, labor shortages...

True, true... but when it comes to even having a long-term strategy companies and private businesses have an even worse record than politicians ....

Nonsense. You just don't like that a capitalist businessman is realistic and not pandering to you. Nothing significant would have ever been accomplished in this world, if not for private enterprise.

Nonsense. You just don't like that a capitalist businessman is realistic and not pandering to you. Nothing significant would have ever been accomplished in this world, if not for private enterprise.

Thanks for telling me about my likes and dislikes.
I daresay that most significant developments in the world did not happen because of private enterprise. Most happened despite private enterprise.

Yeah that’s pretty much how I see it, part and parcel of a free market. And to be honest every regulation against it is a step away from a completely free market. That said I entertain thoughts of a public economy and community owned enterprises so I may be biased. I have heard people argue against this kind of behaviour after just looking down on me for suggesting more government intervention in the economy in other areas. This, to me, is simply the flip side of the way we decided to order our economy, the darker side of the individualist impulse if you will. To make an argument against disaster profiteering and or price gouging is to attack a central tenant of capitalism.

The problem with gouging, especially in an emergency situation, is that the person doing it is forgetting that he or she is still a part of the community, and that the interests of the community must be served. Ideally, in an emergency, the batteries would be given away for free, although I don't think it's unreasonable to sell them at their normal market value.

Capitalism is a good system but like any system, it works best when people are honest and community minded. Price gouging is just a form of theft.

Capitalism is a good system but like any system, it works best when people are honest and community minded.

I don't believe capitalism is a good system. Because for it to work, people have to be honest, responsible, intelligent and willing to work hard and reward work fairly. They don't.
I don't believe communism is a good system, either. Because for it to work, people have to be honest, responsible, intelligent and willing to work hard and reward work fairly. They don't.

I think the currently best system is a good mixture of them both. Don't hand over all power to the businesses, don't hand over all power to the government. Give them each a share of power over the other, and then watch them closely. And I mean closely.

Charging through the nose for something desperately needed for people's survival, like food, water or medicine, in the middle of an emergency situation is immoral. Charging through the nose for an iPod (here's looking at you, Apple!) and convincing people to pay for it isn't immoral. It depends on the situation, in my opinion.

Thanks for telling me about my likes and dislikes.
I daresay that most significant developments in the world did not happen because of private enterprise. Most happened despite private enterprise.

People tell me what I think all the time. I figured logging on to NSG made us all mind readers.

Example: One of the most significant developments of all time was the transistor. Did the government create a transistor? Hell, no. It was Bell Labs.

Example: Transoceanic communications wasn't created by a government, either. Cyrus West Field persuaded British industrialists to fund the first transatlantic cable.

It goes on and on. All government can do is slow development and tax the hell out of it.

I don't believe capitalism is a good system. Because for it to work, people have to be honest, responsible, intelligent and willing to work hard and reward work fairly. They don't.
I don't believe communism is a good system, either. Because for it to work, people have to be honest, responsible, intelligent and willing to work hard and reward work fairly. They don't.

I think the currently best system is a good mixture of them both. Don't hand over all power to the businesses, don't hand over all power to the government. Give them each a share of power over the other, and then watch them closely. And I mean closely.

Essentially I agree, but I think a free market is better than a heavily reguated or heavily taked one. Regulation and taxes increase operating expenses and those expenses drive prices up. What good is a product of service that is too high to afford?

Ultimately the market determines prices. Under normal day to day life, you'll make no money if your product is unafforable. Gouging is not a part of normal price setting because it represents a case where the merchant is taking advantage of the misfortune of others to make an unfair profit. If you absolutely need batteries, you'll pay $50 for a pack of them. Under normal market conditions, this would never happen.

Capitalism isn't to blame for price gouging. It can happen anywhere currency is used as an exchange medium. Whether it's free markets, socialism, communism, whatever. When a crisis hits, there are always people in a position to profit by the desperation of others.

I don't believe capitalism is a good system. Because for it to work, people have to be honest, responsible, intelligent and willing to work hard and reward work fairly. They don't.
I don't believe communism is a good system, either. Because for it to work, people have to be honest, responsible, intelligent and willing to work hard and reward work fairly. They don't.

I think the currently best system is a good mixture of them both. Don't hand over all power to the businesses, don't hand over all power to the government. Give them each a share of power over the other, and then watch them closely. And I mean closely.
No.

Capitalism needs a population that is willing to submit to the rule of law. That law has to be dispensed by honest courts and written by honest politicians.

Communism needs a population that is willing to forgo all possessions and private property, yet still put forth an enormous effort to provide for others without any recompense.

Which population is easier to find?

People tell me what I think all the time. I figured logging on to NSG made us all mind readers.

Example: One of the most significant developments of all time was the transistor. Did the government create a transistor? Hell, no. It was Bell Labs.

Not quite. It was in fact this fellow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Edgar_Lilienfeld), a professor in Germany, a government employee. Bell Labs came a good decade later.

I think you mistake the role of government in technical advances... it's not there to provide them. It's there to support them (in university research), regulate them (security messures and new laws), and inform about them (schools and universities again).

No.

Capitalism needs a population that is willing to submit to the rule of law. That law has to be dispensed by honest courts and written by honest politicians.

Communism needs a population that is willing to forgo all possessions and private property, yet still put forth an enormous effort to provide for others without any recompense.

Which population is easier to find?

Way to go to misunderstand both concepts.
Capitalism relies on the market to provide essentials to the population, to ensure that products are safe, to ensure that workers are treated decently and paid fair wages, that children can't be forced to work but rather receive good education, in extremo it will even rely on the free market to provide policing and law enforcement.
Communism/socialism relies on the community (in form of government) to ensure all of the above.
Neither works as an absolute.

Not quite. It was in fact this fellow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Edgar_Lilienfeld), a professor in Germany, a government employee. Bell Labs came a good decade later.

I think you mistake the role of government in technical advances... it's not there to provide them. It's there to support them (in university research), regulate them (security messures and new laws), and inform about them (schools and universities again).
Here's the part I like,"...there is no evidence that Lilienfeld built working devices." It sums up the government contribution to a tee.

Unlike the Shockley developments at Bell Labs, which really did work. Notice that absolutely nothing happened until Bell Labs solved the problem of making practical devices. Then, also notice, that replacing the vacuum tube made most of what we do now, possible. Bell did that, not government.

Way to go to misunderstand both concepts.
Capitalism relies on the market to provide essentials to the population, to ensure that products are safe, to ensure that workers are treated decently and paid fair wages, that children can't be forced to work but rather receive good education, in extremo it will even rely on the free market to provide policing and law enforcement.
Communism/socialism relies on the community (in form of government) to ensure all of the above.
Neither works as an absolute.
I tend to look at economics from a practical standpoint. Unlike Lilienfeld, I'm not satisfied with things that work in theory.

If you can only give so much and you have to give it to someone, I really don't see how determining it based on how much money they can (or are willing) to give you for it is any worse then any other method.

because those most able to pay are those least in need.

Here's the part I like,"...there is no evidence that Lilienfeld built working devices." It sums up the government contribution to a tee.

Unlike the Shockley developments at Bell Labs, which really did work.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ;)
He never went to market with them, that much is sure, though.

I tend to look at economics from a practical standpoint. Unlike Lilienfeld, I'm not satisfied with things that work in theory.

Same here. Capitalism in its raw form (think late 19th century Europe and North America) apparently did not work and was definitely in need of regulation.
Communism/socialism did not work in practice, the economy didn't exaclty flourish.

However, combinations of some governemt reluglation and some free market aspects seem to work just fine all over the world...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ;)
He never went to market with them, that much is sure, though.
Judging by the successful and widespread use of the electrolytic capacitor, he did have a sense for marketability. That certainly implies that his theoretical transistor was not ready to replace vacuum tubes. One wouldn't sit on a world-changing invention, if it were feasible.

Judging by the successful and widespread use of the electrolytic capacitor, he did have a sense for marketability. That certainly implies that his theoretical transistor was not ready to replace vacuum tubes. One wouldn't sit on a world-changing invention, if it were feasible.

is it the case that everyone always recognizes the world-changing nature of the things they come up with?

is it the case that everyone always recognizes the world-changing nature of the things they come up with?
If, in 1925, I had a device that would replace the vacuum tube, I'd know it was worth building. Anyone dealing with electronics at that time would have known it too.

Now, I notice that we're not really talking about price gouging anymore. We should probably get back to that topic. We certainly haven't scratched the surface of why government should ever control prices.

If, in 1925, I had a device that would replace the vacuum tube, I'd know it was worth building. Anyone dealing with electronics at that time would have known it too.

Now, I notice that we're not really talking about price gouging anymore. We should probably get back to that topic. We certainly haven't scratched the surface of why government should ever control prices.

Ok, let me give you an example on why controled prices can be beneficial :

In Germany (and as far as I know, Austria and Switzerland as well), there is what is called "Buchpreisbindung". This is basically a law that gives the publishing houses the right to set a price on any one book they are publishing, and each and every book shop and distributor has to adhere to that price.
In exchange, the publishing houses are able to coordinate distribution, so that you can walk into any bookshop in Germany tomorrow, order any current (i.e. not out of print) book that might not be on the shelves or in stock, and be certain to be able to pick it up in the same bookshop 24 hours later.

The reasoning behind this system is that books aren't first of all comsumer goods, but cultural goods, and have to have maximum availability to the public at any one time.
True, one of the effects of this system is that you can't pick up books at dumping prices in super markets. But the other side of the coin is that books that are not in high demand still remain available and affordable.

I believe it is fine in normal circumstances. Markets should be left alone in most cases. Now when there is a declared natural disaster then there should be laws preventing price gouging. I believe there are laws like that on the books in the south due to hurricanes.

I can't speak for all of the south but I can say that Florida State has some laws protecting the consumer from price gouging especially during hurricanes and the natural disasters.

During an emergency shortage of necessary supplies either the price of the goods has to go up or the amount that people buy has to be limited, because if the price stays the same and people can buy whatever they want it will encourage panic buying and hoarding.

However, with an effective aid response the problem of price gouging and shortages of essentials can be avoided.

Ok, let me give you an example on why controled prices can be beneficial :

In Germany (and as far as I know, Austria and Switzerland as well), there is what is called "Buchpreisbindung". This is basically a law that gives the publishing houses the right to set a price on any one book they are publishing, and each and every book shop and distributor has to adhere to that price.
In exchange, the publishing houses are able to coordinate distribution, so that you can walk into any bookshop in Germany tomorrow, order any current (i.e. not out of print) book that might not be on the shelves or in stock, and be certain to be able to pick it up in the same bookshop 24 hours later.

The reasoning behind this system is that books aren't first of all comsumer goods, but cultural goods, and have to have maximum availability to the public at any one time.
True, one of the effects of this system is that you can't pick up books at dumping prices in super markets. But the other side of the coin is that books that are not in high demand still remain available and affordable.
Everything is a consumer good. Books that are not in high demand should see declining prices...Not fixed prices. Price should follow value.

Let me give y'all an example of why the government shouldn't fix prices in the face of an natural disaster, i.e. why gouging is acceptable.

Say a hurricane is forecast to hit someplace like Florida. The recommendation to evacuate is given. I get out right away, while some others dawdle.

After driving a sufficient distance, I decide to check the family into a hotel. If you want anti-gouging laws, pick scenario A. If you want market-based pricing pick scenario B.

[A]
The hotel has a number of rooms available. I've got a big family. We could all make do with one room, but I want some privacy, so I rent one room for me and my wife, another for the two girls, and a third for the two boys. The rooms are a steal, because the hotelier can't charge anymore than he could before the evacuation. A couple more people like me show up and book the rest of the rooms. More people show up and there are no rooms. They have to keep going farther and farther to find any accommodations.

[B]
The hotelier has heard about the evacuation and realizes that he can make some money. Rooms are triple what they cost yesterday. I show up and rent a room. I'd like a couple rooms, but the price is just too high. So we make due with a couple double beds and a couple cots. It's crowded, but this is a disaster, right? More people show up and instead of booking more than a single room, they also decide to lump it and just get the one room. More families can get shelter without driving to the ends of the earth.

This is real-life. Not should-be life. These scenarios could be about plywood [boarding up windows], drywall [fixing things after the storm], labor, gasoline, electrical generators, etc. All price fixing does is create a shortage.

In fact, price fixing will create shortages in your example, too. A popular book won't be available after a number of people buy multiple copies, rather than the one or two that they might, had the prices been free to fluctuate.

<snip>
Surely there's a better argument you can come up with against price-fixing, rather than 'it prevents shortage during disasters'?

A rather weak argument, IMO. What stops a very rich person coming into your fictional hotel and renting all the rooms, albeit for a larger-than-average price?

Surely there's a better argument you can come up with against price-fixing, rather than 'it prevents shortage during disasters'?

A rather weak argument, IMO.

You have obviously never wanted for much... Not having the labor or the material to rebuild a house is not something to be shrugged off. Not having the generator to produce electricity is not something to be dismissed out of hand. Not having a room to stay in, while evacuating from a disaster area is a huge problem.

That price fixing creates shortages is not a trivial argument. It's the reason that it's a failed policy.

What stops a very rich person coming into your fictional hotel and renting all the rooms, albeit for a larger-than-average price?

This is a trivial argument. It could happen, but it's not the rule at every hotel, while a anti-gouging law does indeed affect every single one in the area of interest.

The problem is, fairly obviously, that it strips options from the poor while giving options to the rich, who likely already had options to begin with.

Moreover examples like Myr's are so remarkably shortsighted it's a wonder why the obvious answer doesn't just leap off the page. Somehow he's created this idea of the hotel room that is nonsensical. That he, with his big family, would rent four rooms to leasurly loaf around in during the emergency, but under a price gouging regime, would be forced into one room thus freeing up more rooms for the poor people out there!

Here's a thought. Let's NOT price gouge and instead come up with a simple solution: "sorry, this is an emergency, one room per family please."

Gee, look at that. You see, we've had this idea for a while. It's called rationing and that's what you do in an emergency. Recognize that in emergency situations, luxuries can become needs, and we need to do our best to ensure everybody gets some. Not just the rich.

Because that's what price gouging does, really, ensures that only the rich survive.

Not if you want him to buy more bottled water from you in the future, and thus actually make more money for you in the long run. After all, there's no reason he has to buy it from YOU.

He doesn't have to buy it from me, but everyone's selling bottled water for the same price, so it really doesn't matter. It's really not that hard to set up.

The problem is, fairly obviously, that it strips options from the poor while giving options to the rich, who likely already had options to begin with.

Moreover examples like Myr's are so remarkably shortsighted it's a wonder why the obvious answer doesn't just leap off the page. Somehow he's created this idea of the hotel room that is nonsensical. That he, with his big family, would rent four rooms to leasurly loaf around in during the emergency, but under a price gouging regime, would be forced into one room thus freeing up more rooms for the poor people out there!

Here's a thought. Let's NOT price gouge and instead come up with a simple solution: "sorry, this is an emergency, one room per family please."

Gee, look at that. You see, we've had this idea for a while. It's called rationing and that's what you do in an emergency. Recognize that in emergency situations, luxuries can become needs, and we need to do our best to ensure everybody gets some. Not just the rich.

Because that's what price gouging does, really, ensures that only the rich survive.
Let's ration... Then, since you are so worried that the rich will benefit, let's double or triple the police force to eliminate the black market that will develop.

Rationing didn't work in World War II on a national scale, it caused scarcity for the honest and high prices for the dishonest. Plus, it really did make huge profits for those that would sell the goods. It's hardly going to work on a local scale, where rationed goods are freely available, just across the state line.

Is that what you're proposing? Making criminals out of honest people that just want enough drywall and lumber to fix their houses?

But why? The market is it's own best rationer.

During an emergency shortage of necessary supplies either the price of the goods has to go up or the amount that people buy has to be limited, because if the price stays the same and people can buy whatever they want it will encourage panic buying and hoarding.

both raising prices and fixing prices at non-raised levels frankly do not even begin to address the problems of emergency situations, because they assume the already-morally-sketchy-under-normal-circumstances system of market exchange is the system to be used to distribute goods in all situations. in any situation, goods must be rationed in some way. in an emergency situation, the normal method of rationing (prices and the amount of money people happen to have available) is thrown into direct and glaring conflict with our moral intuitions about how we ought to distribute scarce resources. we already recognize this as an official policy in many circumstances - for example, in medical emergencies we don't provide care for people on the basis of who can pay what, but on the basis of who needs care most desperately and what we can do.

basically, its a fucking emergency. all necessary shit should be free (at least in the immediate term) and distributed on a need basis. to do anything else is to say that those with money deserve to be helped because they have money, while those that don't have the cash deserve to be fucked because they lack the cash. which is clearly insane and morally reprehensible.

Not having the labor or the material to rebuild a house is not something to be shrugged off. Not having the generator to produce electricity is not something to be dismissed out of hand. Not having a room to stay in, while evacuating from a disaster area is a huge problem.
Well done, you're quite right. Care to return to the point in hand?

How does disallowing price-fixing stop any of the above? Your fictional hotel argument doesn't show this.

EDIT: incidentally, I don't really hold an opinion either way about price-fixing, I'm just looking at arguments. But so far, your only argument for preventing price-fixing is an appeal to very specific circumstances (preventing price-fixing will prevent shortages during disasters); then you go on to ignore another set of circumstances that undermine your initial argument (those with greater amounts of money can still get round inflated prices).

Hardly a persuasive tack to take.

Let's ration... Then, since you are so worried that the rich will benefit, let's double or triple the police force to eliminate the black market that will develop.

You know, I find it very interesting that your argument against price fixing is that merchants "have no choice" but to follow the price fixing scheme, and thus result in shortages, but your argument against rationing is that nobody will follow it and form a black market.

Which is it Myrm? Will people follow regulations, or not? If they do follow regulations, as your rant against price fixing would suggest, then they will also follow a rationing scheme.

But if they're so willing to buck the system and go aroind rationing regulations, why are you so sure they'll follow price fixing formats?

Really now, your arguments are a perfect study in contradiction.

It's hardly going to work on a local scale, where rationed goods are freely available, just across the state line.

Gee, if goods are so freely avaiable with such minimal effort than your whole argument about "shortages" is kind of irrelevant, isn't it? After all, if such goods are so easily available through other means, then price gouging simply wouldn't happen, because the price gouging merchants would just be circumvented.

Seriously, your arguments are all over the place. Rationing won't work because people will just go get from other merchants across state lines (we're ignoring somehow that this is disaster conditions we're talking about, but never mind) but price gouging will work to prevent shortages, even though there are no shortages because apparently we can just cross state lines, and any price gouging merchant wouldn't sell a thing because of the ease of materials "across state lines?"

Which is it Myrm? Either matierlas are avaialble, easily, from other locations, in which case there is no supply problem and the whole thing falls apart, or they are not, in which case there is a supply problem, and you haven't shown in any way why rationing won't work on a local level, if supplies are out of reach (which, really, is the only time when it'd be necessary).

Well done, you're quite right. Care to return to the point in hand?

How does disallowing price-fixing stop any of the above? Your fictional hotel argument doesn't show this.
This barely merits response... If a generator is sold at a pre-disaster price, there will be shortages, as everyone buys one, or maybe two. Additionally, if I own a company that could ship more generators to the area, why should I? Other than Public Relations, I suppose. There is absolutely no financial reason for me to do it. I can sell plenty of generators, drywall, lumber, etc, right where it's at.

EDIT: incidentally, I don't really hold an opinion either way about price-fixing, I'm just looking at arguments. But so far, your only argument for preventing price-fixing is an appeal to very specific circumstances (preventing price-fixing will prevent shortages during disasters); then you go on to ignore another set of circumstances that undermine your initial argument (those with greater amounts of money can still get round inflated prices).

Hardly a persuasive tack to take.

Look back at the '70's to get a good idea of what price controls will do to a commodity. There were huge shortages of gasoline until the Federal government realized it had no business in regulating the price of gasoline.

You know, I find it very interesting that your argument against price fixing is that merchants "have no choice" but to follow the price fixing scheme, and thus result in shortages, but your argument against rationing is that nobody will follow it and form a black market.

Which is it Myrm? Will people follow regulations, or not? If they do follow regulations, as your rant against price fixing would suggest, then they will also follow a rationing scheme.

But if they're so willing to buck the system and go aroind rationing regulations, why are you so sure they'll follow price fixing formats?

Really now, your arguments are a perfect study in contradiction.



Gee, if goods are so freely avaiable with such minimal effort than your whole argument about "shortages" is kind of irrelevant, isn't it? After all, if such goods are so easily available through other means, then price gouging simply wouldn't happen, because the price gouging merchants would just be circumvented.

Seriously, your arguments are all over the place. Rationing won't work because people will just go get from other merchants across state lines (we're ignoring somehow that this is disaster conditions we're talking about, but never mind) but price gouging will work to prevent shortages, even though there are no shortages because apparently we can just cross state lines, and any price gouging merchant wouldn't sell a thing because of the ease of materials "across state lines?"

Which is it Myrm? Either matierlas are avaialble, easily, from other locations, in which case there is no supply problem and the whole thing falls apart, or they are not, in which case there is a supply problem, and you haven't shown in any way why rationing won't work on a local level, if supplies are out of reach (which, really, is the only time when it'd be necessary).

ouch

If a generator is sold at a pre-disaster price, there will be shortages, as everyone buys one, or maybe two.
Yet anti-price-fixing laws will suddenly stop this?

I again fail to see how this will be the case.

Additionally, if I own a company that could ship more generators to the area, why should I?
From a fiscal point-of-view, as you yourself point out, there will be a huge demand for generators, etc.

Other than Public Relations, I suppose. There is absolutely no financial reason for me to do it. I can sell plenty of generators, drywall, lumber, etc, right where it's at.
Apart from pointing out that some of us live in a world where financial reasons aren't the sum total of motivations, I'll ask for clarification:

Why would a company who sells generators not have any financial reasons to ship generators to a place where generators are in large demand? It seems the opposite would be true; there would be massive financial reasons.

Look back at the '70's to get a good idea of what price controls will do to a commodity. There were huge shortages of gasoline until the Federal government realized it had no business in regulating the price of gasoline.
I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with the US economy in the 70's, so I couldn't say whether this was the case or not.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain further? Or give me a more substantial argument than your disaster scenario?

Pricing mechanisms work even in disaster situations - insufficient supply is rationed to those who need those supplies the most (as indicated by how much you are willing to pay). The idiot merchant who kept the prices the same quickly ran out as everyone has a tendency to hoard in an emergency situation. So instead of very little supplies being distributed to those who need it the most, you have all the supplies in the hands of whoever got there first.

The merchant who drastically raised their prices during the emergency (when supplies are scarce) still has some left for those who truly need it (because the hoarders didnt want to pay the high price when they already had far more than they needed anyway).

Price controls keeping basic market forces functioning may be good PR, because most people don't understand basic economics or actually think about the effects on supply, but it is harmful to those who need supplies rather than empty shelves.

Which is it Myrm? Will people follow regulations, or not? If they do follow regulations, as your rant against price fixing would suggest, then they will also follow a rationing scheme.

But if they're so willing to buck the system and go aroind rationing regulations, why are you so sure they'll follow price fixing formats?

Of course some will and some won't. It's fact that rationing spawned black markets when it was implemented in WWII and it's fact that price fixing created gasoline shortages when it was implemented in the 1970s. I'm sure there were black markets in gasoline during that time.

In both cases, I'm sure there were greater numbers of those that followed the law, than broke it. The point is that in neither case should it be illegal to enter a contract with another to buy a commodity.

Gee, if goods are so freely avaiable with such minimal effort than your whole argument about "shortages" is kind of irrelevant, isn't it? After all, if such goods are so easily available through other means, then price gouging simply wouldn't happen, because the price gouging merchants would just be circumvented.

Most people depend on some means of distribution. If I can bring a truck load of bottled water, or whatever to a disaster site and sell it for my price, I will alleviate the shortage. If I can't raise the price, it's not worth doing. Bringing goods to the site is a much more efficient way of distributing them. The least efficient would be for each and every one of the disaster victims to drive to places where anti-gouging laws don't exist and buy their supplies.

So circumvention isn't that easy.

Yet anti-price-fixing laws will suddenly stop this?
You dont need anti-price fixing laws. Thats rather redundant, you just dont have a government mandated fixed price to begin with.

If prices are allowed to fluctuate, it will raise until demand is sufficiently reduced to match supply (thus no shortage). That higher price will also encourage greater supply, as those with excess supplies will be encouraged to sell their excess rather than hoard them.


Why would a company who sells generators not have any financial reasons to ship generators to a place where generators are in large demand? It seems the opposite would be true; there would be massive financial reasons.
There will be a huge demand, but if the generators have to be sold at well below market price, there is no incentive to supply that demand. If I can sell my stock here, why would I pay to ship it to a disaster area to sell it for the exact same price? I would be losing money from paying shipping. The financial gains are only to be had if the supplier can get market value for those goods.

Which is why 'price gouging' encourages supply to return quickly as more suppliers have great incentive to supply the market with goods. That basic rent-seeking behavior limits hoarding, reduces shortages, and ensures a quick return of supply.

Which would you rather have: empty shelves with no way to get what you need (because its all gone) and a very long wait before having the opportunity to get more, or available supplies (albeit at a high price) with more supplies coming in quickly (and quickly bringing the prices back down)?

Pricing mechanisms work even in disaster situations - insufficient supply is rationed to those who need those supplies the most (as indicated by how much you are willing to pay).

i LOLed

You dont need anti-price fixing laws. Thats rather redundant, you just dont have a government mandated fixed price to begin with.
True enough. I was confusing myself. ;)

If prices are allowed to fluctuate, it will raise until demand is sufficiently reduced to match supply (thus no shortage). That higher price will also encourage greater supply, as those with excess supplies will be encouraged to sell their excess rather than hoard them.
And all this in a disaster zone?

See, this is why I find the example rather convoluted and silly. It assumes a number of quite strange things, including businesses being able to open properly, being able to get refill stock, money keeping its value, etc.

Once again, could we have an argument against price-fixing that doesn't rely on the specific (and unpredictable) circumstances of a large disaster? I don't know too many economic arguments that include as one of their premises 'a hurricane has just hit the nation'.

Which would you rather have...
I'd rather have an argument that doesn't rely on a raft of hypotheticals. You and Myrm are telling me all this as if you can accurately predict what would happen economically in a disaster zone.

Once again, could we have an argument against price-fixing that doesn't rely on the specific (and unpredictable) circumstances of a large disaster? I don't know too many economic arguments that include as one of their premises 'a hurricane has just hit the nation'.

That seemed to be the premise of the OP. It's true enough in general, as the gasoline shortages in the '70s proved (http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/12/news/economy/gas_lines/index.htm). (see third paragraph)


I'd rather have an argument that doesn't rely on a raft of hypotheticals. You and Myrm are telling me all this as if you can accurately predict what would happen economically in a disaster zone.
I don't know about the other fellow, but I've been through enough hurricanes, tropical storms, and other big wind storms as a by-product of living in Florida for a number of years. If you have any initiative at all, you could read enough about the predominant economic conditions in the aftermath that you would understand that we're not dealing in hypothetical situations.

I heard someone say that economics was both easy and hard. Easy, because common sense predominates; hard because most people don't have the common sense they were born with.

That seemed to be the premise of the OP. It's true enough in general, as the gasoline shortages in the '70s proved (http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/12/news/economy/gas_lines/index.htm). (see third paragraph)
That don't prove shit about price-fixing, mate.

It proves that a member of a think-tank (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis) dedicated, in their own words "to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems" will advocate the free market, and that a member of "the petroleum industry's U.S. national trade association" (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute) will push for allowing petroleum companies to set their own prices.

Surprise, surprise.


I don't know about the other fellow, but I've been through enough hurricanes, tropical storms, and other big wind storms as a by-product of living in Florida for a number of years. If you have any initiative at all, you could read enough about the predominant economic conditions in the aftermath that you would understand that we're not dealing in hypothetical situations.
You are dealing in hypothetical situations; you hypothesised a hotel, and hypothesised economic 'laws' for what happens with and without price controls.

I heard someone say that economics was both easy and hard. Easy, because common sense predominates; hard because most people don't have the common sense they were born with.
I've heard a lot of things completely off-topic. I just don't bring them into arguments.

In a disaster, you can always combat price gouging with looting >.>

In a disaster, you can always combat price gouging with looting >.>

And price gougers tend to get shot too.....

Oh and Neo Art? Ouch! :)

In a disaster, you can always combat price gouging with looting >.>

damn straight. though it is better if the looting is done in an organized and collective way. distribution to those with the most weapons isn't any more just than distribution to those with the most money.

Same here. Capitalism in its raw form (think late 19th century Europe and North America) apparently did not work and was definitely in need of regulation.


That actually was not capitalism in it's raw works as it involved tremendous trade barriers, subversion of spending, racism, mild feudalism, and many other forms of regulation far more unsavory then (thankfully) anything liberal America has thought up. This said, one particular element of capitalism that was used in it's raw works that did not work, the free unhindered flow of investment capital from banks, did, as it turns out need to be regulated, while another unhindered aspect, safety, also needs to be regulated.

As far as I see it, the problem is not that liberals think the economy needs to be regulated. The problem is that they don't see how. The minimum wage is totally unneccessary, as if unemployment is low enough, wage rates will be high enough that nobody will be paid a minimum wage anyways, as too many better job offers will be available and businesses will compete for the same talent pool - labor, like any other commodity, can raise in price.

This said, while it's very easy for a worker to say "this job pays better then that job," it's much more difficult for the same worker to assess "this job is safer then that job." And if a polluting factory is the only source of income for a town, though it is endangering the health of their children they will probably not be able to force it to leave. That's why you need health and safety regulations; it could be said that it has nothing to do with economics but with laws and what you consider against the law. There's nothing particularly socialist with me not wanting mercury in the air.

And in addition, there is always the issue of economic bubbles, the one way in which the system of the 19th century did genuinely fail in an economic sense. Theoretically, you would actually, in a quantitative sense, have more economic growth in an America without a central bank, but it would come all at once and leave just as quickly, as too much debt and devaluation of goods would occur in too short a time. The solution is to regulate finances, both by interest rate standardization and financing laws banning things like buying stock on borrowed money. You will have less growth, but the growth will be steady, and you will lose less of it when the growth cycle swings back to slow. This is espeically important as it is generally the end of an economic growth cycle where the standard of living increases, and if people saw their fortunes grow immensely one day and lost them the very next, this would create immense unhappiness. Indeed, you probably know what I'm talking about, as it has probably happened to you at least once.

You will want antitrust laws, only because of the extreme bad consequences of the rare case of a real trust/cartel, even though they actually are not that common outside of political groups like OPEC, as the expense of maintaining them and the constant blackmail of investment houses who are trying to make money off of your expnese of maintaining them is usually a great enough deterent.

Free Soviets: About "most need," it really depends upon what it is you're price gouging. If you're gouging the price of a medicine for spanish flu, there is no reason the rich person is in any less need then the poor one. Indeed he might be in more need because he might travel more (they don't call them the jet set for nothing), is in contact with more people in more places, and has thus more chance of infection. There is the issue of hordeing, but if it was something that critical, you could always enforce a ration stamp as an emergency measure to prevent any particular individual from getting too much of it.

Price gouging in the middle of a disaster is a bad thing. Replace your battery example with water.

Price gouging is bad when you have no choice as in AIDS meds.

For all it's talk about "free market" this country doesn't practice it. If we truly did, we would be buying our meds from Canada.
Meds are only cheaper in Canada because of Canadian price controls.

If Americans bought their meds in Canada, either the price would have to rise to match the American prices or the manufacturers would limit the supply of meds to Canada.

As long as there isn't a limitless supply (and there never is) you need to have a rationing mechanism. The two most common are high prices and waiting lists.

Meds are only cheaper in Canada because of Canadian price controls.

If Americans bought their meds in Canada, either the price would have to rise to match the American prices or the manufacturers would limit the supply of meds to Canada.


The manufacturers would limit the supply, but they wouldn't HAVE to... they'd just do it to keep the articial profit-high continuing.


As long as there isn't a limitless supply (and there never is) you need to have a rationing mechanism. The two most common are high prices and waiting lists.

What about when the resource is effectively limitless?

Why would it be bad? You should have stocked up in advance or shouldn't be using the product.

Why would it be bad? You should have stocked up in advance or shouldn't be using the product.

Why?

What if the product needed is something like water... or air?

Alright. Let's take a highly theoretical hypothesis of a disaster zone. Note that I'm a NSG noob, and I'm not overly aware of how people converse on this forum. But please give any critique on my thoughts about price gouging and disaster economics.

A hurricane smacks into the small island nation of Bobsville. This hurricane bashes apart the food stored by the companies on the island in addition to most of the industry and homes of the small country. Food supplies, then, have dropped dramatically. Industry has slowed. The country of Bobsville isn't producing as much anymore and its whole system is overwrought with lessened supplies.

So there's less goods, friends. We can all agree on that, right? There are less amounts of goods than there were before the disaster and therefore less stuff to go around to sustain/appease the Bobsvillians.

Bob, and his family of five, have to get food and shelter. Their house was destroyed (shelter = gone), their jobs/finances blasted by the disaster (capital = gone), and their fridge/stove/food are also gone (resources/goods = gone). So they, along with Bobs' neighbours, and their neighbours, and their neighbours, and then THEIR neighbours are all going after the few resources/shelter/capital that has been left unhurt by the storm.

So we have increased demand. More demand, less goods, and many good honest people seeking to survive in the extremely hurt country of Bobsville.

So what happens? What occurs next? Does the government come in and fix everything with a wave of its magical wand? Or does foreign aid from its colonies, the other nations in its area of the woods, or the foreign business interests looking to make a quick buck off the people of Bobsville? What happens?

We don't want our story to end abruptly, with all the people dying off because there isn't any food or shelter. That wouldn't be fun at all. So let's assume that no one died and everyone is able to go out to get resources needed to survive till the country re-stabilizes. Let's also say that no rioting breaks out, no government overthrow by the Commies, no anarchy-barbarianism sprouting up, and definitely no mass civil war breaking out. The populace is nice, cowed, and use their dollars and limited capital to get the resources/goods and the shelter they require.

But wait--the economy has stalled and is ineffective. Everyone's capital is fixed at what they had before, the banks close, and the wealth of the nation stays in the hands of the people who had it before the disaster. Obviously goods and resources get used, so the pool of goods that have already been brought down will also continue to go down.

People who have hoarded, have stores, or have a lot of capital to buy a lot of goods will have a lot of the resources/goods that are needed for the nation to survive. The question given by the author of the thread is worried that these special few may or may not price gouge, and is afraid of the nation will suffer from the capital/resource/good holders doing what they will for their own gains.

If we look at a closed system, one which no other nation influences the nation that has been hit by the storm, the only way to resuscitate the economy would be from within. Otherwise, the neighbouring nations might send aid or some economic help (more resources at lower prices to fight price gouging, additional competition helps to keep the high prices down, etc, etc..).

So we have the problem of scarcity. What will the nation, the people, and the capitalist pig-dogs do to circumvent this problem?

My ideal situation would be that A LOT of people try to take advantage of price gouging. By having A LOT of competition, by everyone selling things to one another. Bob (you remember him from earlier, right?) would buy bread from someone who has it at a lower price that someone else who would be charging higher. Everyone who has even a little capital or a little goods will be able to get the things they need from the prices kept down by competition.

By this extreme-right, libertarian viewpoint, we have a large population of people who have a good amount of the wealth spread around. This would definitely NOT occur in the USA, where a majority of the wealth is in the hands of less than a quarter of the population. It would also not occur in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Pacific.. ermm... Pretty much everywhere this is discounted, since everyone (or at least almost everyone) will not be able to go out and sell/buy goods with capital due to the capital/goods being in the hands of a minority. You cannot sell things you do not have and you cannot by things that others do not possess.

This occurrence also requires a highly motivated populace who will go out and take advantage of the disaster. Sadly, I find (through personal experience) it's the puny 3-4% of the population that goes out to do this. Not that many people are motivated to sell their goods if they feel that their needs wont be met if they sell that specific good that they might sell.

It also requires an EDUCATED, ABLE, and CREATIVE populace. Something I know for a fact isn't in abundance south of the border (in the USA) or other nations. People need to think through their problems and take use of their environment when they are aware of their problems. Able people will be able, the educated will be able to use their skills to continue on, and the creative will be creative, all in their attempts to survive.

And when there are no people to do the job, there is no way for a nation to survive. If these people do not exist then there is a huge possibility of the nation just collapsing.

I said this was my ideal situation. Sadly enough my ideal situation can become defunct quite easily and fall right onto its face. Hypothetical situations are all like this, sadly. There are millions of things that could go wrong for Bob and his family. There are also millions of things that could go wrong for Bobsville. This extreme definitely couldn't get the nation back onto its feet and having each person look out for their best interests will most definitely leave the country in shambles.

And the extreme left? I believe other people in this thread have already spoken about price fixing, the government stepping in, and all that other extreme left-wing junk. Communism (or extreme government influence) would fail, just like it did in the USSR and the Eastern Block.

I don't quite think that any extreme on the left or the right will solve the problem of price gouging in disasters. What I do think, though, would be that each situation must be looked at individually to see what best course of action is required. Someone earlier gave the example of a hotel and its regulation. Fixing the cost, then rationing it, would allow for abuses by the people who have a lot of capital. Not fixing the costs of a hotel would, however, keep the poor/destitute from having shelter--possibly killing off a large segment of the population.

Why not go half and half? Keep the price fix in the green (where there is still a lot of profit), ration it (ei: have 2 or more families per room, without a single family having their room), and having it at such a price that'd encourage capitalists to open their hotels/motels/carparks in the disaster area in accordance to the profit motive.

Move the partition as the situation desires, too.. A wasp epidemic, or an influenza epidemic, or an earthquake will ALL need their own fixes. Bringing in fresh water will not help a town sunk under a flood. Forgetting about bug spray in a wasp epidemic will not help the populace under attack. An earthquake doesn't need as much money geared toward food as it does toward construction/roadwork/rescue.

So to fight price gouging we'd need to look at a certain situation, see and be aware of the problems, and then plot a course of action that'd relieve the situation in the fastest manner possible. Does anyone have a specific situation they wish to talk about? Perhaps Katrina? Or maybe the SARS epidemic in Toronto a few years ago?

Or maybe the SARS epidemic in Toronto a few years ago?

You use the term "epidemic" too liberally.

But: I think, like most people, that there needs to be a balance. There needs to be room for competition and profit but for needs there needs to be regulations.
For example, I live in Calgary and we have a huge problem with increases in rent for example a 112% increase http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story.html?id=7ea0d71c-1f3e-42d5-9fe0-6634bdc403f9&k=78588 for a senior citizen, and I've heard increases of over 300% (although this was over a year). Situations like these are ones in which there NEEDS to be controls, iPods, DVD players, even to an extent oil (although this is from someone in a big city, I have a different stance on those that lack a sufficient transit system) go ahead, make a profit, I fully support that. Food, water, heating, healthcare and shelter need to be controled by the government.

I think that generally price-gouging ------> high inflation

and that generally high inflation != good

Price Gouging is in the same neighborhood as War Profiteering. It's basically enriching oneself through the suffering of others.

Everything is a consumer good. Books that are not in high demand should see declining prices...Not fixed prices. Price should follow value.

Let me give y'all an example of why the government shouldn't fix prices in the face of an natural disaster, i.e. why gouging is acceptable.

Say a hurricane is forecast to hit someplace like Florida. The recommendation to evacuate is given. I get out right away, while some others dawdle.

After driving a sufficient distance, I decide to check the family into a hotel. If you want anti-gouging laws, pick scenario A. If you want market-based pricing pick scenario B.

[A]
The hotel has a number of rooms available. I've got a big family. We could all make do with one room, but I want some privacy, so I rent one room for me and my wife, another for the two girls, and a third for the two boys. The rooms are a steal, because the hotelier can't charge anymore than he could before the evacuation. A couple more people like me show up and book the rest of the rooms. More people show up and there are no rooms. They have to keep going farther and farther to find any accommodations.

[B]
The hotelier has heard about the evacuation and realizes that he can make some money. Rooms are triple what they cost yesterday. I show up and rent a room. I'd like a couple rooms, but the price is just too high. So we make due with a couple double beds and a couple cots. It's crowded, but this is a disaster, right? More people show up and instead of booking more than a single room, they also decide to lump it and just get the one room. More families can get shelter without driving to the ends of the earth.

This is real-life. Not should-be life. These scenarios could be about plywood [boarding up windows], drywall [fixing things after the storm], labor, gasoline, electrical generators, etc. All price fixing does is create a shortage.

In fact, price fixing will create shortages in your example, too. A popular book won't be available after a number of people buy multiple copies, rather than the one or two that they might, had the prices been free to fluctuate.

If something is in very high demand, there will be a shortage eventually anyway. Except in the book market, people are usually more than happy with owning one copy of any given book, they tend not to go and buy to stock up.
The German model was designed to provide maximum availability of books, with special regards to research and academics, and believe me, it's working brilliantly. I can assure you both as a former student, former bookshop assistant and librarian.

Looking at the example with the hotel rooms, if the hotelier can gouge the prices, that might mean that you and your family will only occupy one room. However, it will also mean that a large number of people who aren't able to afford the increased prices, will have to drive further and further out to find affordable accomodation in this emergency. Same effect, I would say.

If something is in very high demand, there will be a shortage eventually anyway.

Do you mean a permaneant shortage or a temporary one. If you mean a temporary one I agree with you, but unless the good is something so specific and natural that by it's definition no replacements are possible (ie. Oil) a new method, often with new ingredients can be created to make something.

Yeah that’s pretty much how I see it, part and parcel of a free market. And to be honest every regulation against it is a step away from a completely free market. That said I entertain thoughts of a public economy and community owned enterprises so I may be biased. I have heard people argue against this kind of behaviour after just looking down on me for suggesting more government intervention in the economy in other areas. This, to me, is simply the flip side of the way we decided to order our economy, the darker side of the individualist impulse if you will. To make an argument against disaster profiteering and or price gouging is to attack a central tenant of capitalism.

Fine...

...until it's you who can't afford the new price for batteries.








Who would Jesus gouge?

Do you mean a permaneant shortage or a temporary one. If you mean a temporary one I agree with you, but unless the good is something so specific and natural that by it's definition no replacements are possible (ie. Oil) a new method, often with new ingredients can be created to make something.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a permanent shortage... except for maybe some natural resources in more or less remote areas of the planet.

Price Gouging is in the same neighborhood as War Profiteering. It's basically enriching oneself through the suffering of others.
But as long as I didn't cause the suffering, how am I in the wrong?

The manufacturers would limit the supply, but they wouldn't HAVE to... they'd just do it to keep the articial profit-high continuing.



What about when the resource is effectively limitless?
Then why aren't there more suppliers?

But as long as I didn't cause the suffering, how am I in the wrong?

You may not have caused it, but there will be a likely situation where it will be prolongued or even aggravated with some people simply because they won't be able to afford the vital material due to price gouging.

Think of HMOs withholding vital medical procedures to subscribers because it wasn't "cost-effective" or "covered."

Price gouging is a virtually nonexistent phenomenon in modern market economies; when it happens, it's almost always due to problems in the regulatory system and not the market itself. One of the classic examples, the California energy crisis, was caused not by deregulation in and of itself but by the government's failure to properly deregulate both sides of the market. They were so afraid of legitimate energy price rises angering their potential voters that they created a system so ripe for exploitation that it allowed unscrupulous suppliers to manipulate the distorted market thereby producing price increases far above and beyond anything that would have happened in a properly deregulated market.

There are almost no sectors of the economy that give a single firm or cartel the power to control prices to an extent necessary to "gouge"; in fact, in order to gouge the company would first have to be capable of artificially removing supply from the market and then begin raising prices. However, it's also hardly coincidental that the more inflexible the demand for a given product is, the easier that product is to produce. Attempts at price gouging are invariably doomed to fail due to the inherent stability of the market mechanism at regulating the levels of competition and demand flexibility

But as long as I didn't cause the suffering, how am I in the wrong?

because it is wrong to take advantage of the suffering of others. hi and welcome to 'being a human' 101

One of the classic examples, the California energy crisis, was caused not by deregulation in and of itself but by the government's failure to properly deregulate both sides of the market. They were so afraid of legitimate energy price rises angering their potential voters that they created a system so ripe for exploitation that it allowed unscrupulous suppliers to manipulate the distorted market thereby producing price increases far above and beyond anything that would have happened in a properly deregulated market.
That was actually a very funny episode. One of the energy companies that made a killing during that crisis, taking advantage of the poorly written regulations of the State of California, was the Province of British Columbia, and its wholly government-owned power company BC Hydro. BC Hydro was one of the larger suppliers during the crisis, and their efforts to manipulate prices were hugely successful at making BC an enormous profit.

One government screwing over another. Fitting.

because it is wrong to take advantage of the suffering of others. hi and welcome to 'being a human' 101
But there has to be a reason its wrong. There can't exist two identical actions in two identcial circumstances that differ only in that one is wrong and one isn't - wrongness isn't that sort of attribute. To be wrong, my action has to have something about it that is wrong.

But this one doesn't. I didn't cause the crisis, so I'm not causing any harm. I'm just selling a luxury item (so designated by its high price and scarcity).

If I'm not causing harm, how am I doing something wrong?

Gauthier is correct that I could mitigate the crisis by charitably making my goods available for below market value (or even giving them away), but that runs into the commission/omission distinction again. Is it wrong not to act charitably in a crisis? If I simply act as I always would (charging the price the market will bear), why is that wrong during the crisis butr not wrong the rest of the time.

But there has to be a reason its wrong. There can't exist two identical actions in two identcial circumstances that differ only in that one is wrong and one isn't - wrongness isn't that sort of attribute. To be wrong, my action has to have something about it that is wrong.

But this one doesn't. I didn't cause the crisis, so I'm not causing any harm. I'm just selling a luxury item (so designated by its high price and scarcity).

If I'm not causing harm, how am I doing something wrong?

Gauthier is correct that I could mitigate the crisis by charitably making my goods available for below market value (or even giving them away), but that runs into the commission/omission distinction again. Is it wrong not to act charitably in a crisis? If I simply act as I always would (charging the price the market will bear), why is that wrong during the crisis butr not wrong the rest of the time.

Why not give us an example of price gouging?

But there has to be a reason its wrong. There can't exist two identical actions in two identcial circumstances that differ only in that one is wrong and one isn't
...
I didn't cause the crisis, so I'm not causing any harm.

wait, what was that about identical circumstances again?

anyways, the wrongness involved is the taking advantage of people. this is just particularly apparent in situations where price gouging is possible.

I'm just selling a luxury item (so designated by its high price and scarcity).

your definition is laughable and clearly equivocation

Price gouging is a virtually nonexistent phenomenon in modern market economies; when it happens, it's almost always due to problems in the regulatory system and not the market itself. One of the classic examples, the California energy crisis, was caused not by deregulation in and of itself but by the government's failure to properly deregulate both sides of the market. They were so afraid of legitimate energy price rises angering their potential voters that they created a system so ripe for exploitation that it allowed unscrupulous suppliers to manipulate the distorted market thereby producing price increases far above and beyond anything that would have happened in a properly deregulated market.

Well, to make an initial point, you've made an excellent argument not for deregulation but against half-assed deregulation. So long as we regulate both sides, the problems of the California Energy Crisis are averted.

Moreover, I think you are substantially underrepresenting the argument against full deregulation: you can't have a fully-deregulated power system, because a fully-deregulated power system does not work with the existing power distribution system, nor with any of the other zoning ordinances that we have. To put it bluntly, unless you are suggesting that we allow 15 rival power companies to put 15 power plants up all over a city that requires 3 power plants for competition, with a 16th power company putting up little power plants on every block, and allowing little independent operators with a coal furnace to plug their system into the main grid, then you haven't got a fully-deregulated system. If you do allow that, you've got chaos, way too much pollution, every zoning ordinance in the book has been shredded, and you've overloaded the power grid 3 times over.

Now, you might argue that I'm exaggerating with the 15 power plants. You would be right, because very few people have the capital to build a 150 megawatt power plant, and no one would invest that much capital for a 20% shot at financial success. What's far more likely going to happen is 3 people agree to divvy up sections of the city between them, build the three power plants, and charge whatever the market will bear. It's more profitable that way, and more reflective of other similar agreements reached between capitalists in the past, for instance, the railroad companies in the 1870's and 1880's in the U.S. Unfortunately, that would be a prime example of . . . wait for it. . . price gouging!


There are almost no sectors of the economy that give a single firm or cartel the power to control prices to an extent necessary to "gouge"; in fact, in order to gouge the company would first have to be capable of artificially removing supply from the market and then begin raising prices. However, it's also hardly coincidental that the more inflexible the demand for a given product is, the easier that product is to produce. Attempts at price gouging are invariably doomed to fail due to the inherent stability of the market mechanism at regulating the levels of competition and demand flexibility


Erm, what? That actually describes large sectors of the American economy, especially the telecommunications industry (the zoned Baby Bells), the agricultural industry, and cable industry, extensive sections of the tech industry (quick, name a company who's OS is as used as Microsoft or Apple, or who's chips are as used as Intel and AMD), the grocery industry, and extensive sections of the chemical industry.

The kicker, however, is not that each of these are the consequence of government interference rather than market design (although how the Baby Bells are explained through government interference eludes me) but that in the sections where government activity is prominent, such as the agricultural sector, it was prominent initially because of compelling government interest: post-Depression, we've figured out that the system works much better if the threat of famine and mass-starvation is removed from the table. We can't remove government from the equation without also reintroducing that possibility. Insofar as half-assed dereg is something both you and I both agree is problematic, it seems that we ought to allow monopolies, but carefully monitored for best success. I fail to see any symptoms of malaise in the 1970's power grid or power generation (home, not car-based) or AT&T for instance, despite their closely-supervised monopoly status, and the average farmer was a hell of a lot better off back then than he is now.

Erm, what? That actually describes large sectors of the American economy, especially the telecommunications industry (the zoned Baby Bells), the agricultural industry, and cable industry, extensive sections of the tech industry (quick, name a company who's OS is as used as Microsoft or Apple, or who's chips are as used as Intel and AMD), the grocery industry, and extensive sections of the chemical industry.
Ok... at this point I feel I must chime in.
Telecommunications, agriculture, and cable television are all greatly shaped by government by a systems of regulations, subsidies, and even government mandated monopolies in many jurisdictions. How can you possibly describe any of those as being anything even vaguely resembling free market in the US? (as an aside, how is the 'grocery industry' monopolistic? that one boggles my mind.

As far as the tech industry goes - you have two dominant players (with a lot of vibrant though lesser known alternatives) simply because that is what the market wants. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from using another OS if you so desire - nothing. Do you honestly think there should be a government mandate limiting the market share of a particular OS? I prefer consumer choice.

The kicker, however, is not that each of these are the consequence of government interference rather than market design (although how the Baby Bells are explained through government interference eludes me)The telecommunications industry is a very complex headache of government control, regulation, taxation, 'picking winners', limiting competition in some areas, prohibiting cooperation in others, and forcing companies through byzantine regulation which inhibits proper functioning.

If you are interested in studying business history and the effect of government interference in markets, the history of AT&T and the baby bells is a rich source.

but that in the sections where government activity is prominent, such as the agricultural sector, it was prominent initially because of compelling government interest: post-Depression, we've figured out that the system works much better if the threat of famine and mass-starvation is removed from the table.There was no lack of food during the depression, the problem was that people lacked any money to buy it. Agriculture assistance was nothing more than a form or welfare for farmers - these days it is a massive subsidy for huge ag firms who farm subsidies (the actual crops are incidental). Regulations and restrictions on the ag industry are horribly distorting and (surprise surprise) harm actual farmers in favor of the big companies who can afford teams of lobbyists.

You might find this interesting: http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/2003/Everything-Is-Illegal1esp03.htm

We can't remove government from the equation without also reintroducing that possibility.Nonsense - the government is far more of a hindrance than a help. New Zealand has a very vibrant agricultural sector. Everyone said deregulation and a free market would destroy it, but getting rid of the subsidies and tariffs was a fantastic move. They now are world leaders in agricultural innovation and have not the slightest fear of mass starvation. The US produces enough calories to feed everyone on the planet - we are not about to starve.

Insofar as half-assed dereg is something both you and I both agree is problematic, it seems that we ought to allow monopolies, but carefully monitored for best success. I fail to see any symptoms of malaise in the 1970's power grid or power generation (home, not car-based) or AT&T for instance, despite their closely-supervised monopoly status, and the average farmer was a hell of a lot better off back then than he is now.
Competition is good. Monopolies are bad.
If you want to know why, even a high school level econ book can tell you.
Power generation in the 70's was overpriced, AT&T was not responsive to customers and was likewise overpriced, and the average farmer may have been better off, but everyone had to pay a substantial part of their income for food.

I'm reminded of an old Lily Tomlin sketch...
Here at the Phone Company we handle eighty-four billion calls a year. Serving everyone from presidents and kings to scum of the earth. We realize that every so often you can't get an operator, for no apparent reason your phone goes out of order {plucks plug out of switchboard}, or perhaps you get charged for a call you didn't make.

We don't care.

Watch this - {bangs on a switch panel like a cheap piano} just lost Peoria.

You see, this phone system consists of a multibillion-dollar matrix of space-age technology that is so sophisticated, even we can't handle it. But that's your problem, isn't it ? Next time you complain about your phone service, why don't you try using two Dixie cups with a string.

{loud, booming voice-over} We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company.

anyways, the wrongness involved is the taking advantage of people.
I'm not taking advantage of the people - I'm taking advatnage of the situation. If that's always wrong, then any behaviour influenced by circumstances is wrong.
this is just particularly apparent in situations where price gouging is possible.
Apparently it's not as apparent as you think. Why don't you explain it to me?
your definition is laughable and clearly equivocation
I note you haven't offered a better definition.

I have a product that has traditionally been widely available. People are used to buying it at a low price. Suddenly, the product's supply is vastly diminished, and I am now able to sell my stock at a much higher price. All I'm doing is reacting to market conditions. I'm not forcing anyone to buy my product; I'm just asking a higher price for it.

Then, when someone really desperately needs my product, it's more likely to be available because it didn't sell out at the lower price. That consumer benefits, and NO ONE was harmed.

I don't understand why anyone thinks this is bad.

Capatilism, but a hurricane is extreme. Most normal times you'd just wait for the old man to get more unless you really needed batteries, and they were still 6 times the price. If both of them sell batteries at the same price under normal circumstances then go to whoevers closer or who you trust or has stock,etc.

I'm not taking advantage of the people - I'm taking advatnage of the situation. If that's always wrong, then any behaviour influenced by circumstances is wrong.

Apparently it's not as apparent as you think. Why don't you explain it to me?

I note you haven't offered a better definition.

I have a product that has traditionally been widely available. People are used to buying it at a low price. Suddenly, the product's supply is vastly diminished, and I am now able to sell my stock at a much higher price. All I'm doing is reacting to market conditions. I'm not forcing anyone to buy my product; I'm just asking a higher price for it.

Then, when someone really desperately needs my product, it's more likely to be available because it didn't sell out at the lower price. That consumer benefits, and NO ONE was harmed.

I don't understand why anyone thinks this is bad.


You still haven't offered and example of price gouging.

Unless of course you are declaring there is no such thing.

So Llewdor you still have shown yourself rather ignorant in this area.

Let's see if you can start with offering an example of price gouging.

For some reason I suspect it' will be the obvious such as water :rolleyes: or you will retreat to your circular debating style.

You still haven't offered and example of price gouging.

Unless of course you are declaring there is no such thing.
Why do people need examples? Why can't we just discuss subjects in the abstract?

That said, I see no difference in kind between price gouging and the setting of prices in non-emergent situations.
So Llewdor you still have shown yourself rather ignorant in this area.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Why do people not get that?
Let's see if you can start with offering an example of price gouging.
How about diamonds? Diamonds are sold at an artifically high price because diamond producers stockpile diamonds and only release them to the market when they feel the price won't be adversely affected.

Again I ask, why do you need an example?

And what would have been wrong with water?

I hear a lot of people complaining about price gouging, but I can't understand why.
As far as I see it, price gouging is merly capitalism working. Example, a hurricane has just hit,you need batteries so you go to the kind old man's shop who would NEVER even THINK of charging you more for batteries than he did last week. Unfourtunatly he's all out because of the price, people bought extras and now you have none. However, down the street theres a man who will sell you batteries at his store for 6 TIMES the price he did last week. However, you need batteries so you pay him anyway.
Thoughts?

I don't complain about price gouging as much as I used to, except in regards to fuel prices, and even then I don't blame the gas station management for it, because they're trying to make enough money to pay their bills too, just like I am.

I blame the oil sheiks over in the Middle East, and investors, more than anybody else, for ludicrously high fuel prices.

And in regards to other things, I complain very little, if at all, about gouging because I KNOW why prices are so high: the cost of fuel.

Anyways,... supply and demand law. It's bad at the same time good. Though I think if it keeps up it will lead into a devaluation of the currency.

QFT.

I'm not taking advantage of the people - I'm taking advatnage of the situation. If that's always wrong, then any behaviour influenced by circumstances is wrong.

no, you are taking advantage of people, in a way that is made possible by a particular situation. and it certainly does not follow from that that any situation leads to you taking advantage.

Apparently it's not as apparent as you think. Why don't you explain it to me?

no, it is exactly as apparent as i think. you are just not a good judge of what is obvious and apparent.

but in any case, imagine you are out hiking in the wilderness. you come across a guy who has been stuck out there for days because he broke his leg. if you don't provide aid, he will most likely die. is it right and just for you to only help him once he signs a contract agreeing to pay you $1000?

I hear a lot of people complaining about price gouging, but I can't understand why.
As far as I see it, price gouging is merly capitalism working. Example, a hurricane has just hit,you need batteries so you go to the kind old man's shop who would NEVER even THINK of charging you more for batteries than he did last week. Unfourtunatly he's all out because of the price, people bought extras and now you have none. However, down the street theres a man who will sell you batteries at his store for 6 TIMES the price he did last week. However, you need batteries so you pay him anyway.
Thoughts?

Because laissez-faire economics were proven to be bunk by the Great Depression and like a nail sticking up again, had to be banged down after neoliberalism and it's disastrous effects were seen in the Asian Crisis, Argentine Crisis etc etc.

no, it is exactly as apparent as i think. you are just not a good judge of what is obvious and apparent.
If it were so obvious and apparent as you claim, would you be going to this much effort to avoid having to explain it?

Just because you claim its obvious and apparent doesn't make it so. I could a contrary position was obvious and apparent - that would produce a stalemate.
but in any case, imagine you are out hiking in the wilderness. you come across a guy who has been stuck out there for days because he broke his leg. if you don't provide aid, he will most likely die. is it right and just for you to only help him once he signs a contract agreeing to pay you $1000?
I would think that was morally neutral.

Remember, I think inaction is a perfectly valid choice in situations like this; I'm not obligated to offer people aid.

Therefore, either you disagree and think I am required to offer aid, or you think that charging for that aid is somehow a more abhorrent act than not offering aid at all.

I would think that was morally neutral.

and you would be wrong. clearly and obviously so. as i mentioned, you are a terrible judge of things being clear and obvious.

I vote for option one; I do think you have a moral obligation to help.
Of course, any contract signed under duress is void anyway.
So you think that he must sacrifice his own wellbeing for others? You DO believe in capitalism...Right?

I would think that was morally neutral.

Remember, I think inaction is a perfectly valid choice in situations like this; I'm not obligated to offer people aid.That's somewhat scary... You'd just leave someone to die?
So no empathy? No human compassion?

Therefore, either you disagree and think I am required to offer aid, or you think that charging for that aid is somehow a more abhorrent act than not offering aid at all.I vote for option one; I do think you have a moral obligation to help.
Of course, any contract signed under duress is void anyway.

I hear a lot of people complaining about price gouging, but I can't understand why.
As far as I see it, price gouging is merly capitalism working. Example, a hurricane has just hit,you need batteries so you go to the kind old man's shop who would NEVER even THINK of charging you more for batteries than he did last week. Unfourtunatly he's all out because of the price, people bought extras and now you have none. However, down the street theres a man who will sell you batteries at his store for 6 TIMES the price he did last week. However, you need batteries so you pay him anyway.
Thoughts?

on top of that, the high price attracts people from other areas to bring batteries and sell them for a high price. the ultimate result is that lots of new batteries go where they are needed and the price falls. Price gouging actually helps hurricane victims in the long run.

So you think that he must sacrifice his own wellbeing for others? That is not an issue here. If he was at serious risk from helping that person, then it would be another story, but that isn't the case in this scenario.

You DO believe in capitalism...Right?Believe in capitalism? It's a religion now?
God, am I ever happy I'm agnostic.
Seriously, retaining one's human identity is worth a lot more than following the tenets of capitalism (or pretty much any -ism).

Of course, any contract signed under duress is void anyway.
So you're saying it's actually in my interests not to help?
That's somewhat scary... You'd just leave someone to die?
So no empathy? No human compassion?
I didn't say I'd leave him to die. I said I wouldn't be obligated to help. I might help, but I don't think it would make sense to vilify someone for failing to fix a problem he didn't cause.

So you're saying it's actually in my interests not to help?

I didn't say I'd leave him to die. I said I wouldn't be obligated to help. I might help, but I don't think it would make sense to vilify someone for failing to fix a problem he didn't cause.

You didn't answer the question.

I don't think it would make sense to vilify someone for failing to fix a problem he didn't cause.

imagine a toddler drowning in 2 feet of water. now imagine a guy, let's call him john, sees this, sees that nobody else is in the area to render aid, and realizes that the cost to him is a pair of wet shoes and soggy pants. john decides that that price is too high and walks on by. your claim is that we shouldn't call john a fucking monster? really?!

That's somewhat scary... You'd just leave someone to die?
So no empathy? No human compassion?

nah, he thinks that it is morally neutral to do so - whether somebody gives aid or not is not something worthy of moral blame (or, presumably, praise). which isn't any better, really.

imagine a toddler drowning in 2 feet of water. now imagine a guy, let's call him john, sees this, sees that nobody else is in the area to render aid, and realizes that the cost to him is a pair of wet shoes and soggy pants. john decides that that price is too high and walks on by. your claim is that we shouldn't call john a fucking monster? really?!

You could call him a monster, but you cannot force him to save the child nor throw him in jail because he did not. The issue on whether or not he should have saved the child is irrelevant - the point is that you cannot compel him to do so.

Charity is a good thing, and you should be lauded for charitable acts, but it is morally wrong to enslave someone in the name of making them provide 'charity'.

Price gouging for necessities is bad, especially in emergency situations. So is hoarding extra supplies. Rationing is fine when supplies are low. Everything else is rightly market driven.

You could call him a monster, but you cannot force him to save the child nor throw him in jail because he did not. The issue on whether or not he should have saved the child is irrelevant - the point is that you cannot compel him to do so.

1) the question of 'should' is preciesly the point. pay attention.
2) why couldn't we force him or punish him for failing to do so? i mean, clearly we can and sometimes do already.

You could call him a monster, but you cannot force him to save the child nor throw him in jail because he did not. The issue on whether or not he should have saved the child is irrelevant - the point is that you cannot compel him to do so.

Charity is a good thing, and you should be lauded for charitable acts, but it is morally wrong to enslave someone in the name of making them provide 'charity'.

So it's not morally wrong to not try and save somebody who can't save himself?

The issue is he should have saved the child and it's very relevant as it describes the type of person he is; a piece of crap and that is being generous.

He can opt out not saving the kid but he also earned living the life of a pariah after that.

Unfortunately such people exist. I once had a flat. One of the units out front caught fire. The moralistically neutral person living in it went about pulling his possessions out and putting them in his car rather then raising the alarm. This went on for about 20 minutes(it was 3 in the morning at the time).

People were only alerted when a guy who happened to be running at that time ran over and banged on peoples doors and got someone to call the emergency line.

The moralistically neutral person kept getting his possessions until the fire department showed up. Major damage to four units and people could have been seriously hurt if it was not for the runner. The fire department said he they had been called right away, the damage would have been contained to the one unit.

The moralistically neutral person could not understand why people treated him like crap after that and he had to move away to escape the abuse.

So it's not morally wrong to not try and save somebody who can't save himself?Morality is entirely subjective.

The issue is he should have saved the child and it's very relevant as it describes the type of person he is; a piece of crap and that is being generous.And that is your opinion - does that give you the right to steal his property and enslave him?

The moralistically neutral person kept getting his possessions until the fire department showed up. Major damage to four units and people could have been seriously hurt if it was not for the runner. The fire department said he they had been called right away, the damage would have been contained to the one unit.
This has absolutely nothing to do with morality. Nothing.
That individual had an obvious problem in basic logic, not 'morality'. Had they called to report the fire immediately, there would have been no need for him to try to move all of his stuff out to save it from the fire. He subjected himself to a lot of work for nothing. Were he amoral, he still would have called for help. Trying to use someone with a cognitive impairment to smear those who do not ascribe to your particular viewpoint on morality is spurious.


Unfortunately we are wandering off topic - which is price gouging. To bring things back, prices simply reflect demand and are a method of controlling distribution. If batteries are in high demand during a crisis, and the price is allowed to rise, those who do not really need them will not pay the high price, those with surplus batteries have an incentive to make them available to others (or put forth the effort to acquire batteries to make them available), and thus supply is available for those who are most in need of them.

Were the price not allowed to rise, there is a high incentive to hoard (distribution to the quickest rather than those who value them most) and no incentive to provide more (supply diminishes with negligible redistribution of surplus). Impose a rationing and you then choose who gets supplies and who doesn't (distribution to those you like more, are more persuasive speakers, better con artists, and such, rather than those most in need).

Simply put, pricing mechanisms are the best ad-hoc system encouraging a more optimal distribution, quicker resumption of supply, more rational valuation of personal requirements (reduced hoarding), and rapidly updating prioritization of needs.

Morality is entirely subjective.

You didn't answer the question.

And that is your opinion - does that give you the right to steal his property and enslave him?

Does he have a right to simply allow a child to die?


This has absolutely nothing to do with morality. Nothing.

Actually it does.

That individual had an obvious problem in basic logic, not 'morality'. Had they called to report the fire immediately, there would have been no need for him to try to move all of his stuff out to save it from the fire. He subjected himself to a lot of work for nothing. Were he amoral, he still would have called for help. Trying to use someone with a cognitive impairment to smear those who do not ascribe to your particular viewpoint on morality is spurious.


Ah We are not talking a simple matter about somebody trying to put a round peg into a square hole.

Logic had nothing to do with this.

He had a fire he couldn't contain. He felt it was more important to save his stuff rather then an alarm. The neighbors door is 6 feet from his and he went by it several times.

Cognitive impairment? :D Maybe if he was a kid or had a mental condition. He did not. He viewed his physical assets more important then telling people there was a bad fire that was about to affect them.

If you hadn't seen the memo, a burning apartment is one of those universal things that most people think is a bad idea. Especially when it will grow.

Nice try.....

There's an irony.

The one event most frequently quoted as an example of Price Gouging doing Bad is actually an example of it doing good!

Post Katrina. Prices for Water, and other supplies, went way up.

BUT...

Here's the unseen side: For every person living in the NAFTA zone, there exists a certain market value for bottled water at which you would happily load up a car with bottled water and drive it to that market to sell it.

Thus, in the wake of Katrina, the higher the prices went, the more of that product was redirected from other markets into the New Orleans area! Higher prices for gasoline meant MORE gasoline went there! So a lot of good came out of this.

And it can be bad. In WWII Bengal, rising rice prices led to a spiral of food hoarding- the more the price rose, the better the investment in holding on to your rice stocks instead of selling (because people believe the prices will keep rising) the less rice is left on the market, the more the price rises. So here, the price gouging DID produce starvation, because wartime conditions prevented other regions from responding to the rising prices my moving in their rice. (in 2005 North America, you could load up a truck in Ontario with water and drive it to New Orleans to sell, this was not the same for rice in 1943 India.)

So as usual, the only correct answer is "it depends". Reality does not generally pander to our desire for simple answers.

Economics gets weird. We often think that goods and services have an intrinsic "fair" value. They do not. The universe was not created with price tags. "Market" pricing is nothing more than the consensus opinion on the value of something, and for a person to think his opinion trumps the consensus is fairly arrogant.

PEOPLE before PROFIT.

Ah We are not talking a simple matter about somebody trying to put a round peg and square hole.


THis works if the Length of the Side of the square is equal to or greater than the Diameter of the peg.

Or if you are willing to accept some damage to the peg.

Or the hole.

Square peg in round hole is a related but slightly more complex problem.

I know. I spent the 2nd year of my life mastering this art.

Morality is entirely subjective.

do you take this to mean that it is therefore morally acceptable to actually push the kid into the water yourself?

Unfortunately we are wandering off topic - which is price gouging. To bring things back, prices simply reflect demand and are a method of controlling distribution. If batteries are in high demand during a crisis, and the price is allowed to rise, those who do not really need them will not pay the high price, those with surplus batteries have an incentive to make them available to others (or put forth the effort to acquire batteries to make them available), and thus supply is available for those who are most in need of them.

provided those most in need also have the money to spend. but clearly there is no direct link between need and cash on hand. if anything, there would tend to be an inverse relation between them.

Impose a rationing and you then choose who gets supplies and who doesn't

precisely. and since we get to choose the criteria for distribution, we can choose need and fairness. ta-fucking-da.

imagine a toddler drowning in 2 feet of water. now imagine a guy, let's call him john, sees this, sees that nobody else is in the area to render aid, and realizes that the cost to him is a pair of wet shoes and soggy pants. john decides that that price is too high and walks on by. your claim is that we shouldn't call john a fucking monster? really?!

Strangely enough, something very like this happened recently in the UK:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/7006412.stm

"Monster" has very fuzzy borders.

THis works if the Length of the Side of the square is equal to or greater than the Diameter of the peg.

Or if you are willing to accept some damage to the peg.

Or the hole.

Square peg in round hole is a related but slightly more complex problem.

I know. I spent the 2nd year of my life mastering this art.

Shut up you!

Ok that made me chuckle! :D

Strangely enough, something very like this happened recently in the UK:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/7006412.stm

"Monster" has very fuzzy borders.

well, in that case, while they clearly should have gone in and are right fucking asses for not, things are a little more ambiguous than my scenario - the water was deep enough to require swimming, the child was already out of view underwater, other people were around, additional help was called, etc.

Judging by the successful and widespread use of the electrolytic capacitor, he did have a sense for marketability. That certainly implies that his theoretical transistor was not ready to replace vacuum tubes. One wouldn't sit on a world-changing invention, if it were feasible.

You are completely in error. The steam engine is an example. Hero invented the steam engine in ancient Greece before there was even a Roman Empire. It was a toy. We see it as a world changing device today, but then...it was a toy.

The ancient Mesopotamians devised wet cell batteries.

The Aztecs and Incas had wheels.

In all the above they were thought of as novelty items or toys. Nothing more.

Perception and linking to practical application are not part and parcel with the invention or creation of a technology. The world changing nature of a new technology is entirely dependent on whether someone has a "lightbulb" moment and goes, "Hey! I can use that like this!"

Nylon for years was junk. ("Hey Brad! Look what happens when I pour these two things together!" "Neat!" <poured down sink>)

Gasoline was a waste product from diesel and kerosene cracking. It was thrown away.

So don't fault the German fellow because he didn't recognize the world changing nature of the transistor. To him it was a toy - an interesting bit of theoretical work, nothing that really mattered. He's not the first to have made such a "mistake" and I can assure you that he won't be the last.

nah, he thinks that it is morally neutral to do so - whether somebody gives aid or not is not something worthy of moral blame (or, presumably, praise). which isn't any better, really.
I didn't discuss whether giving aid was worthy of praise. I'm asserting that not giving aid is not worthy of moral blame.

Whether I would give aid is beside the point (and I might depending on other circumstances - that the guy needed my help wouldn't be my primary motivator). Since not giving aid isn't an action (it is, by definition, inaction), it doesn't fall under moral rules.

I didn't discuss whether giving aid was worthy of praise. I'm asserting that not giving aid is not worthy of moral blame.

Whether I would give aid is beside the point (and I might depending on other circumstances - that the guy needed my help wouldn't be my primary motivator). Since not giving aid isn't an action (it is, by definition, inaction), it doesn't fall under moral rules.

If only the world was simply black and white.

Sorry Llewdor moral blame falls on inaction as well. Especially, when the simple act could save a life.

Since not giving aid isn't an action (it is, by definition, inaction), it doesn't fall under moral rules.

It is still a choice though.

Since not giving aid isn't an action (it is, by definition, inaction), it doesn't fall under moral rules.

why should i believe either of these claims. it seems to me that john most certainly did perform an action in not giving aid - it's not like he just passively stood there unable to decide what to do. and even if he had done that, it seems to me that the choice between aid or not aid is a key aspect of the morality of the situation. you seem to want to say that neither the consequences nor the intent/will matter for morality. i don't believe you.

Sorry Llewdor moral blame falls on inaction as well. Especially, when the simple act could save a life.
It is still a choice though.
it seems to me that john most certainly did perform an action in not giving aid - it's not like he just passively stood there unable to decide what to do.
Because choosing not to act is equivalent to not having been given the option (like being absent).

If the differing characteristics between A and B make no material difference, why should we care about them?

Because choosing not to act is equivalent to not having been given the option (like being absent).

That is simply absurd.

Because choosing not to act is equivalent to not having been given the option (like being absent).

If the differing characteristics between A and B make no material difference, why should we care about them?

Ahh we are back to stupid talk again.

You have to be absent to not have the choice. You have to not know the person was in distress to not have the choice.

You had the option and you chose not to act.

The blame is still yours.

Ahh we are back to stupid talk again.

You have to be absent to not have the choice. You have to not know the person was in distress to not have the choice.

You had the option and you chose not to act.

The blame is still yours.
Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it more true.

Why is the availability of the aid relevant? In both cases, aid isn't given. In both cases, the victim suffers equally.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it more true.

If you are going to quote Jocabia at least give him credit.

Fact is Lewdor; it is true.

Why is the availability of the aid relevant? In both cases, aid isn't given. In both cases, the victim suffers equally.

Either you are being stupid or you are being dishonest.

There is only one case. Your argument does not exist. Non-action is not the same as not having an option.

You had the option and you chose not to do anything as such blame does fall on you.

Because choosing not to act is equivalent to not having been given the option (like being absent).

this is transparently stupid

If the differing characteristics between A and B make no material difference, why should we care about them?

because of the nature of moral agency means that people are responsible for the actions that it is within their power to take. this is the basis for all moral praise and blame.

Fact is Lewdor; it is true.
You haven't supported that at all.
Either you are being stupid or you are being dishonest.
You've being evasive. If you think your claims have some basis, you could try presenting it to make yourself more persuasive.
There is only one case. Your argument does not exist. Non-action is not the same as not having an option.
In what way do the two differ? I've been so kind as to explain the ways in which they don't. If you can show how they do, then we'll have some starting point for determining whose characteristics are more relevant.

You haven't supported that at all.

You've being evasive. If you think your claims have some basis, you could try presenting it to make yourself more persuasive.

In what way do the two differ? I've been so kind as to explain the ways in which they don't. If you can show how they do, then we'll have some starting point for determining whose characteristics are more relevant.

I still can't tell if you are being stupid or dishonest.

Re-read this a few dozen times and see if it sinks in.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13359232&postcount=122

Your example is rubbish.

"Because choosing not to act is equivalent to not having been given the option (like being absent).

If the differing characteristics between A and B make no material difference, why should we care about them?"

You were present; you had the option. You chose to not act and as such the blame is yours.

The fact you didn't do anything is not the same as having no option.

You can repeat it forever, it just shows you are dishonest or just rather simple minded.

this is transparently stupid

because of the nature of moral agency means that people are responsible for the actions that it is within their power to take. this is the basis for all moral praise and blame.
You're at least trying to talk to me, unlike Black Forrest, who's just telling me I'm wrong and leaving it at that.

I would assert that the nature of moral agency means that people are responsible for the actions they do take.

Actions they don't take don't exist, and thus can't exhibit characteristics.

There, we are at an impass. I've staked out one position, and you've staked out another position, and the two are mutually exclusive. Any suggestions?

You're at least trying to talk to me, unlike Black Forrest, who's just telling me I'm wrong and leaving it at that.


Oh how sweet.

You declared being present and not acting is like being absent and not having option to act.

I would assert that the nature of moral agency means that people are responsible for the actions they do take.

Actions they don't take don't exist, and thus can't exhibit characteristics.


Ok now you are being stupid.

Actions that don't exist only happen when you are not around or unable to act.

Of course you can't be held accountable because you were somewhere else.

You chose not to act.

Just because you refuse to accept it; doesn't make you right.

I would assert that the nature of moral agency means that people are responsible for the actions they do take.

Actions they don't take don't exist, and thus can't exhibit characteristics.

There, we are at an impass. I've staked out one position, and you've staked out another position, and the two are mutually exclusive. Any suggestions?

we hit each other with hypotheticals designed to illuminate various aspects where we think the other is going wrong. for example, you've held that the lack of a 'material difference' between A and B means that A and B are morally equivalent. so does this mean that you also accept that a person who does something good intentionally is precisely as morally praiseworthy as someone who intended to do wrong, but wound up doing good accidentally?

we hit each other with hypotheticals designed to illuminate various aspects where we think the other is going wrong. for example, you've held that the lack of a 'material difference' between A and B means that A and B are morally equivalent. so does this mean that you also accept that a person who does something good intentionally is precisely as morally praiseworthy as someone who intended to do wrong, but wound up doing good accidentally?
Good question. You'd think intent would matter (good intentions and all that). I honestly can't come up with an explanation that makes intent not matter. As such, the lack of a material difference can't be sufficient to denote moral equivalence.

Well done.

Imagine a husband and wife. The wife is taking a bath, and the husband is in the house. The wife falls in the tub, hits her head, and drowns in the water. Let's fill in the details one scenario at a time:

1) The husband pushed her, trying to kill her, and succeeded.
2) The husband heard her fall, tried to save her, but failed.
3) The husband heard her fall, but did not interfere because he wanted her dead.
4) The husband heard her fall, but did not interfere because he was indifferent.
5) The husband did not hear her fall.

#1 is included as a sort of control. The husband caused the incident, and I'm confident you would consder that abhorrent.

Similarly, I suspect you would count #2 as laudable behaviour. Given the opportunity to act to save her, he did.

However, we're going back and forth on 3-5. In all three he failed to act. First (#3) because he had ill intent, and last (#5) because he didn't have the option. But where does #4 fall? Are you asserting it's equivalent to #3, or that it's in a middle-ground between #3 and #5, but still immoral?

I see it as being equivalent to #5, as unawareness necessarily equals indifference. While the husband in #5 may well have wanted to save his wife, he didn't know she needed saving, and thus hadn't formed an opinion on the question. Not holding an opinion constitutes indifference.

Oh how sweet.

You declared being present and not acting is like being absent and not having option to act.
They are both inaction.
Ok now you are being stupid.

Actions that don't exist only happen when you are not around or unable to act.

Of course you can't be held accountable because you were somewhere else.

You chose not to act.
Correct. There was no action. Things that don't exist can't exhibit characteristics.
Just because you refuse to accept it; doesn't make you right.
You haven't come even vaguely close to presenting an argument, here.

Good question. You'd think intent would matter (good intentions and all that). I honestly can

1) The husband pushed her, trying to kill her, and succeeded.
2) The husband heard her fall, tried to save her, but failed.
3) The husband heard her fall, but did not interfere because he wanted her dead.
4) The husband heard her fall, but did not interfere because he was indifferent.
5) The husband did not hear her fall.


3) blame
4) blame
5) No blame.

This is what you choose to ignore. 3 and 4 he knew. 5 he did not.

Indifference does not protect one from castigation from others.

In fact, try explaining to the police how you were indifferent to her plight and see what happens.

Correct. There was no action. Things that don't exist can't exhibit characteristics.

Inaction is an action. Hence "I am condemned to be free".

They are both inaction.

Correct. There was no action. Things that don't exist can't exhibit characteristics.

You haven't come even vaguely close to presenting an argument, here.

Bullshit.

You simply want to ignore the obvious that you said something foolish and can't defend it.

He was present and chose not to act. That is not the same as not having an option since he was absent.

However, we're going back and forth on 3-5. In all three he failed to act. First (#3) because he had ill intent, and last (#5) because he didn't have the option. But where does #4 fall? Are you asserting it's equivalent to #3, or that it's in a middle-ground between #3 and #5, but still immoral?

I see it as being equivalent to #5, as unawareness necessarily equals indifference. While the husband in #5 may well have wanted to save his wife, he didn't know she needed saving, and thus hadn't formed an opinion on the question. Not holding an opinion constitutes indifference.

indifference is not the same as unawareness. especially indifference that means failing to fulfill an obligation. but the non-identity of being indifferent and being unaware can be seen in the difference between 5a and 5b:

5a) the husband did not hear her fall, but if he had he would have tried to save her
5b) the husband did not hear her fall, and he wouldn't have tried to save her even if he had because he didn't care.

and frankly, i just don't see any reasonable way for social beings that have moral agency to not have an obligation to help in this sort of situation. it's just built in to the nature of living socially and being moral beings with reciprocal obligations.