- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: $99 for a case of water: Texas officials report price gouging post-Harvey
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:01 am to magildachunks
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:01 am to magildachunks
quote:
Ok.
Wow.
No sense trying to discuss with you anymore.
They are disjoint groups but similar outcomes.
0
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:02 am to magildachunks
quote:Both the thief and the unscrupulous business remove the application of moral justification. It imposes a level of price discrimination that could become life-threatening for people without the means to purchase life-sustaining goods. These blind justifications and adherence at all costs to "free-market" forces ignore the reality that certain segments of the population can't pay the jacked-up, price-gouging prices under any circumstances, and thus are exacerbating the dire conditions and creating more problems.
How is selling goods obtained legally ill-gotten gains?
Aside from that, not that any of you adhere to scripture, but Proverbs 1:19 states:
"Such are the ways of all who gain profit unjustly; it takes away the life of those who obtain it!." So strictly from a moral compass, unjustly rewarding yourself at the expense of others is morally wrong, at least in biblical teachings.
I understand the rationale behind the economics of the price increases, but blind adherence to unbridled, immoral price-gouging for the sake of "free market" is incorrect in a disaster area that can no longer be sustained by a natural free market. And in my opinion, those of you whose heart is so black as to not understand this are in need of some soul searching.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:03 am to Displaced
quote:
Tell me exactly how many people are helped when there is no water to buy because one guy brought a uhaul to buy out the store that had $3 cases of water?
Maybe that guy is buying them so he can go charge $99 for a case of water. Who are you to stand in the way of the free market?
Let's be real here. The guy selling the water for 99 a case isn't looking out for the people, he is looking out for himself. It is currently a disaster zone and not a free market.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:04 am to Pecker
quote:
The goods will disappear either way. Many people will not get access to them.
Solution 1) Price controls allow anyone and everyone to have access for a short period of time. Then the goods are gone and very few goods enter the market because there is no incentive to flood the market with goods.
Solution 2) People can charge whatever they want. Those that can afford it, buy the goods. The goods disappear in the short term but the market is flooded with more goods because there is an enormous incentive to enter the market as a seller. The price of the goods drops due to the influx of supply and the market reaches a new equilibrium with affordable goods.
Donated goods are entering the market under both solutions.
Under solution 2, what do we do about the time in between goods being affordable and available opposed to not?
Would you not agree that in a disaster area the most valuable resource is time?
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:05 am to GFunk
quote:
In a Disaster Response/immediate Recovery situation, the time between the allowed gouging and sending of additional supply is where catastrophic human suffering occurs. As a governmental entity or a human being in this society that gap is not acceptable IMO
Making gouging illegal won't change the time it takes for supply to come in to help your cause. It will only make it take longer, if suppliers have nothing to gain
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:05 am to Brummy
quote:
Who determines the "fair" prices for these items?
Looters?
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:05 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
Fair enough but imo Harris County should be shielded from this shite right now.
I paid 3 dollars yesterday for 93. Didn't care or mind it. If it was 5 as some reported. Still would of filled up.
Difference is, I have a home to go to and all of life's necessities.
A lot of people in Harris County do not.
Being "shielded" completely wrecks the free market argument. That is like saying price gouging should be able to occur with exceptions for natural disasters.
And 3 bucks for 93 isn't half bad
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:05 am to CarRamrod
quote:
it is amazing how people dont understand the difference between price gouging and "the economics of the free market."
This. If you've more than doubled your price for any item, you are a bastard.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:07 am to idlewatcher
quote:
And 3 bucks for 93 isn't half bad
I got it for 2.03 2 weeks ago
Like I said 3-5 dollars isn't hurting me.
Some people it might.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:08 am to Upperdecker
quote:
Upperdecker
quote:
Making gouging illegal won't change the time it takes for supply to come in to help your cause. It will only make it take longer, if suppliers have nothing to gain
Gouging will absolutely limit local access in the immediate short term. Criminalizing gouging prevents that limitation in the immediate short term, which is when access is the most critical to prevent human suffering and potential loss-of-life.
This post was edited on 9/1/17 at 10:08 am
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:08 am to LSU alum wannabe
always amusing to observe free market conservatives criticizing the free market
just lol
just lol
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:09 am to MrLarson
quote:
he is looking out for himself
The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:09 am to MrLarson
quote:his motivation is irrelevant. The effects of supply/demand are what's is important.
Let's be real here. The guy selling the water for 99 a case isn't looking out for the people, he is looking out for himself. It is currently a disaster zone and not a free market.
quote:if you are arguing that the guy doing this is ok but the store doing it is not then you are stuck in an infinite loop of stupidity.
Maybe that guy is buying them so he can go charge $99 for a case of water. Who are you to stand in the way of the free market?
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:09 am to cas4t
quote:
I understand your principle, and agree with it. But no one is going to rush into a flooded area to sell cases of water and gasoline. You can't just open a convenience store on a whim in the middle of a natural disaster.
You don't need a convenience store to sell water or food.You don't need a gas station and pump infrastructure in place to transport gasoline with trucks capable of distributing gasoline for sale. People are already flooding the area to provide relief at no financial benefit to them. A financial benefit is the only incentive the market can offer. If there's a better incentive, let me know.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:09 am to Upperdecker
quote:
Number one free market principle: people will always do what's best for themselves. Therefore, if you allow price gouging, the suppliers will hear about the available profit, and send more supply.
we are talking about a matter of days. We are also talking about many people who do not have access to funds, for obvious reasons. Not to mention logistical concerns with sending more supply.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:11 am to Pecker
quote:
You don't need a gas station and pump infrastructure in place to transport gasoline with trucks capable of distributing gasoline for sale.
Trucks can not nor should not distribute gasoline. This is a major risk concern, and would undoubtedly not be covered by your commercial insurance policy in the event you have a spill while attempting to sell without proper risk management measures in place. This is an unrealistic scenario.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:12 am to cas4t
If i came across someone selling a case of water for $100, i'd simply give them $10, tell them to go frick themselves, and take the case of water. I'll gladly break their nose if they try to take it back from me.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:12 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
Under solution 2, what do we do about the time in between goods being affordable and available opposed to not?
Would you not agree that in a disaster area the most valuable resource is time?
The time for availability of goods is no different in either scenario. The goods will disappear.
The question is: to what extent with the goods enter the market after they are initially depleted?
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:12 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
If i came across someone selling a case of water for $100, i'd simply give them $10, tell them to go frick themselves, and take the case of water. I'll gladly break their nose if they try to take it back from me.
That's why we have jails.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:12 am to BowDownToLSU
Price gouging has my libertarian leaning arse conflicted. I get that price curbs demand. Higher the price then the more the person willing to pay must also mean he needs it more.
But what about the millionaire who is slightly thirsty or not thirsty at all but pays $100 for a case of water because $100 is chump change. Likewise the laborer is quite thirsty but $100 is a full day wages so he passes and continues on his way. The thirstier person here didn't get a drink.
But what about the millionaire who is slightly thirsty or not thirsty at all but pays $100 for a case of water because $100 is chump change. Likewise the laborer is quite thirsty but $100 is a full day wages so he passes and continues on his way. The thirstier person here didn't get a drink.
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News