- 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 10:39 am to cas4t
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:39 am to cas4t
quote:
I didn't propose anything. I simply informed you that your scenario was unrealistic and would be stupid for a business to attempt.
Raise the prices if you want, but it won't result in alternative fuel buying options from businesses. At least legal ones.
The idea here is to incentivize certain behavior. I don't know enough about the gasoline regulations to know if it could ever be feasible to offer greater temporary solutions, but profits are the greatest incentive to promote possible/future solutions. Limiting profits is going to have the opposite effect.
1
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:40 am to rocket31
quote:
naa, it exposes freemarket zealots for the impractical freaks that they are.
my work here is done
Well at least I know that if I needed water from you in a disaster zone, I better bring a benjamin or a glock.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:41 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
I agree with everything you just said in normal day to day life.
Just not in a disaster.
Fair enough. I'm going to get a haircut. And I'm going to let my girl Dani charge me whatever she wants. Because she does a damn good job.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:42 am to Pecker
quote:
Fair enough. I'm going to get a haircut. And I'm going to let my girl Dani charge me whatever she wants. Because she does a damn good job.
I have no problem with this 
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:49 am to SlapahoeTribe
First of all, who is to say that the increased prices are not mainly due to their increased expenses?
Also, this statement is very hypocritical. You are suggesting that it is ok for the retail establishment to have to pay for the "price gouging", but not the consumer?
quote:
with possibly some allowances for their increased cost of operations like them having to pay more for an emergency fuel delivery or the like
Also, this statement is very hypocritical. You are suggesting that it is ok for the retail establishment to have to pay for the "price gouging", but not the consumer?
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:50 am to Pecker
quote:
I don't know enough about the gasoline regulations to know if it could ever be feasible to offer greater temporary solutions
then consider refraining from speaking on it in such a direct manner. Because your examples were asinine.
quote:
Limiting profits is going to have the opposite effect.
Reputational Risk is the number 1 "profit limiter", if you will, and number 1 highest concern for most businesses.
A price gouging fuel hauler would be very short-sighted in your example, and their finance officer should probably be fired.
many petro distributors are also owners of the c-stores, and deliver to themselves. I guarantee you these c-stores that are price gouging are independents, or renters looking to make a quick buck. Independents and renters can only have fuel delivered to them legally, via receptacle, at their pump or in an above ground storage tank, permanently installed. They certainly don't have access to tanker trucks.
This post was edited on 9/1/17 at 10:53 am
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:50 am to rocket31
quote:
it exposes freemarket zealots for the impractical freaks that they are.
You either understand economics or you don't.
What seems good politically is usually bad economics.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:52 am to SUB
quote:
People have few choices for food and gas right now
Then they should have done a better job at planning in the case of a situation like this. Especially since there was enough warning to know there was a possibility of flooding, loss of electricity, and storm damage.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 11:00 am to Weekend Warrior79
quote:
First of all, who is to say that the increased prices are not mainly due to their increased expenses?
With limited supply, many places have to raise profits to keep the doors open. If not, they would be better shutting the doors.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 11:04 am to BowDownToLSU
Price gouging means that at least some water will be available for someone willing to pay it. It's a way to get in front of the line, if you will.
Because if the price remains unchanged, then if you aren't in front of the line when the shelves are stocked you aren't getting any water at all. And I promise you that some enterprising souls get there early specifically so they can buy as much as they can and sell it informally.
Fact is, there just isn't enough to satisfy the demand. You can pick your method of figuring out who gets it but not everyone will.
Because if the price remains unchanged, then if you aren't in front of the line when the shelves are stocked you aren't getting any water at all. And I promise you that some enterprising souls get there early specifically so they can buy as much as they can and sell it informally.
Fact is, there just isn't enough to satisfy the demand. You can pick your method of figuring out who gets it but not everyone will.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 11:07 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
With limited supply, many places have to raise profits to keep the doors open. If not, they would be better shutting the doors.
If the business buys Flood Insurance, then their Business Interruption would pick up all costs for this. Sales, payrolls, and any additional expenses you incur that you normally wouldn't have if it weren't for the loss. It would be pretty shitty to gouge in this circumstance.
If they didn't by Flood, well then yea, they are pretty fricked and understandably would have to raise prices.
Now if they didn't flood, but the business was still hindered by the flood, there is an argument that a Business Interruption policy should still pay. In this event, gouging could prevent an insurance claim, but that would be kinda shitty and I don't think most would do this.
This post was edited on 9/1/17 at 11:15 am
Posted on 9/1/17 at 11:18 am to Upperdecker
quote:
Upperdecker
quote:
Let's run with your argument. Charging gouging prices is bad bc it stops some people from getting product. Don't regular prices do that as well? In a disaster situation, we should require those with supply to go out and give it away for free then, right? Otherwise, some people won't be able to get it. This is the best solution right? I'm sure those with supply would be happy to cut their losses and give it away to help their brothers, even though they may be suffering too
You did EXACTLY what I discussed in my original post which is to create a straw man.
quote:
In a disaster situation, we should require those with supply to go out and give it away for free then, right?
No, though we do have charitable organizations and governmental/NGO that provide some things for free. Controlling the market via prevention of gouging by criminalizing the practice helps to moderate the market from the consumer end over the immediate short-term which helps to ensure proper access to potentially life-saving consumer goods and products.
The consumer end is the most vulnerable at that point and that's not up for debate.
quote:
Otherwise, some people won't be able to get it. This is the best solution right?
Again, this isn't a binary argument by which if you disagree with the idea of criminalizing price gouging you invariably MUST support giving a product away for free. This is a straw man argument you're creating and it's not anything close to how I feel or what I've said here.
This post was edited on 9/1/17 at 11:19 am
Posted on 9/1/17 at 11:25 am to BowDownToLSU
Price gouging actually prevents scarcity of product. Economics yo
Posted on 9/1/17 at 11:41 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
50_Tiger
quote:Pecker is dug in. Beyond rational thought now. Kinda like the policeman that arrested the nurse for not drawing blood on an unconscious patient.
Pecker, no one is ordering pizza in a fricking disaster area.
C'mon man.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 11:52 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?
Why is it such an extreme? If you can raise the price to $99 for a case, surely you can ration the amount people can purchase @ $5/case. Also, it is a complete farce that retailers price gouge in order to control the supply and get goods to those who need them only - they do it to make as much money as they conceivably can.
Like I said on page one, I don't believe it should be illegal, but I think everyone should be aware of what was done. Mattress Mack wants to open stores to folks, and convenience stores want to charge $99/case. Both should be publicized and let the market decide in the long-term which was more acceptable.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 11:56 am to rocket31
quote:
Aaaand we get that water from local water reservoirs for pennies on the dollar paying $4 for it, is still absurd from a morality standpoint
The water supply in Beamont TX that once provided water for pennies is now contaminated and un-usable so what is a bottle of drinkable water now worth?
Posted on 9/1/17 at 11:58 am to EA6B
quote:
EA-6B
Did you fly them or work on them?
This post was edited on 9/1/17 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 9/1/17 at 11:59 am to Chuker
quote:
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.
Plain and simple, price gouging shouldn't be illegal. If we wading into the area of collusion, that is anti-free market and should be illegal.
However, even though I believe price gouging should be legal, disseminating the information to the public about those who took advantage of folks will allow the free market to make the appropriate demand adjustments when thing settle down in Houston.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:03 pm to Pecker
quote:
If they want to charge $20/gallon then don't pay for it if it's not worth that to you. Who are you to tell them how much to charge for a good or service they provide?
I'm not telling them what they can charge for it, I'm just suggesting price gouging is an incredibly short-sighted business move, and the free market will likely not be kind to them when the supply is back to normal.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News