- 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 2:55 pm to TheSexecutioner
Posted on 9/1/17 at 2:55 pm to TheSexecutioner
None of the arguments being put forward are legitimate.
Are you folks seriously comparing a service like Uber or the purchase of a home to things like water or food? They're not in the same ballpark. Talking about "surge pricing," and saying, "the market will self-correct," ignores the critical time lapse between the spike-where items like water and food are CRITICALLY scarce (IE-their scarcity are impacting survival in the area impacted by the catastrophic emergency) and unavailable and the influx of supply brought about by the surge in pricing.
Buying a case of water to keep your children hydrated without AC and potentially shelter isn't analogous to buying a house. Paying a surge price for a ride-sharing service isn't applicable to being unable to afford food because your money is in a bank account and you have no cash/legal tender and there's no electricity and data for most retailers POS software is down so they're only taking cash.
This gap in time is where people in catastrophic disasters DIE. It's where life-and-death emergencies occur. It's where desperate people make desperate decisions. Market intervention in these chaotic market conditions post-disaster are vital.
Are you folks seriously comparing a service like Uber or the purchase of a home to things like water or food? They're not in the same ballpark. Talking about "surge pricing," and saying, "the market will self-correct," ignores the critical time lapse between the spike-where items like water and food are CRITICALLY scarce (IE-their scarcity are impacting survival in the area impacted by the catastrophic emergency) and unavailable and the influx of supply brought about by the surge in pricing.
Buying a case of water to keep your children hydrated without AC and potentially shelter isn't analogous to buying a house. Paying a surge price for a ride-sharing service isn't applicable to being unable to afford food because your money is in a bank account and you have no cash/legal tender and there's no electricity and data for most retailers POS software is down so they're only taking cash.
This gap in time is where people in catastrophic disasters DIE. It's where life-and-death emergencies occur. It's where desperate people make desperate decisions. Market intervention in these chaotic market conditions post-disaster are vital.
This post was edited on 9/1/17 at 2:56 pm
1
Posted on 9/1/17 at 2:55 pm to slackster
Right but that's the way a free market always works, generally.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 2:59 pm to GFunk
quote:
None of the arguments being put forward are legitimate.
They're legitimate, but they're based on a hardline black and white understanding of the free market. The don't seem to take into account any human elements, nor to do they account for the better long-term business strategy.
This is a random example, but Sony used to sell PlayStation consoles at a loss, but they'd make their money back in the long term from licensing agreements. That turned out to be a sound long term business strategy.
Price gouging, on the other hand, seems like a terribly short-sighted move.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 2:59 pm to Pecker
quote:
What's moral about forcing someone to provide a good or service at a cost you determine? Your pizza is $5? I'm poor. Sell me your pizza for $0.20. Do it or go to jail.
This exact scenario plays out every single day in my line of work.
You charge $100 for medical care? I'm poor, I'll pay you $10, and the government will give you whatever amount they feel is appropriate to further compensate you, but it won't be close to $100 total. If you try to charge me the difference, you go to jail.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 3:01 pm to Lou Pai
quote:
Right but that's the way a free market always works, generally.
It just seems dumb to apply macro elements of the free market on such a micro, short term scale. I fully understand the arguments though.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 3:41 pm to slackster
quote:
slackster
quote:
They're legitimate, but they're based on a hardline black and white understanding of the free market. The don't seem to take into account any human elements, nor to do they account for the better long-term business strategy.
This is a random example, but Sony used to sell PlayStation consoles at a loss, but they'd make their money back in the long term from licensing agreements. That turned out to be a sound long term business strategy.
Price gouging, on the other hand, seems like a terribly short-sighted move.
I agree. It's a binary view of a world and situation that is anything but.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 5:06 pm to Weekend Warrior79
quote:
First of all, who is to say that the increased prices are not mainly due to their increased expenses?
That was addressed in my part of the statement you quoted.
quote:
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?
I in no way said the business should be on the hook for the increase.
I said, and you quoted---
quote:Ergo, should the business have to pay more for the product, then they would be allowed to charge the customers more.
with possibly some allowances for their increased cost of operations like them having to pay more for an emergency fuel delivery or the like
Posted on 9/1/17 at 5:14 pm to slackster
quote:This. There is a certain convenience store near Hammack Road/Walker South that jacked prices up during the August 2016 flood. A good many guys on our crew refuse to patronize them anymore--even though it means driving farther for a midday pit stop.
They should just release the business name, address, and evidence of the price gouging, then let the market decide how to punish those retailers.
Not certain the said business gives a shite, but whatever.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 5:16 pm to BowDownToLSU
You people are fricking sick if you think any of this is even slightly morally okay.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 5:17 pm to UnAnon
quote:"Morally ok" has nothing to do with it.
You people are fricking sick if you think any of this is even slightly morally okay.
Price controls create shortages. That is a fact, bub.
This post was edited on 9/1/17 at 5:33 pm
Posted on 9/1/17 at 5:17 pm to UnAnon
quote:
You people are fricking sick if you think any of this is even slightly morally okay.
So a store should operate at a loss because you feel it's the moral thing to do, Puritan?
Posted on 9/1/17 at 7:36 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
RogerTheShrubber
quote:
So a store should operate at a loss because you feel it's the moral thing to do, Puritan?
So they should be allowed to spike their prices based on huge demand due to a life-and-death emergency that-in doing so-will create social disorder and societal upheaval to an even greater degree than the emergency did?
You people act like the second they increase prices on water and food to people in E Tx who are homeless with no access to liquid legal tender and are starving and dehydrated that an 18 wheeler is gonna bust through the barricade on I-10 and deliver water to another retailer who will then almost instantaneously engage in a price war which will also instantaneously correct the supply and demand within the market on its own...
The market will undergo this self correction quickly enough that no human suffering and/or loss of life will occur.
fricking idiocy.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 7:46 pm to GFunk
quote:
fricking idiocy.
Understatement.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 7:50 pm to GFunk
The OP argument is that poor people can't afford price controls on items, so why not price gouge, because the poor folk we're already banking on shelters and government handout.
ETA : wrong thread. Whatev.
ETA : wrong thread. Whatev.
This post was edited on 9/1/17 at 7:53 pm
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News