- 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 9:47 am to magildachunks
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:47 am to magildachunks
Yep yep yep and yep
If my family absolutely needed that water, I'd pay $100 for it. And do exactly as you said.
Doesn't meant I'd like paying that much for it either.
If my family absolutely needed that water, I'd pay $100 for it. And do exactly as you said.
Doesn't meant I'd like paying that much for it either.
1
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:48 am to OLDBEACHCOMBER
quote:
arse hole. Price gauging is against the law. The suppliers are not up charging very much. So why should the retailers act like they hit the lottery? After Katrina one retailer was arrested on live TV and should have been. He claimed it was miscommunication. You are a dick.
Are all laws good? No. Many laws are terrible and don't work for the benefit of us
And of course I'm a dick and an a-hole, I disagree with idiots like you. My system will eventually provide for the poor, your system will bring us to socialism and destroy us from the top down. Call me names, but I'm right, and you're only proving my point by reducing this argument to name-calling
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:48 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
Again we are talking in a disaster situation only. Not every day life.
We're talking about involuntary servitude for the sake of a "greater good" during a disaster. It's a moral argument based on an amoral solution to a problem that has nothing to do with morality (scarcity).
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:48 am to magildachunks
quote:
Price gouging helps prevent that from happening and instead of hoarding, you tend to buy only what you need thus allowing more people a chance at the limited supplies.
Explain in detail how I'm wrong.
Do you know a lot of people in disaster areas (who are still there) having funds for $99 water and other goods?
Sure you may get an initial rush, but that money supply would dry up so fast. Then what? You have no one to buy goods and now your pushing tax payers to fund the rest.
So you become essentially Wal-Mart.
Congrats.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:49 am to CaptainsWafer
quote:
If my family absolutely needed that water, I'd pay $100 for it. And do exactly as you said.
Doesn't meant I'd like paying that much for it either.
I felt this way the last time I went to Cane's too.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:49 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
Do you know a lot of people in disaster areas (who are still there) having funds for $99 water and other goods?
Sure you may get an initial rush, but that money supply would dry up so fast. Then what? You have no one to buy goods and now your pushing tax payers to fund the rest.
And then the price will drop.
That does not explain how I'm wrong
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:50 am to 50_Tiger
Supplies dry up faster without gouging.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:51 am to magildachunks
quote:
And then the price will drop.
That does not explain how I'm wrong
No money supply then what?
You left out the Wal-Mart part when you shifted the burden to the taxpayers.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:52 am to Displaced
quote:
Supplies dry up faster without gouging.
So we're essentially arguing what supply we want to dry up quicker.
Money Supply vs. Good Supply
Just admit that you would shift the burden to taxpayers when you raise prices in a disaster area.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:52 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
You left out the Wal-Mart part when you shifted the burden to the taxpayers.
Because it made absolutely no sense
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:54 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
you would shift the burden to taxpayers when you raise prices in a disaster area.
I'm not following what point you're trying to make here.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:55 am to Pecker
quote:
The solution to this is to allow the market to temporarily inflate the price so that more goods enter the market as a result of higher prices.
Some people look at it from the humanitarian side and some look it from the side of making a quick buck. If the person can't afford to buy the needed water then they are forced to resort to looting out of desperation.
Goods are going to flow into that area because of the outpouring of good people. You just happen to have a small percentage of people that will use it to capitalize on people's misfortune.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:55 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
So we're essentially arguing what supply we want to dry up quicker.
Money Supply vs. Good Supply
You're missing the point entirely.... With no supply of goods, the money supply does not matter.
If people can't afford the cost and the supplier builds up a supply, the price will drop and people will start buying again.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:57 am to Upperdecker
quote:
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. Eventually the price will lower with a reduced demand:supply ratio. Everyone profits, and it will happen faster than hoping people will "help their brothers"
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
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:57 am to magildachunks
quote:
Because it made absolutely no sense
Sure it does.
Wal-Mart essentially pays their line level employees garbage wages, under the guise that government programs would cover the rest. Shifting the burden to taxpayers.
Wal-Mart maintains a low payout of their labor money supply to provide goods at a reduced cost.
Wal-Mart willingly allows tax payers to fund the rest of their employees wages via government programs.
Bob's Gas decides to gouge in a disaster area.
Bob willingly contributes to lowering the money supply.
Bob effectively forces tax payers to carry the burden after the initial money supply is gone from gouging. Government must step in with FEMA which costs tax payers.
Both parties don't care because they made their $$$ though right?
This post was edited on 9/1/17 at 9:58 am
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:58 am to MrLarson
quote:
Some people look at it from the humanitarian side and some look it from the side of making a quick buck. If the person can't afford to buy the needed water then they are forced to resort to looting out of desperation.
Goods are going to flow into that area because of the outpouring of good people. You just happen to have a small percentage of people that will use it to capitalize on people's misfortune.
Tell me exactly how many people are helped when there is no water to buy because one guy brought a uhaul to buy out the store that had $3 cases of water?
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:58 am to Displaced
quote:
Thats a lot of words used to say "I have no idea what I'm talking about".
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:59 am to Pecker
I understand your principle, and agree with it. But no one is going to rush into a flooded area to sell cases of water and gasoline. You can't just open a convenience store on a whim in the middle of a natural disaster.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:59 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
quote: Because it made absolutely no sense Sure it does. Wal-Mart essentially pays their line level employees garbage wages, under the guise that government programs would cover the rest. Shifting the burden to taxpayers. Wal-Mart maintains a low payout of their labor money supply to provide goods at a reduced cost. Wal-Mart willingly allows tax payers to fund the rest of their employees wages via government programs. Bob's Gas decides to gouge in a disaster area. Bob willingly contributes to lowering the money supply. Bob effectively forces tax payers to carry the burden after the initial money supply is gone from gouging. Government must step in with FEMA which costs tax payers. Both parties don't care because they made their $$$ though right?
Ok.
Wow.
No sense trying to discuss with you anymore.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:00 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
So we're essentially arguing what supply we want to dry up quicker.
Money Supply vs. Good Supply
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.
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News