- 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 10:23 am to Pecker
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:23 am to Pecker
quote:
Temporary tank solutions are implemented all the time during construction projects
And that is covered under your Contractor's Pollution Policy. Which a Petro Dealer does not have, as they aren't delivering to construction sites. Not to mention your example is entirely different, and again, would be excluded under a standard Pollution Policy and Auto Liability.
I'm a trained underwriter turned broker and have clients in petro distribution from CA to TN. I'm telling you, your example is unrealistic and no company would do this, as the reward does not outweigh the risk.
1
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:24 am to rocket31
quote:
missing here, of course, is the tiny degree of self-awareness needed to recognize that the very idea that people should never have to pay for a resource that is necessary for life and literally covers 70% of the planet - the idea is completely and patently absurd.
Last time I checked ocean water is not drinkable.
I am not saying it should be free. I am saying that it shouldn't be abused in a disaster area.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:24 am to Upperdecker
quote:
Lot of idiots downvoting this thread who either don't understand free market economics principles. Or they poor
Rich people didn't become rich by paying $99 for water.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:25 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
I am saying that it shouldn't be abused in a disaster area.
oh, turning to socialism when shite hits the fan
lol gotta love it
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:25 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
Show me a situation in the last 10 large natural disasters that this has occurred?
Have people not been arrested during the previous two disasters in Louisiana for charging a price they decided to charge for a good or service they decided to provide?
When you take people to jail, you're not doing it with coaxing, you're doing it by force, by men with guns.
Those men are now telling you to do the work at a cost they determine.
This post was edited on 9/1/17 at 10:26 am
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:25 am to 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
I challenge anyone that is against price gouging to explain to me why this is wrong. Your argument will inevitably lead to this. Tell me why I'm wrong
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:26 am to Pecker
quote:
Oh, profit isn't a good enough incentive? Do you have a better one?
Of course I do. You have a spill, it gets in the water, and goes uncovered, you likely lose your business.
Plus, you risk your reputation, which in the world of fuel hauling, is a big deal.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:27 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
A case of water cost $4
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
This post was edited on 9/1/17 at 10:28 am
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:27 am to rocket31
quote:
oh, turning to socialism when shite hits the fan
lol gotta love it
If helping fellow human beings recover their life as it was abruptly taken away and not have the vultures take the rest of their "everything" is considered socialism. Then call me a commie until Houston is back on its feet.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:28 am to The Boat
quote:
Rich people didn't become rich by paying $99 for water.
Very few people become rich by buying a consumable good. But many rich people will spend extra money on a consumable good when the demand is high and the supply is low. Check out the Food and Drink board when a new batch IPA is released
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:29 am to cas4t
quote:
I'm a trained underwriter turned broker and have clients in petro distribution from CA to TN. I'm telling you, your example is unrealistic and no company would do this, as the reward does not outweigh the risk.
What I'm saying is that it's still the best incentive to get more gas to the area or to promote a system where gasoline could be made more available during these scenarios. Gasoline will run out either way. It's what happens after that we have to deal with.
You're not proposing a better option. "Don't raise the price because then people will profit when it runs out. Keep the prices low so that people won't profit when it runs out."
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:30 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
If helping fellow human beings recover their life as it was abruptly taken away and not have the vultures take the rest of their "everything" is considered socialism. Then call me a commie until Houston is back on its feet.
at least you can admit your hypocrisy
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:30 am to Pecker
quote:
Have people not been arrested during the previous two disasters in Louisiana for charging a price they decided to charge for a good or service they decided to provide?
When you take people to jail, you're not doing it with coaxing, you're doing it by force, by men with guns.
Those men are now telling you to do the work at a cost they determine.
C'mon Pecker, you are smart, either the context of your previous post was mistaken by me, but I don't believe that's what you meant.
They broke a law.
LE's enforced the law at the call of an Agency.
There's nothing to look at here.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:32 am to rocket31
quote:
at least you can admit your hypocrisy
So because I don't support Free Market in a disaster area, that makes me a commie?
Sad individual.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:32 am to Pecker
quote:
What I'm saying is that it's still the best incentive to get more gas to the area or to promote a system where gasoline could be made more available during these scenarios.
And I'm telling you that petro distributors aren't going to go rogue and start selling gas out of their trucks, for 1000 different reasons. There are measures in place, that are specifically laid out, on how a wholesaler delivers hazardous chemicals to a retailer.
There are also specific measures in place for how that retailer sells those chemicals to a consumer.
None of which involve selling it from a tanker to a consumer.
quote:
You're not proposing a better option. "Don't raise the price because then people will profit when it runs out. Keep the prices low so that people won't profit when it runs out."
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.
This post was edited on 9/1/17 at 10:34 am
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:34 am to Upperdecker
quote:
Very few people become rich by buying a consumable good. But many rich people will spend extra money on a consumable good when the demand is high and the supply is low. Check out the Food and Drink board when a new batch IPA is released
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:34 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
C'mon Pecker, you are smart, either the context of your previous post was mistaken by me, but I don't believe that's what you meant.
They broke a law.
LE's enforced the law at the call of an Agency.
There's nothing to look at here.
Of course that's what I meant. It's the basis of this whole morality discussion.
It's amoral to force someone to provide a good or service and determining what their compensation will be. It's involuntary servitude. There's nothing moral about price controls.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:36 am to Pecker
quote:
Of course that's what I meant. It's the basis of this whole morality discussion.
It's amoral to force someone to provide a good or service and determining what their compensation will be. It's involuntary servitude. There's nothing moral about price controls.
I agree with everything you just said in normal day to day life.
Just not in a disaster.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:38 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
that makes me a commie?
naa, it exposes freemarket zealots for the impractical freaks that they are.
my work here is done
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:38 am to Upperdecker
quote:
Or they poor
This is who price gouging hurts the most.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News