- 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: Just once it would be refreshing for a Republican governor to oppose ‘Price Gouging Laws’
Posted on 2/1/26 at 6:45 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 2/1/26 at 6:45 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
So you'd say purchase limits on items in short supply should be eliminated too?
The price shouldn’t be so low that purchase limits are necessary.
Here’s the thing: We aren’t owed someone else’s items and labor at a price that we can afford.
This post was edited on 2/1/26 at 11:35 am
0
Posted on 2/1/26 at 6:48 am to weagle1999
quote:
The market is the market.
This is why libertarianism, much like socialism, will always fail. It ignores human emotion/behavior.
Posted on 2/1/26 at 6:52 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Theoretically, without gouging, existing inventories would have been gone, driving the same Lowes and Home Depot motivations.
You are forgetting one crucial thing: The impact of a disaster on Lowes’ and Home Depot’s abilities to get inventory into a disaster area.
It costs more to get that inventory to the area due to broken infrastructure (think helicopter drops as an extreme example). There also could be shortages of inventory shortages due to demand so both stores have to pay more to secure items.
Are Lowe’s and Home Depot supposed to just eat those higher costs?
If so, what well run business would operate that way?
This post was edited on 2/1/26 at 6:56 am
Posted on 2/1/26 at 6:53 am to RollTide1987
quote:
This is why libertarianism, much like socialism, will always fail
The antagonistic view towards libertarianism here is disappointing.
And the comment is a touch ironic since the price controls that people in this thread are supporting are almost straight Communism.
This post was edited on 2/1/26 at 6:58 am
Posted on 2/1/26 at 6:55 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Should that person have to pay twice as much for the car?
If cars are in short supply and others are willing to pay more? Yes.
Posted on 2/1/26 at 6:58 am to weagle1999
How long can you live without water?
Post Katrina wasn’t about cars.
Post Katrina wasn’t about cars.
Posted on 2/1/26 at 7:03 am to Penrod
That argument doesn’t work here. Utility companies have contract agreements with customers to deliver electricity at a certain price. So the month of the storm, customers weren’t seeing a real time spike in their electricity bill and adjusting their use accordingly. The cost per kilowatt hour stayed the same as the month before (over 99% of Texas houses are on fixed rate plans).
Rather, the price spikes I mentioned were felt at the wholesale level. Problem is, that created massive losses on the year for retailers, because they were so severely price gouged by the wholesalers. And they needed to make up that loss in subsequent years by raising the baseline electricity cost for everyone.
So it didn’t matter if you only heated your home to 50. Your utility payments still went up to pay off the price gouging done by wholesalers, same as everyone else.
Rather, the price spikes I mentioned were felt at the wholesale level. Problem is, that created massive losses on the year for retailers, because they were so severely price gouged by the wholesalers. And they needed to make up that loss in subsequent years by raising the baseline electricity cost for everyone.
So it didn’t matter if you only heated your home to 50. Your utility payments still went up to pay off the price gouging done by wholesalers, same as everyone else.
Posted on 2/1/26 at 7:11 am to jimmy the leg
Are we talking about water for baths, swimming pools, and washing my truck?
Would you have more water bottles come to an area if the people selling could recoup their increased costs and make a profit, or if they will lose money?
Would you have more water bottles come to an area if the people selling could recoup their increased costs and make a profit, or if they will lose money?
This post was edited on 2/1/26 at 7:12 am
Posted on 2/1/26 at 7:12 am to weagle1999
quote:
The antagonistic view towards libertarianism here is disappointing.
It's because a true libertarian society cannot work. Marxism and Randism are two sides of the same coin. Their views are obviously opposed, but the results are similar. You cannot create a socialist utopia anymore than you can create a libertarian one.
quote:
And the comment is a touch ironic since the price controls that people in this thread are supporting are almost straight Communism.
Price controls in the wake of natural disasters are as old as human civilization itself, predating Marxist philosophy by thousands of years.
Posted on 2/1/26 at 7:12 am to funnystuff
quote:
because they were so severely price gouged by the wholesalers
Could it be the wholesalers had to charge more due to local shortages and increased transportation costs?
Posted on 2/1/26 at 7:13 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Fair market value means the price negotiated between a willing seller and a willing buyer, with neither party UNDER DURESS.
This seems broad AF. Who gets to decide what "under duress" is?
Keeping prices "normal" during times when demand skyrockets is a recipe for shortages. And what about all the extra work employees have to put in when they are slammed to the gills w/ frustrated and freaked out customers?
People are a lot less likely to completely fill their tanks when gas is 10 bucks a gallon as opposed to 3 bucks a gallon. They will not rent more hotel rooms for their families when prices double. They will not take more supplies than they think they'll need.
Now, it does suck for those who don't have a lot of money to begin with, but struggling to get things is a lot better than not having them at all.
Another thing that those gouging laws do is discourage much more supply flooding into areas that need those products/services, which would end up putting downward pressure on prices overall.
Posted on 2/1/26 at 7:14 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Price controls in the wake of natural disasters are as old as human civilization itself
And it's why we run out of stuff when these things happen.
Posted on 2/1/26 at 7:15 am to stuntman
quote:
Another thing that those gouging laws do is discourage much more supply flooding into areas that need those products/services, which would end up putting downward pressure on prices overall.
Excellent point.
Posted on 2/1/26 at 7:16 am to weagle1999
Posted on 2/1/26 at 7:19 am to RollTide1987
quote:
This is why libertarianism, much like socialism, will always fail. It ignores human emotion/behavior.
The people who think "gouging" is a bad thing are the ones who don't understand human behavior. Even if you think having Daddy Government set prices is a good thing it's an unenforceable policy. You might can keep Home Depot from selling a $500 generator for $1k but you can't stop Bob from selling one to his neighbor for that.
It's childish populism.
Posted on 2/1/26 at 7:27 am to Penrod
quote:Link?
Lowes and Home Depot were definitely charging more due to the high demand
quote:Relevance to the HD/Lowes assertions in this thread?
Did you visit the link I provided?
Posted on 2/1/26 at 7:29 am to RollTide1987
quote:
This is why libertarianism, much like socialism, will always fail. It ignores human emotion/behavior.
I could not possibly disagree w/ this more. Libertarians understand human nature better than most. It's a big reason we're libertarians.
We understand completely that people react to incentives AND disincentives. We understand completely that the price system is really just an information system of where scarce resources are most efficiently allocated. It isn't just one guy picking out a price to tell the whole market. It's trillions upon trillions of decisions every day of where to spend your scarce resources. Whether it's time, money, or effort.
Government, however, rejects this incredible mechanism for efficiently allocating resources....just when we need that system to work the most.
Posted on 2/1/26 at 7:29 am to Penrod
What your ECON 101 model assumes is that supply and demand are straight lines, ensuring that there is always an intersection between the two.
When you continue taking higher level ECON classes, you eventually learn that supply is convex and demand is concave. These shapes open the possibility that, if demand increases enough or supply decreases enough, there is no intersection point between the two curves. Meaning a price runaway occurs, and market dynamics cannot stabilize it. This is what happened in the natural gas wholesale market in Texas in 2021.
When you continue taking higher level ECON classes, you eventually learn that supply is convex and demand is concave. These shapes open the possibility that, if demand increases enough or supply decreases enough, there is no intersection point between the two curves. Meaning a price runaway occurs, and market dynamics cannot stabilize it. This is what happened in the natural gas wholesale market in Texas in 2021.
Posted on 2/1/26 at 7:34 am to weagle1999
No. Wholesalers did not have to increase their prices by 40,000% to recoup increased transport cost.
You’re speaking very confidently about an event that you are clearly completely unfamiliar with.
You’re speaking very confidently about an event that you are clearly completely unfamiliar with.
Posted on 2/1/26 at 7:42 am to funnystuff
quote:
What your ECON 101 model assumes is that supply and demand are straight lines, ensuring that there is always an intersection between the two.
When you continue taking higher level ECON classes, you eventually learn that supply is convex and demand is concave. These shapes open the possibility that, if demand increases enough or supply decreases enough, there is no intersection point between the two curves. Meaning a price runaway occurs, and market dynamics cannot stabilize it.
That’s “funnystuff” alright. I made no such assumption about the shape of the supply and demand curves. Not only are they varying shapes - sometimes convex on one end and concave on the other - but they also change shape in real time.
And you are dead wrong that an unstable condition could occur that can’t be rectified by market forces. Temporary runaway conditions can occur, but they are temporary because the market fixes them. If you are correct then there are goods that are priceless due to having undergone this phenomenon. What are those goods? Love? Happiness?
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News