Free Markets and Gouging

[mazinger_z]

@DMC

Since when?

You’re right. What I should have said was that it’s not an ad hominen attack if I’m attacking the argument, which I am.

And, you probably won’t find any reported stories of people bringing in highly priced goods to a disaster area, since those areas typically have anti-gouging laws and the media tends to crucify such actions. If you read the previously linked article to the 20/20 report, at least that reporter noted that people were gladly willing to pay $900 for $500 (or whatever amount). What you will see is the creation of a black market.

[DMC]

@Grumman

I agree with msmith537, that you simply do not comprehend the concept of property.

I fully comprehend the concept of property. I also have a pretty good handle on the concept of a monopoly.

If the generators are his, he should be free to not sell them for any amount, give them away for free, or anything in between.

While I’m not sure if I’d use the phrase “in between” to describe the stance being taken, if you take the time to read the OP, that is actually the question, isn’t it?

No, I wouldn’t, because your suggestion is so abysmally wrong as to almost be laughable. Destroying your own stock to “artificially reduce supply” cannot increase your profits unless your clients are so stupid that they hardly can be considered to be sapient.

If you have 100 generators and you are selling them for $5,000 apiece, you receive $500,000. If you have 100 generators and you sell half of them for $6,000 apiece and destroy the other half, you receive $300,000.

I’d highly recommend that you rebut my example by, well, rebutting my example, not some non-sensical version of my example. Hell, you even quoted my example, and then proceeded to argue against something completely different and economically stupid, unlike the scenario I laid out.

[DMC]

@mazinger_z

You’re right. What I should have said was that it’s not an ad hominen attack if I’m attacking the argument, which I am.

While I disagree that saying someone doesn’t understand something is truly attacking the argument, it wasn’t me, so I’ll let you two decide that. My understanding of the basic rules of this forum has always been that one can say that your argument is the stupidest thing they’ve ever heard, but not in any way imply that your opponent is lacking intellectually, no matter how gently put.

And, you probably won’t find any reported stories of people bringing in highly priced goods to a disaster area, since those areas typically have anti-gouging laws and the media tends to crucify such actions. If you read the previously linked article to the 20/20 report, at least that reporter noted that people were gladly willing to pay $900 for $500 (or whatever amount). What you will see is the creation of a black market.

Well, since Plan B claimed otherwise in post 13, and since others seem to “remember that” and are using it as evidence to bolster their arguments, it’d sure be nice if someone would actually bring it to the table. The claim was that within a day of the greed train coming to town, prices “stabilized”, which is a bit too vague to actually have any meaning. If by “stabilized” it is meant that prices returned to normal within a single day, to be quite frank, I’d have a lot less of an argument. Until I see it, I’m going to remain skeptical. The lack of actual cites is also a bit of a bother considering that the very next post by Plan B was the following response to gonzomax:

@Plan B

It’s easy to say stuff like this without any proof.

Yes. Yes it is.