Slashdot Mirror


NY Attorney General Subpoenas Craigslist For Post-Sandy Price Gougers

TheSync writes "In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, the New York State Attorney General has subpoenaed Craigslist, demanding that the site identify more than 100 sellers whose prices on post-Sandy gas, generators and other supplies were of an 'unconscionably excessive price' during an emergency. AG Eric Schneiderman said: 'Our office has zero tolerance for price gouging [and] will do everything we can to stop unscrupulous individuals from taking advantage of New Yorkers trying to rebuild their lives.'"

458 comments

  1. Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Price controls have exactly the same effect in an emergency that they have at any other time. If you prohibit higher gas prices, you guarantee shortages.

    1. Re:Morons. by Bigby · · Score: 1

      I know. They were going to have no gas because it was too cheap and supply was low. Or they can have some gas because it is really expensive. Either way, most people aren't getting gas.

    2. Re:Morons. by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know what else guarantees shortages? FEMA diverting shipments from gas stations to FEMA and state distribution points, where it gets doled out for free to the politically connected. Plenty of gas at the one near my house (and it's available all the time, though the gas stations are closed after 6pm whether they have fuel or no fuel by order of our fascist mayor), none for regular old peons.

    3. Re:Morons. by berashith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      apparently they tried to stop shortages by outlawing "hoarding". They arrested a guy and confiscated gasoline because he collected from neighbors and went beyond the gas shortages to bring back gas to them. The big screw up on his side was putting it in non-gas approved containers, but the charge was actually hoarding supplies.

    4. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, damn those politically connected fire departments and utility workers!

    5. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know. They were going to have no gas because it was too cheap and supply was low. Or they can have some gas because it is really expensive. Either way, most people aren't getting gas.

      it's just another form of political correctness. emotion where logic is most needed (a crisis). feel-good bullshit that either accomplishes nothing or is predictably counterproductive. i wish they would identify this as a disease and admit the USA has a pandemi of this contagious mental disease. then we could inoculate people with some logic and critical thinking, maybe also some basic economics, make them immune to the disease. but of course the people who could make that happen are politicians and they benefit from not changing it.

      but hey "we go after those EVIL price gougers!" sounds good to the dumb and shallow, and theres lots of those, so if NY elects attorneys general most of the constituents will eat this shit up. just like the "tough on crime" politicians who are so big and so badass that they throw non-violent and otherwise law-abiding people in jail for smokin a joint even though they have victimized nobody. at least colorado has recognized the tyranny of telling people how they may deal with their own bodies and states of consciousness.

      sorry but a nation where never offending anybody is considered the highest virtue doesn't deserve to prosper. and it won't. lots of life situations are anything but inoffensive and requires grown-ups who act like grown-ups to handle them. politicial correctness is a way to be emotionally like a two-year-old without having to admit it, paint it like a virtue instead, yeah that is double-plus-good.

    6. Re:Morons. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The big screw up on his side was putting it in non-gas approved containers...

      Yeah, I saw him and his buddy

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:Morons. by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When gas is cheap, many use it incorrectly (for an emergency scenario); idling for an hour to "keep the engine warm", using it for lighter fluid, driving a block away, etc. when it's expensive, it's treated as precious.

    8. Re:Morons. by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Assuming there are reduced supplies. This seems to be the case here but in others it is not always the case, like in the Irish potato famine, which took place while the granaries of England we full.

    9. Re:Morons. by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      apparently they tried to stop shortages by outlawing "hoarding". They arrested a guy and confiscated gasoline because he collected from neighbors and went beyond the gas shortages to bring back gas to them. The big screw up on his side was putting it in non-gas approved containers, but the charge was actually hoarding supplies.

      His "crime" was showing by his example how passive and lazy most other people were. Most people who are embarassed by a better example seek revenge, as though their lackluster ability to plan for eventualities is the fault of anyone else; this is just a collective form of such childishness codified into law. Too many think the government is going to make it all better so they don't keep some emergency supplies on hand to be prepared, even when they could afford to. It's not that they are so stupid. It's that they feel so privileged, that concern for their own well-being should be someone else's job.

      Incidentally, getting what you can and then sharing it with your neighbors is the very opposite of hoarding. Not only should the charge be thrown out, the law enforcement officer who issued it should be fired.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    10. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So either I can't get gas because there's a shortage, or I can't afford gas because the price was too high. No difference to me. However, it is somewhat reassuring to know that some sleazy asshole isn't pocketing excessive profits off of misery in the former case.

    11. Re:Morons. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Think of it from the suppliers prospective. If they can sell the gas at $100/gallon, they can afford to do whatever it takes to get it to the area. If it's only $4/gallon, they need to wait to repair the existing pipeline pumping stations or whatever before they can make it available.

      You're thinking that the price is arbitrary, and set by the supplier. In reality, the supplier needs to set a price so that demand will match what they're able to supply, otherwise they will have shortages and they'll have to turn away potential customers.

    12. Re:Morons. by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 2

      You don't understand economics, do you?

      If the gas was cheap, many would buy it. So they would have gas.

      If the supply is low and the demand is high, as it is in an emergency, the price increases as demand outstrips supply. If you make the gas artificially cheap, the demand will increase to a level where it can't be met, so most people won't have gas.

    13. Re:Morons. by immaterial · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Umm, no. His crime was filling 30 5-gallon Home Depot buckets with gas, because Home Depot buckets are not made for or approved for holding/transporting gasoline. But don't let that get in the way of your (and the GP's) conspiracy theories.

    14. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      fascinating. let me tell you a story. russotto could very well file a FOIA against FEMA to find exactly who received this doled out gas. he could then look through this list and find the politically connected. he could then either announce this information to the world or sue the federal government to payback all of this doled out gas. this guy would have been a hero. everyone would be outraged by the FEMA waste and called for political change. he would have affected the lives of many, just as he had once hoped in the past when he posted comments on internet forums. but never mind all that, maybe tomorrow. today, instead, russotto just gripes to an internet forum.

    15. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like all of the people that think that all they have to do to be prepared for a disaster is have a generator? I live in a rural area and my entire house is electric including my water supply. I can easily go a week or two winter or summer with no electricity just with extra stuff I have around all of the time. With no generator. Kerosene and a heater (only uses 1.6 gallons every 12 hours), I have a fireplace but it has a cast iron insert and required electric for the fan, in theory I could pull out the insert. An extra propane tank for gas grill, gallon jugs of water, canned food, multiple flashlights, duct tape, batteries, paper plates and plastic utensils, a few cans of steno fuel handy wipes, a few portable radios (mp3 players with fm radio), car batteries from my cars and an inverter, a few barrels of rain water for flushing toilets. Most of this stuff is actually from our camping gear. All of my emergency stuff combined cost less than a single 5000w generator.

    16. Re:Morons. by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the gas was cheap, many would buy it. So they would have gas. With the price gouging the prices are exorbitantly high, so few can obtain it.

      These people increased the scarcity of these items (buy buying large quantities for themselves) to try to extort money from people who needed them. Regardless of what your hero Ayn might think, a completely free enterprise doesn't always work.

      You are sooo unimaginative.

      Everything you say would be true -- if supplies were normal. They aren't. It costs more to bring supplies into a disaster area, believe it or not. Prices are a very simple fact of life: when demand exceeds supply, they rise, and when supplies exceed demand, they drop.

      So with dwindling supplies, prices rise. Note carefully: humans CAN NOT CONTROL prices artificially. The money price may be legally limited, but all that means is that the time or effort price rises. People wait in line or bribe suppliers to get first dibs.

      Why aren't more supplies brought in? Because it costs more, in money and time and effort, and if they can't get paid correspondingly more for that effort, they aren't going to lose money just to be noble.

      If the government had kept its paws off, the price would rise enough to bring in more supplies.

      Supplies are always rationed one way or another. Even in normal times, there is a cost of production and distribution, and that limits supplies.

      In bad times, when supplies dwindle, the government can force rationing in ugly ways by forcing the money price so low that more supplies are not brought in. Then rationing goes by who is willing to wait in line, or knows the right people, or has the extra money to bribe. Whereas if money prices were left alone, prices would rise, and rationing would be by money price.

      You are just another one of those unthinking idiots who suppose that passing laws accomplishes something, no matter how illogical. Ban alcohol? Sure that worked. Ban drugs? Guns? Price rises? All the same, pass a law, mission accomplished.

    17. Re:Morons. by russotto · · Score: 1

      Ha ha. No fire trucks or utility trucks to be found at the place I'm talking about.

    18. Re:Morons. by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      and yet the biggest problem was that the stations had no power to pump the gas. Thus no sale is possible.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    19. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Everybody will be buying that cheap gas, which will magically replenish itself so that people can keep buying the cheap gas. Oh.. wait..

    20. Re:Morons. by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      No, the actual charge was putting 150 gallons of gasoline into buckets, whose covers were bulging from vapor build up when he was arrested. Seriously, this was dangerous, and he was lucky he didn't blow himself up. Look at the pictures.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    21. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extremely high prices is the same thing as a shortage. The only reason you prefer rationing by ability to pay is because you think rich people deserve special privilege.

    22. Re:Morons. by causality · · Score: 1, Informative

      Umm, no. His crime was filling 30 5-gallon Home Depot buckets with gas, because Home Depot buckets are not made for or approved for holding/transporting gasoline. But don't let that get in the way of your (and the GP's) conspiracy theories.

      Conspiracy theories? Maybe there is a conspiracy preventing you from comprehending what you read. See the post I originally replied to? Well, you see, it contained this line:

      The big screw up on his side was putting it in non-gas approved containers, but the charge was actually hoarding supplies.

      Feel free to peruse the original post to which I replied, if you don't believe me. The charge was hoarding supplies. The charge was NOT incorrect containers for gasoline (which I agree is a bad, unsafe idea but as I have now spelled out for you, is completely irrelevant).

      And really, man, conspiracy theory? Really?? Are you so desperately clutching at straws as to pull out that one? You really cannot see how the irrational inability of so many people to deal with reality might make its way into law? No? You can't? Then why did (and do) so many states have laws against having sex in any position other than missionary? Why do so many old state laws define a blowjob as "sodomy" and punish it? Why was Prohibition ever enacted, and why does a form of it continue today in the War On (some) Drugs? Why do we have perpetual copyright laws that were bought and paid for?

      Conspiracy? Hardly. It is not a conspiracy to suggest that in a government which aims to be representative, some of the laws (especially the ones that make no sense) are going to reflect the irrational tendencies of many people. A bunch of powerful, wealthy men did not have to meet in a smoky room to make that happen. Unfortunately it happens all by itself unless carefully guarded against. It is, in fact, a form of entropy. You might as well tell me that your own aging process is a conspiracy.

      God damn, I remember when the average Slashdotter actually knew how to formulate an argument. Those were the days. Look, I will let you in on something you seem to be having problems seeing on your own. Your feelings are not to be trusted. That's right. Your feelings are emotions. Emotions are not rational by their nature. Some emotions are more valid than others, but emotions are in a different domain from reason. Reason is how you make good decisions and make statements worth reading. Yes, your emotions can feel SO REAL and SO CONVINCING to you... but if they are inconsistent with reason, that's your sign that you are about to make a bullshit argument.

      It's ridiculously, trivially, childishly simple. Unless you just don't want to accept it and want to get angry with me for pointing it out. Then you will complicate it and swear that its nature is inherently complex. It is not.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    23. Re:Morons. by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Informative

      Please read this article, look at the picture, and tell me you think the cop was wrong. The charge was violating the law on the handling of gasoline. This moron poured 150 gallons of gasoline into regular Home Depot buckets. By the time he was arrested, the tops of the covers were bulging. Yeah, that's dangerous because gasoline burns ... and gasoline vapors EXPLODE.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    24. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet -- if you wave enough money, even a gas station manager might figure out you can use a bucket and rope to get gasoline out of the underground tank.

    25. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are saying that a low price creates more supply?

      Must have a Nobel Prize in Economics.

    26. Re:Morons. by citizenr · · Score: 1

      fascinating. let me tell you a story. russotto could very well file a FOIA against FEMA

      denied for national security reasons

      any other ideas?

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    27. Re:Morons. by causality · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Please read this article, look at the picture, and tell me you think the cop was wrong. The charge was violating the law on the handling of gasoline. This moron poured 150 gallons of gasoline into regular Home Depot buckets. By the time he was arrested, the tops of the covers were bulging. Yeah, that's dangerous because gasoline burns ... and gasoline vapors EXPLODE.

      You are definitely correct about the nature of the charge.

      All the same, don't you think that perhaps during a crisis/emergency people may have their reasons to take their chances? You would never, ever take a higher risk in order to provide something essential to yourself, your family, and your neighbors and community? Never ever? Honestly, if I could, I would. I'd manage the increased risk as well as possible (store it away from people, etc) but sometimes you do what you have to do, even if you don't really want to. I wish I had neighbors like him, who would think of other people and try to provide for them even if that means taking a legal risk.

      Understand, if he did this during a normal time of no crises at all, I would agree that he was a moron and I would agree that he should be punished. But this was a crisis and he was looking out for other people as well as himself. I believe he weighed the options and made his choices accordingly. Sometimes adverse circumstances alter what you would normally do. If you have never before been in a serious situation where the shit was really hitting the fan, then you don't know what it's like. Sometimes you are forced to do what is expedient and sometimes we as Americans go so long without ever really knowing what this is all about that we feel too comfortable making armchair judgments about the intelligence of those who have been there.

      There was no real intent here to violate a law. The man was merely using what he had available. If he had had flawless, approved containers for that much gasoline, do you not think he would have used them? Laws made during times of plenty should be reconsidered when people become desperate, with the only caveat being that no force or fraud was involved in this "crime".

      Gasoline vapors are dangerous as hell, but they don't explode without a source of ignition. While I agree that there are better and safer ways to store and transfer gasoline, what was the alternative? No fuel at all during a time when it's cold and grid power is down? Should he have told his neighbors "well as much as I would like to share lots of gasoline with you, I lack an approved container, so all of you are screwed, tough luck?" What would you do?

      Ever seen the movie Alive? Are you suggesting the survivors should all have been charged with incorrect handling of a dead human body? Because that is against the law, you know. Do you want a total law-and-order society that a computer could implement? Or could we perhaps consider basic survival as a form of coercion that quite legitimately makes people take options they would not normally consider? I have no problem with that, so long as no force or fraud is used to victimize another person (there is never an excuse for that, ever). That was the case here.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    28. Re:Morons. by guises · · Score: 3, Informative

      The big screw up on his side was putting it in non-gas approved containers, but the charge was actually hoarding supplies.

      No...

      http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Two-Arrested-for-Gasoline-Hoarding-177184891.html

      "Both men were issued a misdemeanor summons for violation of regulation concerning flammable or combustible liquids."

    29. Re:Morons. by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      Raise some noise about it, blog it if you can. It's bound to be interesting to people who are in need, then again they might not have internet...

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    30. Re:Morons. by icebike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no such thing as "use it incorrectly".

      You use it as the price allows.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    31. Re:Morons. by theArtificial · · Score: 1
      Oh but his arguments are immaterial :^)

      God damn, I remember when the average Slashdotter actually knew how to formulate an argument.

      Ah the Slashdot of yore. Technical discussions and greybeard wisdom abound! Look at how much this site has grown over the last two decades. The online access barrier to entry has dropped significantly enabling more people than ever to get online and share their views, facebook, and youtube comment! Not to mention the whole culture of celebrating ignorance. I sound like my father now.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    32. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except this isnt about supply and demand economics. The supply was already scarce due to the supply chain being broken (most ports closed, roads impassable) and widespread demand, especially for generator gas. This isn't about some imaginary retard "keeping the engine warm" this is about families that need to keep their *houses* warm while not having electricity for 1-2 weeks. As someone who lost power for 9 days, I can tell you that gas was treated as precious, regardless of the price, BECAUSE IT KEPT ME FROM FREEZING. But if it were (price gouging) expensive, then it would be EVEN MORE SCARCE. There is no way in which price gouging improves this situation. Normal cost increases are allowed, exorbitant profiteering is not.

      This is not some economic lesson for free market capitalists to spin. People needed these supplies.

    33. Re:Morons. by TubeSteak · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I feel like you and many others are missing the point: This isn't about supply and demand.

      1. These areas are in an official State of Emergency. The rules of business are what the State says they are.
      2. Price gouging is its own social harm. It is exploitative and creates massive inequities during a crisis

      /Price gouging isn't illegal in all 50 States. Check your local laws.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    34. Re:Morons. by immaterial · · Score: 1
      Honestly, I couldn't get through all that verbal diarrhea in your response, but as to my claim, here:

      The police arrested Latif at the gas station for violating state law by pumping gasoline into Home Depot buckets, which are not approved by the Transportation Department, and for stacking up and not securing the buckets...

      Just because the papers use the sensational word "hoarding" in their headlines doesn't have any bearing on what he was arrested for. If you actually have some evidence I'm wrong, feel free to cite it.

    35. Re:Morons. by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no such thing as "use it incorrectly". You use it as the price allows.

      By the same token, you'd have no such thing as "gouging" - You price it as (high as) scarcity and demand allows.

      The whole concept of "price gouging" makes absolutely no sense to me. If I stock up on emergency supplies, specifically hoping to sell them in an emergency at a profit, hey, call me scum, but where the fuck does the government have a place in regulating the sale of a legal product between two private parties?

      Or perhaps a better analogy, all of health care - A dying man will pay anything for the cure. Why doesn't charging him an arm and a leg (for a drug that costs pennies) count as a form of "full-time gouging"?

    36. Re:Morons. by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a finite supply. If the price is low and demand is high, then that supply will dwindle. The state can make rules about business, but it can't change the reality of finite resources.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    37. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are sooo unimaginative.

      Everything you say would be true -- if supplies were normal. They aren't. It costs more to bring supplies into a disaster area, believe it or not. Prices are a very simple fact of life: when demand exceeds supply, they rise, and when supplies exceed demand, they drop.

      So with dwindling supplies, prices rise. Note carefully: humans CAN NOT CONTROL prices artificially. The money price may be legally limited, but all that means is that the time or effort price rises. People wait in line or bribe suppliers to get first dibs.

      Why aren't more supplies brought in? Because it costs more, in money and time and effort, and if they can't get paid correspondingly more for that effort, they aren't going to lose money just to be noble.

      You are suuuuch an idiot. This is not some mental exercise in supply and demand economics. This was a disaster and people needed help.

      1) The supply lines were not there, not just more expensive. Most of the Northeast ports were closed. Trees blocked roads, and gas stations had no power for the pumps. This wasn't just a case of "well things are scarce because it costs more to get things here." There were physical breaks in the supply line. Trickle down economics doesn't overcome a tree blocking the road.

      2) What you describe, the extra cost of delivering supplies is NOT price gouging.

      3) Many, many people helped out just to be noble. These people are really the best of society. They should be honored, emulated.

      4) It's shameful that you think profit should be the motivating factor behind disaster recovery. Maybe when your house burns down you should have to negotiate with local private fire departments about who can come pour water on it for the best price. These were really the scumbags of society. They should be shamed.

      5) You should be ashamed.

    38. Re:Morons. by pla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This isn't about supply and demand.

      How absurd. Supply and demand apply more in a "crisis" than they do normally - Normally, we have an effectively infinite supply throttled only by the cost of production and the available demand. In a crisis, you actually do have limited supply, which makes it not just desirable for the seller, but for the buyer as well to price at the intersection of the supply and demand curves. Lower than that causes shortages.


      These areas are in an official State of Emergency.

      So? If you run out of #2 heating oil on a cold winter's night, you could say the same thing. Does a nighttime run-out delivery fee count as "gouging"?


      The rules of business are what the State says they are.

      Bullshit. The rules of business "are", if you want what I have for sale, you pay what I will sell it for. Anything else means people will hoard rather than sell, making the situation even worse. Again, back to supply and demand, a la Micro 101.


      Price gouging is its own social harm. It is exploitative and creates massive inequities during a crisis

      "Social harm" doesn't exist except as a fiction convenient for demonizing those who have what we want, and justifying using the power of the state to take it away from them. The inequities you describe always predate the crisis-of-the-day - Someone doesn't just stockpile generators for the hell of it. They do it as an investment, plain and simple.


      Check your local laws.

      The one accurate point you made - "Dear AG-of-the-week-looking-to-make-headlines: This sale will take place in my local jurisdiction. Go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut, 'kay?"

    39. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are definitely correct about the nature of the charge.

      All the same, don't you think that perhaps during a crisis/emergency people may have their reasons to take their chances? You would never, ever take a higher risk in order to provide something essential to yourself, your family, and your neighbors and community? Never ever? Honestly, if I could, I would. I'd manage the increased risk as well as possible (store it away from people, etc) but sometimes you do what you have to do, even if you don't really want to. I wish I had neighbors like him, who would think of other people and try to provide for them even if that means taking a legal risk.

      Yes, that is all well and true, but it doesn't apply to this case. Gasoline isn't an essential. It's a luxury. Human society has survived for 99.9999% of it's existence without it.

      Oh boo f'ing who. The power was down. And it was "cold". It got down to all of 8 degrees Celsius on Oct 30, 2012 in NYC. Yes, that is reasonably cold, but nothing you can't survive without blankets. I've gone tenting in much colder temperatures & stayed relatively warm.

      To perform a dangerous act which could have seriously injured himself or innocent bystanders is just stupid.

    40. Re:Morons. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and yet the biggest problem was that the stations had no power to pump the gas. Thus no sale is possible.

      WRONG! The sale was possible. They could have scrambled to get a generator, even if they had to pay double the price for it, or had it trucked in by overnight express. They could have made it happen. But they didn't because it would have been illegal for them to recover their cost by charging the market price (what the market will bear). They had no incentive. Why should they spend money and work hard if they can't make more than they would if they just sat on the gas till the electricity came back on?

      If the price was allowed to go up to $8 or $10 per gallon, the supply would have skyrocketed as gas station owners found a way to cash in. Greed is the mother of invention.

    41. Re:Morons. by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 2

      The supply was already scarce due to the supply chain being broken (most ports closed, roads impassable) and widespread demand

      If the price goes up, that provides a massive incentive for suppliers to find alternate routes, including routes that wouldn't be economical under normal prices, or fix existing routes quickly. When the road's blocked, it becomes worthwhile to put in the labor to clear the road yourself because there's a payout waiting for you. If you can't charge anything extra, maybe you wait for the government to come in and clear the road, which could take days or weeks.

    42. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you are sooo unable to comprehend what was written.

      Yes. Many people would go without. Many people were going to go without anyways, because as you so "imaginatively" put it (I'm not sure you know what that word means), demand exceeded supply.

      This problem was exacerbated by the asshats who were hoarding supplies to make a quick buck. Had they not been doing so, more people would have been supplied.

      But of course, people today apparently have no sense of the common social good. Apparently it's all the Golden rule....whatever makes the most gold should be the rule.

    43. Re:Morons. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      well if they're charging too much and gas is plentifully available from other sources, they won't get much business. if there's no other source, and their price maximizes the number of buys and the amount per purchase, then it's the right price.

      the problem is that fuel cost is murderously folded, spindled and mutilated to the point of absurdity, by the speculators and by the state.. it's bullshit.

    44. Re:Morons. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      who decides 'correct' use? some overpaid apparatchik in a government building in another state? ..or the person buying the damned gas?

    45. Re:Morons. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Do you own a digital camera? Halfway long lens? Fuck the connected right in the gas filler hole!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    46. Re:Morons. by Z34107 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      An illustration, from Gwartney and Stroup. TL;DR: If ice is going for $10 a pound, you'll have people trucking it in from out of state. If you declare that illegal "price gouging," your grocer won't be able to keep his inventory from spoiling at any price.

      In the fall of 1989 Hurricane Hugo struck the coast of South Carolina, causing massive property damage and widespread power outages lasting for weeks. The lack of electric power meant that gasoline pumps, refrigerators, cash registers, ATMs, and many other types of electrical equipment did not work. In the hardest hit coastal areas such as Charleston, the demand for such items as lumber, gasoline, ice, batteries, chain saws, and electric generators increased dramatically. Stores that remained open using backup gasoline-powered generators sold out of most items immediately. Goods that began to flow in from other cities were being sold by some sellers at much higher prices. A bag of ice that sold for $1 before the hurricane went up in price to as much as $10, plywood went up in price to about $200 per sheet, and gasoline sold for as much as $10.95 per gallon. Individual citizens from other states were renting trucks, buying supplies in their home state, driving them to Charleston, and making enough money to pay for the rental truck and the purchase of the goods, and to compensate them for taking time off from their regular jobs.

      In response to consumer complaints of "price gouging," the mayor of Charleston signed emergency legislation making it a crime, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $200 fine, to sell goods at prices higher than their pre-hurricane levels in the city. The price ceilings kept prices down, but also stopped the flow of goods into the area almost immediately. Shippers of items such as ice would stop outside the harder hit Charleston area, to avoid the price controls, and sell their goods. Shipments that did make it into the Charleston area were often greeted by long lines of consumers, many of whom would end up without the good after waiting in line for up to five hours. Shortages became so bad that military guards were required to protect the goods and maintain order when a shipment did arrive.

      The price controls resulted in serious allocations of resources such as electricity, which, during the emergency, could only be gotten from emergency generators. Grocery stores could not fully open because of the lack of electric power, and inside the stores, food items were spoiling--thousands of dollars' worth, in some stores. Gasoline pumps require electricity to operate, so, although there was fuel in the underground tanks, there was a shortage of gasoline because of the inability to pump it. Consumers were faced with problems of obtaining money, as ATMs and banks could not operate without electric power. Hardware stores that sold electric generators before the hurricane typically had only a few in stock, but suddenly hundreds of businesses and residents wanted to buy them. The price ceilings would not allow the store owners to ration the few generators they had by raising the price, so the owners had to allocate the sale of their generators in other ways. It was not uncommon for the owner fo the store to take one generator home, and to sell the others to his or her friends. While these families used the generators for household uses, gasoline stations, grocery stores, and banks were closed because of their inability to buy a generator. Thousands of consumers could not get goods they urgently wanted because these businesses were closed. Without price controls, we would expect the price of generators to be bid up to the point that they would (a) be purchased by those who had the most urgent uses for them, and (b) be imported into the city rapidly enough to keep the price from rising still further.

      The secondary impacts of the price controls used during Hurricane Hugo in Charleston, South Carolina, highlight the importance of understanding economics and the role of prices in our economy. Despite pleas from economists in local newspapers and in The Wall Street Journal, the price controls remained in effect, increasing the suffering and retarding the recovery of the areas most severely damaged by the hurricane.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    47. Re:Morons. by epyT-R · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1. need doesn't translate into entitlement.
      2. These last three storms (irene, sandy, and that nor'easter we had) should be convincing americans in general that this march towards centralization of command and control (FEMA, DHS etc) is a BAD idea. we should be moving towards distributed/self sufficiency as much as possible. of course this isn't what the ideologues in DC want..

      I sincerely hope that you come out of this unscathed, but perhaps there's a lesson to be learned here as well. don't wait for the next disaster to stock up on gasoline or assume it will be available. Figure out a way to heat at least one room in your home without depending on fossil fuels or electricity. It doesn't have to be comfortable, but it does have to keep you alive.

    48. Re:Morons. by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      Too many think the government is going to make it all better

      As well they should. As someone who pays into a system with a multi trillion dollar budget the least I expect is for it to show up when shit hits the fan. I'm all for being prepared and not panicking the minute the lights go out. But when your entire street gets washed away those flashlights and canned beans are going with it.

    49. Re:Morons. by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But if it were (price gouging) expensive, then it would be EVEN MORE SCARCE.

      Wrong.

      The high price is the signal to 1) reduce consumption and 2) increase supply. If gasoline is selling for 2x in the disaster area, then it's worthwhile for vendors to divert supplies to that area. If some pinhead politician is preventing a vendor from charging more than the price before the disaster, then why would they bother?

      People needed these supplies.

      Which is EXACTLY why imposing a price limit was a brain-dead thing to do.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    50. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the same, don't you think that perhaps during a crisis/emergency people may have their reasons to take their chances? You would never, ever take a higher risk in order to provide something essential to yourself, your family, and your neighbors and community? Never ever? Honestly, if I could, I would. I'd manage the increased risk as well as possible (store it away from people, etc) but sometimes you do what you have to do, even if you don't really want to. I wish I had neighbors like him, who would think of other people and try to provide for them even if that means taking a legal risk.

      No, this is incredibly stupid. This isn't just a "legal risk." This is a risk to public safety. If there were an accident, fire or spill, who'd be there to deal with it? All of the spare emergency crews are dealing with the existing emergencies.

    51. Re:Morons. by jcr · · Score: 1

      Yeah, after all we know that the Soviets never had any gasoline shortages, since they'd outlawed the profit motive.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    52. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Price gouging is raising the price because of a scarcity due to an event considered to be or creating an emergency. The government steps in because the markets can't work and people are subject to necessity that wouldn't otherwise be present in a civilized society.

      But you are right, the hospital is the only ones allowed to gouge during an emergency. But this has much more to do with the government involvement in health care then anything. They are the ones who says that $5 band aid they would give you if admitted for a procedure can be billed at $50 in the ER.

    53. Re:Morons. by owski · · Score: 1

      Extremely high prices is the same thing as a shortage.

      That may be true in the short term, but in the long term there's a massive difference. Extremely high prices drive self interested people to solve the shortage by going through the extra expense of bringing in supplies.

      The only reason you prefer rationing by ability to pay is because you think rich people deserve special privilege.

      The reason I prefer rationing by ability to pay is that it will bend the will of greedy business people to satisfy my needs by ending the shortage. Without that I would need to depend on the kindness of strangers.

    54. Re:Morons. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Can you channel other people or just Thomas Edison?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    55. Re:Morons. by crutchy · · Score: 1

      hospital? i think the op was referring to drug companies. if you want to know how much life is worth, ask companies like pfizer.

    56. Re:Morons. by crutchy · · Score: 1

      exorbitant profiteering

      the very definition of capitalism... welcome to the Home of the Free (to charge whatever you like)

    57. Re:Morons. by crutchy · · Score: 1

      actually banning guns has worked in Australia... yes there are notable exceptions (there always will be) but Australia is one of the safest countries in the world to live

    58. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Maybe i should have said medical profession in general. Your pharmacy will mark up pfizer's cost and the hospital will mark that up quite a bit too.

    59. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      Here is the problem with gouging. If you raise you price because of the emergency, you are going to deny people who cannot afford your new price anyways. Its already causing shortages because from the crisis stricken perspective, they cannot afford it.

      Its not like they are charging a dollar extra for gas to cover costs associated with the emergency, they are charging 15 dollars or more extra because the emergency means people need it badly. If there wasn't an emergency as declared by the state, charging more for gas as the costs rise to the supplier wouldn't be a problem. If there wasn't an emergency as declared by the state, paying an extra fee to get your heating oil delivered after hours wouldn't be a problem. But if the need was because of a widespread emergency as declared by the state, charging more than normal or what can be justified by your costs is not allowed in most areas.

    60. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If the price raises to the point of gouging, that dwindling supply might as well be empty because the people needing it the most wouldn't be able to afford it. So you either ration the supply so everyone can get some or you lock out the poor and only allow the rich to have it. With people charging $100 or more for 5 gallons of gas that should cost less then $20, that would happen quickly.

    61. Re:Morons. by crutchy · · Score: 1

      hospitals are underfunded as it is, and any markup they have may well actually be the reason you are still alive (keeping nurses employed and purchasing equipment that the government is to cheap and corrupt to provide funding for)

    62. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually, that cheap gas was replenishing itself magically. FEMA was giving it to gas stations. They truck this in for free in most disasters like this just to avoid increasing costs hardships on the station owners. Most the time, there is a requirement to give it away free to certain people but its what happens.

    63. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I think what he is saying is that low price creates access to supply which is what is needed in an emergency situation.

      No nobel prize needed. just the ability to look at the demand side of things and realize it is more of a necessity other then a desire.

    64. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can pump out the gas by hand from the tanks. back when half the usa lost power for a week that what my local gas station did. he rigged up a hand pump and that alone prevented any shortage in my area lucky the masses did not know bought it.only his normal shoppers.

    65. Re:Morons. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      That a dwindling supply might as well be empty because not everyone can afford it is preferable to a supply that has been tapped out entirely and is not available at all. Excessive prices create an immediate incentive for any new resources to have priority in being diverted to areas experiencing shortage... and as supplies return to normal levels, the prices will drop. If prices were kept lower than what is necessary to maintain a dwindling supplies before more comes in, you'd have an even worse situation, as some might be inclined to buy more than they may actually need, and those who might buy afterwards, but before replacement stock comes in, would be unable to buy any. At any price.

      The simplest way to actually prevent price gouging is to just bring in more of the product that people are being gouged on, and sell it at a lower price. If you can't actually accomplish that because of some unprecedented disaster conditions having occurred, then why is it unreasonable for retailers to do so?

    66. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its like a gas station that will sell gas below cost and get a massive line.and the sheep not figuring out that the extra trip and massive wait in line burned more gas then you saved. or in a disaster gas you could have not used at all.

    67. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Hospitals are not underfunded at all. At least not in the US. Just do a google search for not for profit hospitals make large profit. you will find numerous accounts of hospitals making killer jack.

    68. Re:Morons. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Except by charging $15 dollars more, they are discouraging people from purchasing any more than they actually need... which maximizes the chance that the supply would actually last until the disaster conditions have ended.

      If the state really has a problem with price gouging, then perhaps what they should do is be prepared to sell such essential goods to people at reasonable prices themselves. If they actually can't afford to do that, then why should they expect retailers to be able to?

    69. Re:Morons. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      No.... had they not been doing so, more people would have bought much more than they actually needed (which is a completely normal thing for people to do when they expect some sort of emergency-like situation), and the supply would run out, being completely unavailable to everybody until replacements arrived.... at *ANY* price.

    70. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the main point is: are there more greedy business people or kind strangers in the world? I'd love to believe the kindness of strangers, but the realistic truth is that there are way more greedy people than people who are willing to harm themselves for the good of others. So, you are 100% right: you are more likely to get the supplies you need by paying for them than by getting them from kind strangers.

    71. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No, by charging 15 dollars more, they are making it unattainable by the hardest hit and most in need. That is why they think they can charge $15 more- because people are in dire need.

      The state, well in combination with the feds, do provide them with it. The problem is that it's not enough fast enough and limiting the amounts either by supply or costs does not get it to them. But why should they expect retailers to do something? Because no one has a right to open shop in any city. Almost all cities require business licenses, registering and/or other government approvals to operate in their jurisdiction. This has been true for a while now- get used to it. It's a cost of doing business in a location.

    72. Re:Morons. by JohannesJ · · Score: 1

      If the NY AG wants to jail someone, Jail the Crooked power Company execs for selling Electric & gas at the prices they do !. When will they pay for those Crimes? Its a very fine line to what NY AG calls Gouging in this story, , Power/ gas prices are an open/shut case of Gouging

    73. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      Actually, tapped out is preferable. This is because it means people have access to it until the supply is gone. This gives everyone time until more supply makes it there before they are out of it.

      Excessive prices do nothing but exploit a hardship created by an emergency for profit. It locks out the people who need it because of greed. This is not a free market in the slightest.

      The simplest way to actually prevent price gouging is to just bring in more of the product that people are being gouged on, and sell it at a lower price. If you can't actually accomplish that because of some unprecedented disaster conditions having occurred, then why is it unreasonable for retailers to do so?

      Actually, FEMA does do this. And it isn't the retailers who are gouging. It is people not impacted by the emergency praying on the victims of the emergency. If retailers can show an increased costs to them, there is no problem with gouging. Most gouging laws allow for increased costs to the retailer. It's when the so called costs are a profit of 10 or 15 times or more then normal because of the emergency it becomes a problem. Gouging laws look at the price compared to the costs- not demanding something for nothing- unless it's supplied by the state or federal governments then it's expected to be free. More then likely, these people ran out and purchased all the available gas cans and generators just because they knew the emergency would create a need for the products and they could over charge for them.

    74. Re:Morons. by smitty128 · · Score: 1

      The buckets are clearly labeled "all purpose". I don't see what the issue is here.

    75. Re:Morons. by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      The firemen, ambulance drivers, utility workers, and cops need to *get* to work too you know. A couple of my first responder friends have told me there are several stations in the area with spare gas left only for first responders, and yes, they *are* checking ID. Chances are that's most of your station's traffic too

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    76. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Price controls have exactly the same effect in an emergency ***AS*** they have at any other time"

      Let me guess - you're American.

    77. Re:Morons. by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't equate rationing with price controls ... when you can identify the consumers and limit their consumption rationing works just fine, ignoring some inevitable corruption, you do this when social stability is preferred over market efficiency. This got the UK (and a lot of other countries) through WW2.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ration_stamp

      In a disaster this obviously doesn't work because you don't have a system ready to identify consumers and ration accordingly.

    78. Re:Morons. by Entropius · · Score: 2

      Exactly -- this is the point that people are missing, the supply end of the price curve.

      If gas were being sold for $8/gallon in New York (a price that's not that exorbitant, given that it's close to what it costs in half of Europe), everyone and their dog would be buying it elsewhere and bringing it to NYC, driving the price back down. Or some gas station would realize "Y'know, if we just sit on an extra stash, we can make some money next time one of these storms comes through". The more something costs the more incentive folks have to provide it, and by doing so they push the price back down *and* fix scarcity.

    79. Re:Morons. by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      That is why they think they can charge $15 more- because people are in dire need.

      No, they think they can charge that much because people are still buying it at that price.

      But why should they expect retailers to do something? Because no one has a right to open shop in any city.

      Ah, the authoritarian mindset...

    80. Re:Morons. by Entropius · · Score: 1

      1) There are lots of ways to overcome a tree blocking the road. Suppose you're driving a gas tanker that can't get through because of trees. You know your cargo of gas is worth quite a bit on the inside, so you'll pay folks whatever reasonable wage you can to ride along with you and clear them. Everyone wins: unskilled laborers with hand-saws and wheelbarrows start making $20/hour, the roads get clear, and NYC gets its gas. Nobody is claiming this is a mental exercise in economics; people are saying that economics is the very process that will get people the help they need! See the earlier article about Charleston for an example.

      2) Where is the line between the two?

      3) And yet there is still not enough gas in New York. Helping out just to be noble is a great form of charity, but charity on its own can't restore the supply chain. People responding to price signals can.

      4) Profit is the motivating factor behind not just disaster recovery but behind the whole scheme that provides you food to eat and clothes to wear. We have this fantastic economy that diverts resources to where they are needed automatically; price signals are what controls that diversion, and cutting them prevents the economy from responding to the need for more gas in NYC right at the point where it's needed. And fire departments don't work that way: in the (few) places that have private fire control, it's treated as a form of insurance. I pay you $10/year or whatever, you agree to come put my house out if it burns down. Often they're run through the public sector just because one house on fire is a threat to everyone else's -- this is the reason infectious disease control and fire control are some things where public services from tax money do make sense.

    81. Re:Morons. by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Actually, statistical analysis of the overall murder rate before and after the gun ban doesn't show any causal relationship.

      Australia was one of the safest countries to live in before the gun ban; this has to do with the Australian people and culture, not Australian laws.

    82. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no such thing as a stupid post.

      You use it as the post allows.

    83. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      No, they think they can charge that much because people are still buying it at that price.

      People are only buying it at that because they have no other choice- they are in dire need of something that should be available at 1/5th the price. Just because they are paying the price does not mean they are not in dire need. The people selling at that price know this and are taking advantage of the emergency situation to exploit the needs of the victims for profit. You cannot look at it any other way because you cannot get around that fact. If the emergency wasn't there, everyone would laugh at them which is why they did not try to sell it at these prices before an emergency existed.

      Ah, the authoritarian mindset..

      Yep, spoken just like the democrats and republicans all across the country. They have required peddlers to be permitted and most businesses to be licenses or registered since the 50's that I know of. Also, Gasoline sales has always been a regulated activity since the 1980's EPA crackdown on petroleum based pollution. So these people selling gasoline might be in violation of some federal laws to boot if someone wants to push the buttons hard enough. I know that would just turn a Green liberals panties into a soggy mess. But they are facts that existed longer them quite a few of the readers here have been alive. Face it, it is the world we live in and you really have no reason to be upset just because you just now realized it.

    84. Re:Morons. by delt0r · · Score: 2

      I don't know the deal in the US. But in NZ all purpose does not mean dangerous substances. Having worked at a gas station I know we are not permitted to let anyone fill just any old container, it must have the proper markings that make it safe for gasoline. In our case that typically means a grade of plastic that won't dissolve and must also be conductive to avoid static discharges. There are clear laws about what must be on the container that signifies that its compliant.

      You would not expect these buckets to be ok with acetone do you? Or how about red fuming nitric acid? Typically its the same set of laws. That is each class of "dangerous substances" gets the appropriate type of container rating.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    85. Re:Morons. by Entropius · · Score: 1

      But it clearly *isn't* showing up and making it all better. That's a political issue. But in the absence of the political means for making it all better working, by cutting price signals the mayor has stopped the standard boring economic means from making it better either.

    86. Re:Morons. by Entropius · · Score: 1

      If there is a shortage, you're relying on FEMA to fix it.

      If you can't afford it because the price is too high, you're relying on people seeking profit to bring in more supplies and drive the price back down.

      Which of these things is going to bring in more gas more quickly?

      (Ideally, we have them both going in parallel...)

    87. Re:Morons. by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Not at all; I prefer rationing by price because it goes away sooner as the market responds and people find ways to bring in more gas.

    88. Re:Morons. by yndrd1984 · · Score: 2

      This is not some mental exercise in supply and demand economics.

      Supply and demand doesn't go away when you don't like the results, just like gravity and physical attractiveness.

      There were physical breaks in the supply line. Trickle down economics doesn't overcome a tree blocking the road.

      This has nothing to do with "trickle down", this is basic supply and demand. At $3.50/gal it's worth sending a truck out, at $10 a gallon it's worth it to send a crew out to clear streets, a better truck to take the back roads, pay people to find alternate routes, drive longer distances to avoid trouble spots, ... and from the other end people use it more carefully.

      What you describe, the extra cost of delivering supplies is NOT price gouging.

      So YOU get to judge everything - we can charge for extra miles but not overtime, extra workers but not to pay for the winch because we "already had it"? Why don't we let the customers decide what counts as gouging?

      Many, many people helped out just to be noble. These people are really the best of society. They should be honored, emulated. ... It's shameful that you think profit should be the motivating factor behind disaster recovery.

      But why not use both, e.g. charity for the worst off and normal econ for the rest? That's what we do everywhere else, most make their own eating decisions based on their budget and the truly bad off get food stamps. I let me neighbor borrow my car because she can't afford one, but demanding that GM or Ford only sell cars that we both can afford would be absurd. That kind of thinking leads to millionaires getting Social Security checks.

      You should be ashamed.

      You think that using both empathy and reason in tandem to solve problems is shameful?

    89. Re:Morons. by helix2301 · · Score: 1

      Since hurricane Sandy there has been people without election for over 11 days in places like New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Due to this issue people have been relying on generators to run there households, the issue being fuel is becoming scarce in places like New York and New Jersey. Some people have decided to make money on people’s misfortune and suffering.

    90. Re:Morons. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      If you prohibit higher gas prices, you guarantee shortages.

      Higher prices won't dry out the refineries or clear out the transportation channels any faster.

      There has been a natural disaster. There will be short-term shortages, period. The only question is how the remaining stock will be distributed until things are running as normal again. Price controls, rationing and the like ensure a more equitable distribution, rather than letting a few rich actors hoard supplies when peoples' immediate lives and even the clean-up effort itself relies on those supplies.

    91. Re:Morons. by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Ever seen the movie Alive?

      You are seriously comparing this to plane crash that already killed many of them left them stuck 3600 meters up in the Andes, with practically no food where some of them where already dieing from the cold, and they knew that no one was looking for them. To top it off a bunch more of them are killed with an avalanche that hit the wreak/shelter. They were not rescued for 2 *months*.

      This loser on the other hand could find a bunch of buckets but not proper containers? And for what... so he can run the generator for the xbox. After ... er a day?

      You fail at the internet for the day... and without a Godwin. Congratulations.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    92. Re:Morons. by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Spot on.

      Artificially low prices lead to greater demand, thus the long lines we observed. The long wait times encourage everyone to buy more than they normally would, which in turn exacerbates the shortages. Either that or, they buy more to sell on the black market. Or they pay someone to wait for them.

      If gas was $25 per gallon in a certain area, the CEO of Exxon/Mobil would be down there delivering fuel in his personal vehicle(or yacht), thus alleviating the supply shortage.

    93. Re:Morons. by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      ... and finding the culprits is easy. Just find out where the local union shops are and pick them up!

    94. Re:Morons. by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

      No, by charging 15 dollars more, they are making it unattainable by the hardest hit and most in need.

      Everyone has their own definition of need. How do you define it -- as those with the least money? That's as arbitrary as even/odd license plate numbers. "Hardest hit" and "most in need" are cute phrases meant to wring tears of empathy but devoid of meaning.

      The attitude that the government can control prices is right up there with King Canute trying to control the tides. At least he knew he couldn't; you still need to learn basic economics. Whether price is measured in dollars, hours, bribes, or family relationships, the price will go up when demand exceeds supply. It is as inexorable as gravity or Boyle's law.

      When the price rises, there's a wonderful effect -- it discourages people buying scarce supplies they don't really need. They will buy one roll of toilet paper instead of a month's worth. They will buy one gallon of gasoline and run their generator only as much as necessary instead of running it all day long on a full tank.

      And they will remember and plan ahead next time.

      When that price rise includes fungible money, it's even better, because that excess will encourage bringing in more supplies. Hours and effort are not fungible -- the store owner can't treasure up those hours and exchange them for more supplies. They are lost, gone wit the wind, a wasted resource.

      Every time the government bureaucrats substitute their elitist snobbery for reality, they make a hash of it. Laws against price gouging are a perfect example.

    95. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am so pleased to see that there are some out there who actually understand how the market economy works. As Walter Williams so eloquently put it

              Prices aren't just made up. Prices are important market signals reflecting the relative scarcity conditions of any good. Rising prices imply an increase in the scarcity, or expected scarcity, of a good. In other words, if a good becomes scarcer or is expected to become scarcer, it's price will rise. The opposite is true when a good becomes abundant or is expected to become abundant.

      When a good becomes scarce, there are several socially optimal responses: consumers should economize on its usage and search for cheaper substitutes. Producers should increase production of the good and search for substitutes. Rising prices provide both consumers and producers with incentives to behave in socially optimal ways. Plus, they do so voluntarily

      http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/03/wonders.html

    96. Re:Morons. by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      The people selling at that price know this and are taking advantage of the emergency situation to exploit the needs of the victims for profit.

      When did profit become such a dirty word? Do you not want the most pay you can get for your job? How would you like a bunch of ignorant indifferent bureaucrats putting wage controls on you?

      That is what you are claiming the moral authority for. You claim, without the slightest shred of knowledge, that you know how much scarce supplies should cost, and that charging more is exploitation. You know nothing of what it costs to bring in supplies during an emergency. You know nothing of the extra hours worked, the extra resources expended, or anything else that goes into the higher prices.

      Here's some more econ 101 for your enlightenment. If a store runs out of supplies and calls around to find more, they will pick the cheapest source. If one supplier charges $15 per gallon for gas and a second charges $20, the store will choose the $15 supplier. If the $20 supplier can deliver within an hour but the $15 supplier will come tomorrow, the store will probably order enough of the expensive stuff to get by for one day until the cheaper stuff comes in -- he will *ration* himself.

      That's exactly what everybody should want. Rational decisions made possible by realistic fungible prices, not by bureaucrats with their head up their ass.

    97. Re:Morons. by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      You think I should be embarrassed and ashamed because I don't think like you.

      You should be ashamed for having nothing but strawman arguments, and for thinking everybody should think like you, blindly, regardless of reason.

    98. Re:Morons. by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      "...you'll pay folks whatever reasonable wage you can to ride along with you and clear them. Everyone wins: unskilled laborers with hand-saws and wheelbarrows start making $20/hour, the roads get clear"

      No! We can't have manual laborers taking advantage of an emergency to engage in price gouging! Cutting up and moving trees is strictly minimum wage activity. They should be forced to work at their normal wages.
      Utility workers shouldn't get higher wages for going out of state to work on restoring power either. They must work for regular wages because this is an emergency and we can't allow them to take advantage of it when people are desperate to get their power back.

    99. Re:Morons. by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      The mammoth system required to make ration cards work is a poor substitute for self-rationing through normal supply and demand raising prices. Bureaucrats are indifferent and ignorant and can't even come close to duplicating the intelligence built into supply and demand. It's like bureaucrats deciding who should wear lead shoes and who should have anti-gravity shoes to compensate for gravity.

    100. Re:Morons. by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Artificially lowering the price of a good does not "create access". It's just a different, and completely arbitrary method of allocating a scarce supply.

      Your concept of "necessity" is entirely subjective. Interview 500 people waiting in a gas line and EVERYONE can make an argument about why they "need" gas. That does not change the quantity of gas available.

      How does setting a price control differentiate between "need" and "desire"? What if the guy at the front of the line wants gas so he can play Nintendo while the person in the back wants it to run their grandmother's respirator? At $25 per gallon, the Nintendo player would be more likely to give up, while the person that really NEEDS the fuel will pay the price.

      A market price is better at allocating fuel to the people that need it (vs. those that "desire" it) than a price control and a "first come first served" allocation method.

    101. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, only the vapors burn. If you try hard enough you can observe this by tossing, and I mean tossing it has to be fast, gas onto a match or something. It will just put the match out.

    102. Re:Morons. by DanTheStone · · Score: 1

      And if you're successfully charging high prices, other businesses/entrepreneurs will see that there's a lot of money to be made and are more likely to spend money trucking in more, helping to increase the supply. You wouldn't get as many generators trucked in at the normal prices. Capping prices makes outside people less likely to rush additional supplies in, because there's no big payoff.

      How is this hard to understand? It's why (even though it's still suboptimal) capitalism makes a more efficient economy than centrally-managed price controls. Additional supply shows up where it's needed, because that makes people money.

    103. Re:Morons. by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Think of it this way. In a normal situation the price of any good is as low as it is because businesses are cutting every inefficiency out of the supply chain. When that chain is disrupted the higher the price is allowed to rise the more profit and money can be spent restoring the supply chain. Money, labor, and resources get diverted from from less essential things.

      Take gasoline. If it is normally transported by pipelines it is because it is more efficient than trucking. If the pipeline is disrupted and you want to bring in gas you will need to truck it. These trucks need to be diverted from what they are currently doing. This means you have to make it worth while for them to do this. The higher the price and profit the more trucks will make the decision to stop what they are currently working on and start moving fuel.

      At the same time the pipeline owner will see these trucks moving the supply at the higher price and provides more incentive to spend what it takes to get back in operation.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    104. Re:Morons. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Actually, FEMA does do this.

      Good for them. If they were able to do so and still keep up with the demand, then the retailers would not be able to continue to sell at such exorbitant prices. The price gouging problem solves itself.

      If they cannot keep up with the demand by keeping prices down, then in my opinion, the government and state should just shut the fucking hell up about it. Yes, it's true that poorer people will be but able to buy much less of what they may need, but that's one hell of a lot better than nobody being able to buy any at all, just because the prices weren't increased enough to keep people with a hoarding mentality from exhausting the supply before it can be replenished.

      If you still want to try to keep prices down, and keep price gouging illegal during emergencies, then the only way to make sure that the supply of such stock will serve the greatest number of people is to fine the people who buy more of such supplies in anticipation of an emergency than they actually need. Good luck trying to regulate and enforce *THAT*.

    105. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was an incredibly obvious joke. Move along. Nothing to see here.

    106. Re:Morons. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If you prohibit higher gas prices, you guarantee shortages.

      If you don't prohibit price gouging you still gurantee shortages... among all but the rich. What worked during WWII, the two embargos in the '70s, and the current shortage in New Jersey is rationing. Price controls to make sure it's affordable, rationing to ensure it's available.

      During an emergency only, of course.

    107. Re:Morons. by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      "The only reason you prefer rationing by ability to pay is because you think rich people deserve special privilege."

      It's not just rationing by "ability" to pay, it's also rationing by "willingness" to pay. Someone that wants gas and a generator to run their home entertainment system is less likely to pay a high price, and less likely to stand in a long line than a person who wants to keep their elderly grandparents warm.

      Any other method of "rationing" encourages black marketeering (people with $$ still get the goods, but someone else makes the profit), motivates people to buy more than they need and hoard what they have(making scarcity worse) or involves some flawed human being making subjective decisions about who gets fuel (their friends and family first).

      None of these methods create an incentive to make more supply available more quickly. They're just feel-good nonsense. The owner should have full discretion about what to do with his/her property.

    108. Re:Morons. by pla · · Score: 1

      something that should be available at 1/5th the price.

      ...But isn't.


      Face it, it is the world we live in and you really have no reason to be upset just because you just now realized it..

      Spoken like a Jim Crow Dixiecrat.

    109. Re:Morons. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Price gouging is raising the price because of a scarcity due to an event considered to be or creating an emergency. The government steps in because the markets can't work and people are subject to necessity that wouldn't otherwise be present in a civilized society.

      Except that prior to government interference, the market was working quite well. You "fix" the market by breaking it? Do you realize how little sense that makes?

    110. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      The point of rationing isn't to make sure gas in $X/gallon, its to make sure that the Richy Rich doesn't buy up the entire supply to fuel his scale model of Rome on Fire; leaving hundreds of families with no fuel for their heating, refrigeration, and transport needs.

      This is accomplished not by price fixing but by limiting how much a single customer can buy in the "limit 4 per customer" sense.

    111. Re:Morons. by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      The supply and demand system is completely immoral and it doesn't put a value on such externalities as social stability.

      If the economic value of labour falls below subsistence for a class of people, well sucks to not be rich. If the economic value of meat is high enough that grain and vegetable production drops below subsistence levels for the population, well sucks to not be rich. etc etc.

      If the market had been allowed to handle things in WW2 the Brits would have invited the Germans in in less than a year.

    112. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      Everyone has their own definition of need. How do you define it -- as those with the least money? That's as arbitrary as even/odd license plate numbers. "Hardest hit" and "most in need" are cute phrases meant to wring tears of empathy but devoid of meaning.

      Need would be defined as the people who would normally have infrastructure like electricity, natural gas and water for heating and cooking but are lacking it because a natural disaster destroyed the infrastructure to a point it isn't available and alternative means need to be employes. Well, would you look there, I work the term need into the definition of need. I guess it's pretty obvious to most of it..

      But fuck dude, you are pretty simple minded if you think that people who depend on electricity and other city infrastructure for their daily life is all the sudden a cute catch phrase because they aren't ultra amazon crossed with mountain man jimbo who could live anywhere with nothing more then a pocket knife and they shoe laces. People simply aren't that way any more. Most people don't even have a mechanical can opener in the house so all that canned heat and eat food in the pantry is useless to them without electricity to open the damn things even if they could figure out how to start a fire that doesn't burn the neighborhood down. Those idiots are the educated elite liberal democrats who have no need for survival skills- A lot of them are like children who need taken care of when everything falls apart.

      The attitude that the government can control prices is right up there with King Canute trying to control the tides. At least he knew he couldn't; you still need to learn basic economics. Whether price is measured in dollars, hours, bribes, or family relationships, the price will go up when demand exceeds supply. It is as inexorable as gravity or Boyle's law.

      I think you are forgetting that the government actually holds power over you. It's no where near Canute trying to control the tides, you can't put the tides in prison and confiscate it's bank accounts. Not only can the government do that, they will send armed thugs after and if you resist too much, they will shoot you and get it over with. The government can and will do anything it damn well pleases if it wants to. There is not a damn thing you can do about it.

      When the price rises, there's a wonderful effect -- it discourages people buying scarce supplies they don't really need. They will buy one roll of toilet paper instead of a month's worth. They will buy one gallon of gasoline and run their generator only as much as necessary instead of running it all day long on a full tank.

      And they will remember and plan ahead next time.

      When that price rise includes fungible money, it's even better, because that excess will encourage bringing in more supplies. Hours and effort are not fungible -- the store owner can't treasure up those hours and exchange them for more supplies. They are lost, gone wit the wind, a wasted resource.

      It stops people from being able to afford resources they do need. It's the government's job to regular them if they are scare in an emergency, not your self elected desire to take advantage of the situation. That's just the life you live in. You can cry and complain about it all you want, but you keep voting the people in and they keep making the laws and those laws say you are a crooked bastard deserving strict punishment if you take advantage of an emergency to line your pockets no matter how you try to justify it.

      Every time the government bureaucrats substitute their elitist snobbery for reality, they make a hash of it. Laws against price gouging are a perfect example.

      Actually, it seems to be you who is upset that your greed is not the reality. I'm all for it BTW, take advantage of the less fortunate. Exploit them for all their worth in order to teach them a lesson, then when your coun

    113. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      Good for them. If they were able to do so and still keep up with the demand, then the retailers would not be able to continue to sell at such exorbitant prices. The price gouging problem solves itself.

      Did you even read the article? It's not retailers doing it. It is greedy bastard trying to exploit the emergency to line their pockets. As for solving the problem itself, it's kind of like a drunk driver who wrecks and kills himself. He solved that problem too, it's just to bad that he took out a couple pedestrians and a family of four in a minivan in the process right? The law is there so that doesn't happen. The law about gouging is there so it doesn't happen. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, follow it or be prepared to suffer the penalties.

      If they cannot keep up with the demand by keeping prices down, then in my opinion, the government and state should just shut the fucking hell up about it. Yes, it's true that poorer people will be but able to buy much less of what they may need, but that's one hell of a lot better than nobody being able to buy any at all, just because the prices weren't increased enough to keep people with a hoarding mentality from exhausting the supply before it can be replenished.

      I actually agree with the anti gouging laws. Why, because I think asshats like you are taking it to far in trying to line your pockets because of the emergency by exploiting the people suffering from it. I can actually smile about thinking what would happen when one of these peopel do some PMITA prison time. They will ask what you in for, and the reply will be "I tried to profit of the hardship of others in an emergency". They will say, I gotta hardship for ya right before taking advantage of your troubles.

      If you still want to try to keep prices down, and keep price gouging illegal during emergencies, then the only way to make sure that the supply of such stock will serve the greatest number of people is to fine the people who buy more of such supplies in anticipation of an emergency than they actually need. Good luck trying to regulate and enforce *THAT*.

      Well, I think they are doing quit well fining and jailing the people who are exploiting the situation for profit. Rationing the supplies might be something that is needed, in fact they are in a quasi manner by alternating the license plates on the days they can purchase fuel. And that doesn't stop walk ups so it seems to be working pretty well outside of people panicking.

    114. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. The real issue here is that this is capitalism in action and if it is a good thing then there is nothing to complain about, otherwise capitalism is bad. There is very little wiggle room. I see this action a a positive affermation that it is in fact a codified rule that only some groups are allowed to make a profit. New York state government is seriously corrupt. I know, I live there.

    115. Re:Morons. by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      If you're going to differentiate between gasoline and gasoline vapors, gasoline doesn't burn.

    116. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      When did profit become such a dirty word? Do you not want the most pay you can get for your job? How would you like a bunch of ignorant indifferent bureaucrats putting wage controls on you?

      Profit is not a dirty word. Exploiting someone's hardships for excessive profit is a dirty act. And the government has put the same wage controls on me. I would be breaking the same laws if I attempted to gouge the victims of the emergency. What is your point? Are you all butthurt that you couldn't make that much profit if the emergency didn't exist so somehow your entitled to exploit the victims of it?

      Here's some more econ 101 for your enlightenment. If a store runs out of supplies and calls around to find more, they will pick the cheapest source. If one supplier charges $15 per gallon for gas and a second charges $20, the store will choose the $15 supplier. If the $20 supplier can deliver within an hour but the $15 supplier will come tomorrow, the store will probably order enough of the expensive stuff to get by for one day until the cheaper stuff comes in -- he will *ration* himself.

      Here is reality 101 for you. Read the fucking article. It wasn't store, it wasn't retailers, it wasn't legitimate licensed businesses. It was people going to the stations and stocking up on the resources making them even more scarce then trying to exploit the victims of the emergency to make obscene profits. The government is completely justified in this action. You see, the problem is the ration himself argument means going without because the gouger took all his money. The government saying you get X or you can only get it on X days means he will have it and the funding to get more. The only difference is if someone is allowed to exploit the emergency and take all their money at once.

      That's exactly what everybody should want. Rational decisions made possible by realistic fungible prices, not by bureaucrats with their head up their ass.

      This law was not just passed yesterday. It has been law there for a while now. The decisions are already made whether you like it or not.

    117. Re:Morons. by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      You know what also worked during WWII? The black market.

    118. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      Artificially lowering the price of a good does not "create access". It's just a different, and completely arbitrary method of allocating a scarce supply.

      If something normally costs $4.00 a gallon and all I have is $20 keeping it at $4.00 a gallon in 5 gallon increments means I have access to it. Running it up to $20 a gallon means at the same increments means I'm $80 short of access to it. It's basic pre math 101. In fact, you should be able to comprehend that with third grade math.

      Your concept of "necessity" is entirely subjective. Interview 500 people waiting in a gas line and EVERYONE can make an argument about why they "need" gas. That does not change the quantity of gas available.

      Actually, in the area there is an emergency at, the main reason will be because they either need to get somewhere safe or because they need to power their generator which is the only way they have heat and the ability to prepare food. That may be subjective, but it's a good fucking reason. It's also the only reason someone would be willing to pay $100 for 5 gallons of gas. If the emergency didn't hit, if the people were not in need because of it, there is no way in hell those prices would be remotely considered when gas is otherwise $4.00 a gallon or $20 for the equivalent. That's how we know it is exploiting the emergency and why they are going after them.

      How does setting a price control differentiate between "need" and "desire"? What if the guy at the front of the line wants gas so he can play Nintendo while the person in the back wants it to run their grandmother's respirator? At $25 per gallon, the Nintendo player would be more likely to give up, while the person that really NEEDS the fuel will pay the price.

      lol.. Who cares if the guy in front wants to play Nintendo? He's also using it to heat his house and prepare his food at the same time. As for putting someone in the cold verses grandma with a respirator, the respirator patent needs moved to a more stable environment. Running them off a generator is just asking for a failure and there are plenty of places that would take grandma on a respirator for free.

      A market price is better at allocating fuel to the people that need it (vs. those that "desire" it) than a price control and a "first come first served" allocation method.

      Not when it becomes a necessity for survival. But don't take my word for it, read the law or watch the AG of NY go after the price gougers..lol.. BTW, the market is lopsided in situations like this. They need maintained and adjusted until the emergency is over.

    119. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      It is available at 1/5th the price. There is no reason why it wouldn't be except for people attempting to exploit victims of an emergency.

      Spoken like a Jim Crow Dixiecrat.

      Yep, because I am against you and others gouging the poor little niggers, spics, jews, and white folk who are victims of failures so large it is considered a state of emergency. If that's what you think a Jim Crow Dixiecrat is, you have severe problems with your history but I'll gladly accept it.

    120. Re:Morons. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If the independent greedy bastard has a license to sell, then I see no reason why he should not be permitted to. I could see It being reasonable to prohibit any unlicensed sellers from distributing essential goods or services for profit during a time of emergency, but not prohibiting places like gas stations from doing the same.

    121. Re:Morons. by pla · · Score: 1

      It is available at 1/5th the price

      Then no one would buy it at 5x the price, and we have a non-issue here.


      There is no reason why it wouldn't be except for people attempting to exploit victims of an emergency.

      Of course a reason exists. Look, try it like this - Do you understand why NY has started rationing gas? The "legal" selling price doesn't reflect the true value of gas in the present circumstances. As a result, people will buy as much as they can at that artificially low price, causing runouts that don't otherwise need to happen. Instead of allowing simple market forces to restrict hoarding, the government instead needs to impose rationing to balance out their intervention on the supply side.

      You would, I presume, respond to that with anti-hoarding laws. More practically, allowing higher prices will serve exactly the same role as rationing, in the absence of an external force setting a price or quantity floor or ceiling. Instead of that natural solution, which leads to people valuing it more and using less, listen to people on the radio - "I don't really need it today, but I figure I'd better fill up while I can". If that same course of action cost a month's pay, you'd see a hell of a lot more people choosing to do without even if they could technically afford it.


      If that's what you think a Jim Crow Dixiecrat is

      Go re-read what I responded to. Now imagine Preston Brooks saying the exact same thing 150 years ago. Or Jacques Bossuet, 400 years ago (well, in French, of course).

    122. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the gas was cheap, many would buy it. So they would have gas. With the price gouging the prices are exorbitantly high, so few can obtain it.

      You have it completely backwards The same amount of gas is sold regardless of price since there is a shortage. If the price is cheap, each person would buy more, resulting in fewer number of people having more gas each. If the price is high, each person would buy less, resulting in a higher number of people buying less gas each. They would only buy as much as they need rather than buy extra "just in case".

    123. Re:Morons. by meteoraln · · Score: 1

      If the gas was cheap, many would buy it. So they would have gas. With the price gouging the prices are exorbitantly high, so few can obtain it.

      You have it completely backwards. The same amount of gas is sold regardless of the price since there's a shortage. If gas was cheap, a few people would buy a lot of gas. If you were first on line and you knew you might not get more, you'd buy extra "just in case". If gas was expensive, you end up with a lot of people buying small amounts of gas. You would buy exactly what you think you'd need and not a penny more. In either scenario, the total amount of gas is constant. The difference is the number of people who have gas, and the amount that each person has.

    124. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      Then no one would buy it at 5x the price, and we have a non-issue here.

      No, people would buy it because they panic in an emergency.

      Of course a reason exists. Look, try it like this - Do you understand why NY has started rationing gas? The "legal" selling price doesn't reflect the true value of gas in the present circumstances. As a result, people will buy as much as they can at that artificially low price, causing runouts that don't otherwise need to happen. Instead of allowing simple market forces to restrict hoarding, the government instead needs to impose rationing to balance out their intervention on the supply side.

      Wrong, they are rationing it because due to the breakdown in infrastructure, half of the stations normally available is not able to pump or function. What will happen is long lines and little more. There is no such thing as market forces in an emergency. I do not know why you are so deluded into thinking so. If we weren't civilized and it was survival of the fittest, I might agree with you. But then again, I would just take it from you and there wouldn't be anything you could do about it.

      You would, I presume, respond to that with anti-hoarding laws. More practically, allowing higher prices will serve exactly the same role as rationing, in the absence of an external force setting a price or quantity floor or ceiling. Instead of that natural solution, which leads to people valuing it more and using less, listen to people on the radio - "I don't really need it today, but I figure I'd better fill up while I can". If that same course of action cost a month's pay, you'd see a hell of a lot more people choosing to do without even if they could technically afford it.

      lol.. why makes you think I would support anti hording laws? I'm sure they exist and if I'm ever in a situation where my hoard is confiscated, I will deal with it when the time comes. But there is such thing called kicking a man when he's down and that's exactly what gougers are doing. They are praying on the vulnerabilities of the victims of the disaster.

      The problem with your solution that for whatever reason you want to ignore is that penalizing someone with money by locking out the people without it only means you are locking people without away from it. The people with money will still be able to afford it. But the people who are getting by, will not and in the weather conditions, it could mean their lives are at risk. Are you that dead set on imposing price gouging as a Market Force that people dieing is something you can ignore?

      I'm not a big fan of government regs. I don't have anything against a free market. I do have a problem with people exploiting situations that put others life in danger simply to make a buck. If you think that is perfectly ok, fine and dandy, then you can fuck yourself. I hope the law screw those people big time. In an emergency, you do not profit from people's misfortunes, its as simple as that.

      Go re-read what I responded to. Now imagine Preston Brooks saying the exact same thing 150 years ago. Or Jacques Bossuet, 400 years ago (well, in French, of course).

      What I said was like neither. If you think your not being able to exploit the unfortunate victims of a disaster for profit is akin to justifying slavery, if you think anti-gouging laws that only come into effect when there is an emergency is the same a Jim Crow laws, you are sorely mistaken. Like I said, if that is what you mean, I'll gladly take it because I know you are completely wrong.

    125. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      He can sell, he just can't take advantage of the situation to line his pockets. No one is asking or telling them not to take profits, it's about taking 10 times the profit because they know the emergency created an artificial need.

    126. Re:Morons. by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Yeah. File the paperwork and then bitch AFTER it gets denied. Then you have a story. Before then, gripe on an internet forum.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    127. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The market was not working well, it was broken and being exploited. A market does not take advantage of people's misfortune for the sake of increasing profits ten fold. You are wrong, the government agrees that you are wrong.

    128. Re:Morons. by enjerth · · Score: 1

      I feel like you and many others are missing the point: This isn't about supply and demand.

      1. These areas are in an official State of Emergency. The rules of business are what the State says they are.
      2. Price gouging is its own social harm. It is exploitative and creates massive inequities during a crisis

      /Price gouging isn't illegal in all 50 States. Check your local laws.

      It's ALL about supply and demand. Your price gouging argument is about a lack of supply in SAVINGS.

      You would have no argument if money were not scarce, and the market cannot function if you pretend that money is not scarce.

      The gas station needs a new generator to operate while power is out in the area? They found one on craigslist. It was prohibitively expensive, and it's available precisely because of that. The owner sees it as an opportunity to serve his community and potentially come out ahead, but it's a gamble. Why should you shortchange him on his service? Now they can continue operating and sell you gas, albeit for a considerable markup due to the need to recoup the investment on the generator during a short emergency stint which could be resolved in a day or so.

      Or, just sit this one out. Let people figure it out on their own.

    129. Re:Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pray, tell,
      what is a "license to sell"?
      Is that like,
      permission from hell?

      Does God obstruct,
      or is it a man gruff,
      who gets in my way
      when I take value for my stuff?

      Is it your place
      to disagree
      when I negotiate with another
      an excessive fee?

      I could use this thing,
      or I could not.
      At the price you offer,
      I'll let it rot.

      Fuck you.

    130. Re:Morons. by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you object to utility workers getting double and triple overtime for working during and after storms?

      If not, then why do you object to truckers and warehouse workers charging extra for working long hours bringing in extra supplies, and why do you object to store owners passing along the extra cost in the form of higher prices?

      Why is it immoral for a store to make more money during a storm for extra and more dangerous work but not for utility workers?

    131. Re:Morons. by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you complain equally that utility workers get paid double and triple overtime for their efforts to restore supplies during and after disasters?

      Why then do you complain about truckers and other workers getting extra pay for bringing in supplies, and the store passing along that cost?

      Or are you so naive that you think those utility workers are working straight time, or donating their time?

      Is greed ok when it's union, but not otherwise?

      Is greed by the truckers ok, but the store is supposed to absorb that cost?

    132. Re:Morons. by enjerth · · Score: 1

      Needs are not artificial.

    133. Re:Morons. by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      Your nick is very apt.

      Go back and study Economics 101. Nobody is disputing that high prices suck in such a situation, but if you want a shortage alleviated, let the price rise to increase INCENTIVE to reduce the shortage. Although, since you prefer "tapped out," maybe improving the actual supply is not your priority.

    134. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Do you object to utility workers getting double and triple overtime for working during and after storms?

      Yes, I do when it is a situation a significant portion of the area is without power. However, I'm not against utility workers normally getting overtime which can be triple pay when they work 20 hours straight then have to continue for another16 hours because the utility doesn't keep enough staff around.

      If not, then why do you object to truckers and warehouse workers charging extra for working long hours bringing in extra supplies, and why do you object to store owners passing along the extra cost in the form of higher prices?

      I do not object to any business or employee passing on the increased costs of doing business. However, you cannot argue that is the case with gouging. Gauging is nothing but enormously increased "profit". Your comparison doesn't fit which is probably why you like it so much- You think it's a good counter except the reality isn't increased costs, it's profit hoarding. Increased costs is a defense to about all claims of gouging so if it's true, it will work itself out- right?

      Why is it immoral for a store to make more money during a storm for extra and more dangerous work but not for utility workers?

      Do you really have to ask? I mean seriously, normal controls are in place such as competition and the options to go somewhere else until a natural disaster happens. Even if you assume I support utility workers raping the utility company, those conditions existed before the disaster. The contracts for the costs were a known known before anything bad ever happened and it was a way for the utilities to save money by employing less people. After the disaster, what doesn't exist is the competition that would keep charges fair and normal by allowing people to just go to the next vendor. This is due specifically because of the disaster too. The only reason people would try to prey on those victims is because they know there isn't much choice and the victims would panic and pay. Again, your not even in the same ball park.

    135. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Do you complain equally that utility workers get paid double and triple overtime for their efforts to restore supplies during and after disasters?

      Let me rephrase that for you. Do you complain when the utility companies under-staff for emergencies because they can save money when the staffing isn't needed but agreed to pay completely ridiculous amounts of money because the regulatory agencies say they have to make repairs within a certain amount of time after a disaster happens?

      You see, your logic isn't even logical.

      Why then do you complain about truckers and other workers getting extra pay for bringing in supplies, and the store passing along that cost?

      Nope, not at all. I don't do it and you shouldn't assume a damn thing about me. The truckers get paid by the mile and the chaos created by the disaster means less miles. I have no problem with them making more in order to make the same amount of money they would have make for that time span dealing with the BS. It's not like they can spend 3 days longer trying to get somewhere and then just work 3 extra shifts. They are subject to the federal hours of service and it would make it illegal for them to do so.

      But hey, guess what, we are seeing a pattern of government interference here. Why do you think it's proper for the government to put restrictions and conditions on the utilities and truckers but not the people exploiting the victims of a disaster?

      Or are you so naive that you think those utility workers are working straight time, or donating their time?

      Is greed ok when it's union, but not otherwise?

      Is greed by the truckers ok, but the store is supposed to absorb that cost?

      Well, I have already answered that, but I need to point out how utterly fucking clueless you are. Stores are allowed to cover costs. That is nowhere near what is happening here or being discussed. You need to toss that little fallacy in the garbage and your theories along with them. The people busted for gouging are not absorbing costs- they are raping the victims of a disaster during a state of emergency. Read the fucking article before you comment more and make an argument concerning nothing remotely relevant to the topic.

    136. Re:Morons. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I was suggesting that the only ones who would be entitled to *ANY* profit on goods that are considered essential once a state of emergency has been declared in an area, or in the case of an anticipated emergency, once warnings have been issued, are those with a business license to operate in that area, where the license is applicable to the ordinary selling of such goods and services for profit during times of non-emergency, effectively temporarily revoking many "first sale" rights for such goods or services for all but licensed businesses that would have been selling it anyways.

      That would eliminate the situation of people hoarding and trying to sell at obscene prices when retailers have not felt a need to.

    137. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Go back and study civic 101 and ethics 101. Your nick is a bit more appropriate I think. The role of a functioning government in the US today is to ensure those supplies are there. Raising costs or gouging if any should take place should be done by the government to ensure that supply not by greedy bastards trying to take advantage of people in need.

      Although, since you prefer "tapped out," maybe improving the actual supply is not your priority.

      I think my agenda was clear from the start. It is that the poorer people in a period of specific hardship due to an emergency are not being excluded from the resources that are substituting the failings of public utilities simply because someone wants to take advantage of the emergency to increase their profit margins.

    138. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      lol.. Yep, it's artificial. There are no normal market forces at play other then an artificial shortage due to the disaster.

    139. Re:Morons. by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      should be available at 1/5th the price

      Is that morally desirable, yes. Is is possible, I would disagree. I think that we will either have a higher price, or it will become unavailable.

      From my perspective this is like one of those Intro to Ethics questions where you have a situation in which you must choose who will live and who will die, and your answer is "none". That's a perfectly good answer, but only if you can find a flaw in the assumptions made about the situation. You aren't going to eliminate all disasters or change human nature, and I don't think you can wish away the rule that "caps on prices generally lead to shortages" no matter how justified your moral outrage.

      You cannot look at it any other way because you cannot get around that fact.

      I can see it a different way because I continue to think carefully after accepting that fact. You see something that you don't like, and assume that a ban is appropriate. I see the same thing and don't like it, but also accept that there may not be much anyone can do about it that won't make things even worse.

      Yep, spoken just like the democrats and republicans all across the country. ... Face it, it is the world we live in and you really have no reason to be upset just because you just now realized it.

      I have no idea what you're talking about here. Was this meant for someone else?

    140. Re:Morons. by timothy · · Score: 1

      Re: the ice shortage, etc, if you don't already know of it, IMO the most amusing account of this is from the always illuminating Mike Munger :)

      http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/01/munger_on_price_1.html

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    141. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Is that morally desirable, yes. Is is possible, I would disagree. I think that we will either have a higher price, or it will become unavailable.

      From my perspective this is like one of those Intro to Ethics questions where you have a situation in which you must choose who will live and who will die, and your answer is "none". That's a perfectly good answer, but only if you can find a flaw in the assumptions made about the situation. You aren't going to eliminate all disasters or change human nature, and I don't think you can wish away the rule that "caps on prices generally lead to shortages" no matter how justified your moral outrage.

      Actually, the answer to who should die should never be up to someone wanting to increase their profits. That's a big problem. If the government

      You are right though, we will not eliminate disasters, shortages in resources, or people dieing. What we can eliminate shortages and death to specific people not because it isn't there enough to go around, but because someone wanted to take advantage of the situation and extort more profit because people are in more need. When FEMA is operating and the government is cooperating, low prices will not result in shortages, it will result in resupplies eventually and everyone will live. And if they do not get resupplied, then it's the disaster that claimed their lives. If you inflate the prices for profit, you are picking and choosing who lives and who dies and I do not see that as being much different then you killing the people who died because you thought profits and whatever motivation you can justify for locking certain people out of the resource pool was more important then their lives.

      I can see it a different way because I continue to think carefully after accepting that fact. You see something that you don't like, and assume that a ban is appropriate. I see the same thing and don't like it, but also accept that there may not be much anyone can do about it that won't make things even worse.

      Actually, arresting and prosecuting people who gouge others is something that can be done about it. You cannot do anything about people's greed when they want to put profits over the safety of the community, but then again, we expect heads to roll when a company poisons the ground water or illegally dumps toxic waste in your back yard. This is no different.

      But to make sure the point is clear, if people die because of the disaster, it is one thing. If people die because of greed and an attempt to exploit the victims of a situation for absurd profit, it is another. The later, I would say should be a criminal offense.

      I have no idea what you're talking about here. Was this meant for someone else?

      It was meant for you.. remember this "Ah, the authoritarian mindset..". You see, it's everyone's mindset. It's that simple, the people who think making absurd profits off the backs of victims of a disaster are in the minority. The laws are in place and the laws existed long before this and with politicians of all walks of life not having a problem with them.

    142. Re:Morons. by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      If someone has a novel invention that is a great help to people in emergencies, by all means, let them get rich off the invention.

      If someone is just using an emergency to gouge desperate people around them and make a quick buck, fuck them.

      Actually, I'll propose a compromise: allow price gouging, but remove all other protections that the law provides to price gougers. If they don't want to behave in a civilized manner, they shouldn't be afforded the benefits of civilization.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    143. Re:Morons. by icebike · · Score: 1

      Government agreeing that someone is wrong is generally a good indication that said someone was right all along.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    144. Re:Morons. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The black market was always there.

    145. Re:Morons. by khallow · · Score: 1

      If someone is just using an emergency to gouge desperate people around them and make a quick buck, fuck them.

      So what do you do about the desperate people? At least the "gouger" was providing something they needed and were willing to pay for. I guess this is the "Sucks to be you" strategy.

    146. Re:Morons. by khallow · · Score: 1

      The market was not working well, it was broken and being exploited. A market does not take advantage of people's misfortune for the sake of increasing profits ten fold.

      Far better that we give these people no options at all than an expensive one? As I've said before in this particular discussion, it's interesting how some people think it's more important that people not be exploited than they have a means to get the things they need.

    147. Re:Morons. by crutchy · · Score: 1

      private hospitals maybe, but they are run as a business and if you choose to do business there its your choice. if you have no private health cover you are stuck with what level of care is available in a government hospital. that's how it works in australia at least. most hospitals aren't privately owned or publically listed on the stock exchange (they are owned, operated and funded entirely by government and the taxpayer) so there is no profit to be had. healthcare is usually always a big issue during elections because most governments never adequately fund the public health system so there's always room for empty promises about more health funding from bullshit artist politicians wanting your vote.

    148. Re:Morons. by crutchy · · Score: 1

      you're likely reading the statistics wrong, and murder isn't the only thing that gun laws are meant to reduce... most gun related injuries/deaths are from accidents due to incompetence and stupidity on the part of the gun owner, not to mention threats of their use (such as in hold ups)
      there is also an increased sense of safety that guns are illegal... at least i know that most people walking past me in the street aren't carrying one
      many people with guns in america are misguided morons who are more likely to shoot themselves or their loved ones than any criminal
      gun laws are good and they do work. if you judge the value of a law merely by a single statistic (rather than a holistic overview) then maybe we should just abolish all laws because most of them can be shown as not being of any value according to select statistics

    149. Re:Morons. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      That the shortage may be artificially caused by the hoarding mentality that switches on in many people during an emergency or not is entirely irrellevant... since raising the price can effectively discourage such people from buying too much more than they actually need, thereby making the available supplies last longer (even though poorer people may be unable to buy some, it's preferable to many more people not being able to buy some at *ANY* price because of a few people who hoarded all the goods at lower prices near the beginning of the disaster.. something they would be less able to do if prices were raised).

    150. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Rationing effectively controls shortages due to hoarding. It does this by limiting the amount of access artificially not due to price hikes and profit grabs. But lets face it, there were no shortages at the places that had Gasoline. Just hassle and long lines and so on trying to get it. Of course New Jersey had a couple of shortages because their governor is a dingbat and rejected FEMA support.

      You have to understand. An emergency situation is not a normal day by any means. There are no market forces and one of the principle roles of government is to aid and assist simple because they limited the private sector in the first place. Gas wasn't an issue because high school teens wanted to ride around picking p chicks, it wasn't because people wanted to run their over sized pick up trucks through mud holes. Gas and water and food was in shortened supply because people had to substitute for the failed public infrastructure like electricity that does not exist in an open market on the user level. The cities determine who and how electricity can be delivered to the homes, they regular and tariff the utility companies, they prevent competition, they even determine who's service gets the bulk of the work in restoring (usually commercial).

      Anyways, regulating the amount something is charges for in an emergency is inherent in the police powers of the state and political subdivisions as has been already determined with laws preventing the smoking of tobacco in public buildings. Whether you agree that is good or bad is somewhat irrelevant as it exists and has been already established. If anyone is going to limit the supply of resources by increasing profits- it is the government's role- not some greedy idiot looking to make massive profits because the victims of an emergency can be exploited.

    151. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If the option is expensive because it costs to provide it, that's one thing. If it is expensive simply because someone wants profits 10 times normal, then it's criminal.

      And yes, it is much more concerning if someone dies because you wanted to make more then a normal profit then it is if the supply line failed and we ran out of something. You see, one is beyond our control, the other is specifically in your control.

    152. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Not in this case though. The Generally in your statement indicates not all the time. I do not disagree with that.

    153. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      lol.. That's the silent bitch about it that many do not see or want to consider. In Canada, they sell wait insurance because of that problem that resulted in extremely long wait times in order to get treatments that should have been delivered relatively quickly. In England, if you get sick of the time waits or decide the treatment isn't adequate and seek outside treatment, they will deny coverage for treatment on the condition. Medical tourism (where paients seek treatment in other countries in order to get some advantage like quicker treatment or newer procedures) is flush in a lot of countries because of the failures of the politicians and the public health system. It's surprisingly popular in countries that are held up in example for the US to switch to.

      In the US, all the hospitals except for the VA systems are publicly owned. Some operate for profit (the revenue in excess of costs get distributed to share or stake holders) and some operate as non-profit (the revenue in excess of costs is devoted to continuing some charitable cause). All of the hospitals make more then enough money. The California Nurses association (A nursing Union) found that the majority of non-profit hospitals in California spend less on indigent care then they receive in tax breaks for being a non-profit.

      Now let me make something clear, in order to get tax breaks for being a non-profit, you would otherwise need to owe taxes. That means profit and because we only tax at 30% max (graduated taxes means average) on every dollar, 70 dollars for every 100 dollars are in excess of the tax owed. so they get their taxes capped are eliminated altogether and spent less then that 30% on the charitable services and structure of the non-profit status. and this is after salaries, utilities and all other associated costs are paid.

    154. Re:Morons. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Rationing effectively controls shortages due to hoarding

      True.... but it becomes quite difficult to enforce in all but very tiny communities.

      You have to understand. An emergency situation is not a normal day by any means

      I know.... but that doesn't mean that normal market forces in an affected area cannot, more expediently, redirect additional resources to that area from outside. It makes it so that it is in one's own best interest to actively endeavor to offer assistance from outside, motivated by the opportunity for profit. Once the supply starts to exceed demand, prices will invariably return to normal levels, again, because it is in a seller's own best interest to do so (otherwise they are simply sitting on unsold stock indefinitely.... whether the demand has apparently only been reduced because of high prices or else has been reduced by the availability of additional resources coming in from outside at competitive [but still profitable] prices).

      In an ideal world, people who are more able to offer assistance from outside an area where an emergency situation has occurred would do so without the incentive for profit, but this isn't an ideal world.

      I think that at best, you might be able to regulate that, during a declared time of emergency, a person could not sell any goods or services that are deemed "essential" for *ANY* profit, without possessing a business license that is applicable to ordinarily selling them. Enforced, that should more or less spontaneously resolve the issue of private individuals hoarding and then trying to sell excess at grossly inflated markups, which would resolve the situation that this story appears to be talking about, but would leave the normal market forces free to resolve any genuine supply shortages in whatever most efficient way can be achieved.

    155. Re:Morons. by khallow · · Score: 1

      If the option is expensive because it costs to provide it, that's one thing. If it is expensive simply because someone wants profits 10 times normal, then it's criminal.

      And why shouldn't they get that? That price run up also keep people from hoarding.

      Going back to my original post about the markets in a disaster area, the infrastructure was damaged, but the market was working just fine. Gouging does two things. It encourages people to bring desperately needed goods in, and the high price keeps people from overconsuming those goods.

    156. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And why shouldn't they get that? That price run up also keep people from hoarding.

      Why do you think it is your job to stop someone from hoarding during an emergency? I mean seriously, you are calling me authoritarian because I support the idea that taking advantage of victims of an emergency or disaster for profit is bad, but your counter argument seems to be that you should be able to profit all you want in order to prevent someone from getting more then you think they should have while preventing the poorest and least capable of having that necessary resource.

      I just cannot fathom why you think that is perfectly fine. I cannot fathom why you think you are the appointed no hoarding person entitled to massive profits while forcing people who could otherwise afford the resource to do without and potentially putting their life in danger. Why is that besides Greed? If there was a legitimate need for it, you would think the government would be dealing with it instead of you.

      Going back to my original post about the markets in a disaster area, the infrastructure was damaged, but the market was working just fine. Gouging does two things. It encourages people to bring desperately needed goods in, and the high price keeps people from overconsuming those goods.

      There is a support network set up (which was redesigned and strengthened after Katrina) that ensures resources will be restocked. Its just a matter of time before more stores and gas stations are opened alleviating it even more. The fact that you or someone would be buying and hoarding the stuff until you can make exploitative levels of profit only takes away from the resources available further increasing the level of panic.

      Whether what you say is true or not, it is not you decision to make. The law is against you, common sense is against you, the entire crowd of desperate people you are talking advantage of is against you. It simply is not your decision and your desire to make it is nothing more then one of greed that doesn't have any place in a disaster or emergency.

    157. Re:Morons. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Why do you think it is your job to stop someone from hoarding during an emergency? I mean seriously, you are calling me authoritarian because I support the idea that taking advantage of victims of an emergency or disaster for profit is bad, but your counter argument seems to be that you should be able to profit all you want in order to prevent someone from getting more then you think they should have while preventing the poorest and least capable of having that necessary resource.

      I didn't say it was anyone's job to prevent hoarding. But holding valuable goods that you don't need while others do, indicates something is wrong.

      There is a support network

      What about tragedy of the commons? We see the usual problem with such schemes, long lines and the supply runs out. If stuff is cheap, people will buy as much as they can and deplete the supply. That's just the way it works. And since the supply network is very limited, there's only a few providers and lots of demand, hence the lines.

      Whether what you say is true or not, it is not you decision to make. The law is against you, common sense is against you, the entire crowd of desperate people you are talking advantage of is against you. It simply is not your decision and your desire to make it is nothing more then one of greed that doesn't have any place in a disaster or emergency.

      So because we've chosen to be stupid about emergencies and disasters means I shouldn't try to make that better? That is a poor argument.

    158. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      True.... but it becomes quite difficult to enforce in all but very tiny communities.

      That's something the government has to deal with when it comes up though, just like they are dealing with gouging.

      I know.... but that doesn't mean that normal market forces in an affected area cannot, more expediently, redirect additional resources to that area from outside. It makes it so that it is in one's own best interest to actively endeavor to offer assistance from outside, motivated by the opportunity for profit. Once the supply starts to exceed demand, prices will invariably return to normal levels, again, because it is in a seller's own best interest to do so (otherwise they are simply sitting on unsold stock indefinitely.... whether the demand has apparently only been reduced because of high prices or else has been reduced by the availability of additional resources coming in from outside at competitive [but still profitable] prices).

      I think you are ignoring the reality that without the gouging, people have already brought outside resource in. If there was this massive de-motivation, it certainly isn't noticeable.

      In an ideal world, people who are more able to offer assistance from outside an area where an emergency situation has occurred would do so without the incentive for profit, but this isn't an ideal world.

      This is the fourth or fifth thread we are talking about this in. No one is denying anyone the ability to make a profit. It's the excessive profit that can only be realized because of the emergency at hand. When people are offering 5 gallon cans of gasoline that should cost $40 max at the price of $100 or more, there is a problem with excessive profits. Those kind of profits can only be realized because there is an emergency. It's gouging and exploiting the victims of it. No one in their right mind would expect that kind of profit if the emergency was not there.

      I think that at best, you might be able to regulate that, during a declared time of emergency, a person could not sell any goods or services that are deemed "essential" for *ANY* profit, without possessing a business license that is applicable to ordinarily selling them. Enforced, that should more or less spontaneously resolve the issue of private individuals hoarding and then trying to sell excess at grossly inflated markups, which would resolve the situation that this story appears to be talking about, but would leave the normal market forces free to resolve any genuine supply shortages in whatever most efficient way can be achieved.

      Or they can just outlaw hoarding and deal with that as it arises. Gouging BTW is not the act of making profit. It's the act of making excessive profit specifically because of the emergency situation that exists that wouldn't normally be made. A defense to gouging is showing increased costs associated with the resource.

      however it is probably wise to not allow individuals to sell gasoline unlicensed. There are many potential problems they likely never anticipated. For instance, if you had 14 five gallon cans of gas in the back of your car or pickup, federal hazmat laws would apply and you would need a MSDS response guide and Shipping papers plus each can would need the appropriate UN number labels, and a 5 B:C fire extinguisher or you would be in violation of the law (440 lbs of aggregate hazardous materials, Gas at 6.5lbs /gallon). Not to mention, FEMA can just take it at costs but you would have to file a claim and wait until someone got around to processing it before being repaid.

    159. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it was anyone's job to prevent hoarding. But holding valuable goods that you don't need while others do, indicates something is wrong.

      If the job needs to be done, it's the government's job.

      What about tragedy of the commons? We see the usual problem with such schemes, long lines and the supply runs out. If stuff is cheap, people will buy as much as they can and deplete the supply. That's just the way it works. And since the supply network is very limited, there's only a few providers and lots of demand, hence the lines.

      You do not deal with an emergency by pricing necessary resources out of the reach of the people impacted by the emergency in an attempt to line your pockets while crying that you might run out of something. You simply do not deny access to necessary resources. You can ration the amount one person gets, but to tell them they can't have any because you want a larger profit under the guise of making sure the people who can afford to pay that profit margin have some available is reprehensible.

      As for running out of resources, it could happen, it hasn't happened though. Resupplies were in place, or coming. But you see, only the government knows about that. The emergency coordination has intimate knowledge of what is available and it is their call if rationing or any other step needs to be put in place.

      So because we've chosen to be stupid about emergencies and disasters means I shouldn't try to make that better? That is a poor argument.

      Better for who? You? I mean that's the only way you can claim it is better, that you either make crap loads of profit off the emergency or you the consumer is guaranteed supplies because the poor and misfortune has been excluded from accessing them. I can't believe you can sit there thinking raising costs and locking people out of a resource is better then maintaining their access to it. Please, tell me, where do I find this book on ultra modern humanitarianism so I can under stand your thoughts better. No matter how you state it, it comes back to greed.

    160. Re:Morons. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Or they can just outlaw hoarding and deal with that as it arises.

      It's difficult to just hand-wave this and say worry about it when it happens, because there are going to be problems enforcing this anywhere but in very tiny communities where everybody knows everybody (and the problem is less likely to occur anyways).

      Gouging BTW is not the act of making profit.

      I know.... I was nonetheless suggesting that it might not be a bad idea to prohibit profiting at all on "essential" goods and services during an emergency without a license to otherwise do so during non-emergency, or otherwise being granted special permission to do so from the state. This might not stop hoarding completely, but it would remove the incentive that private people might have to try to sell their excess, which in turn could reduce their purchasing of excess in the first place, unless they had previously sincerely thought they were going to need that much.... their lack of foresight in how they dealt with the matter would at least result in them making more conscientious choices in the future. You might be right in that there's nothing theoretically wrong with people making a respectable honest profit, but I am suggesting it could still be worthwhile to temporarily suspend that privilege for unlicensed sellers of essential goods or services when a situation has arisen that requires people to be helpful. Licensed sellers would still be free to adjust their prices with respect to what may be necessary to discourage people from hoarding too much more than what they actually need, preventing people who may arrive later from being able to get any. I expect that limiting such price adjustments to licensed businesses would probably not result in any gouging unless there really was a genuine supply shortage. I know that you said you could try outlawing hoarding during times of emergency, but try to face the fact on that matter... it's just not going to work. You won't be able to enforce it anywhere but in very small communities, and people who want to will find ways around it (because they are probably motivated by interests of self-preservation, so even if their beliefs are entirely wrong, you won't be able to convince them of their error because such irrational beliefs are just that... irrational) .

      A defense to gouging is showing increased costs associated with the resource.

      If supplies that are being brought in are not keeping up with the actual demand, then it seems to me that there *are* increased costs associated with bringing in the resource.... and even if those costs don't necessarily *directly* correspond to dollars and cents. It's not unreasonable to translate such non-monetary costs to financial ones, however.

    161. Re:Morons. by khallow · · Score: 1

      If the job needs to be done, it's the government's job.

      The government has long failed to do the government's job.

      You do not deal with an emergency by pricing necessary resources out of the reach of the people impacted by the emergency in an attempt to line your pockets while crying that you might run out of something. You simply do not deny access to necessary resources. You can ration the amount one person gets, but to tell them they can't have any because you want a larger profit under the guise of making sure the people who can afford to pay that profit margin have some available is reprehensible.

      What's the point of being affordable, if as a result it's just not there? You aren't maintaining access to the goods or services in question, if people aren't selling them and government isn't delivering them.

      As for running out of resources, it could happen, it hasn't happened though. Resupplies were in place, or coming. But you see, only the government knows about that. The emergency coordination has intimate knowledge of what is available and it is their call if rationing or any other step needs to be put in place.

      A market and an open government would be superior. As to the emergency coordinator, they have no clue how much you need something. Paying lots of money to a "gouger" is a way to signal that you really need it (in addition to being an effective way to get it). Meanwhile the government could be open about what it's doing and how long till things come in. Then people could decide whether they really needed that stuff today or wait till the government gets around to providing it.

      So because we've chosen to be stupid about emergencies and disasters means I shouldn't try to make that better? That is a poor argument.

      Better for who? You? I mean that's the only way you can claim it is better, that you either make crap loads of profit off the emergency or you the consumer is guaranteed supplies because the poor and misfortune has been excluded from accessing them. I can't believe you can sit there thinking raising costs and locking people out of a resource is better then maintaining their access to it. Please, tell me, where do I find this book on ultra modern humanitarianism so I can under stand your thoughts better. No matter how you state it, it comes back to greed.

      Greed that has been channeled to a useful purpose.

    162. Re:Morons. by hawk · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but food was being exported from Ireland during that period.

      For that matter, in the countries where people are starving today, there is enough food, but either government or rebels actively prevent distribution . . .

      hawk

    163. Re:Morons. by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      When FEMA is operating and the government is cooperating, low prices will not result in shortages, it will result in resupplies eventually and everyone will live.
      If resupply is imminent, how much damage will a very brief spike in prices do, especially since most places won't raise prices in order to keep customer good will?

      If you inflate the prices for profit, you are picking and choosing who lives and who dies
      And if you leave prices the same and run out because of that, you are picking and choosing who lives and who dies, just based on time rather than money.

      If people die because of greed and an attempt to exploit the victims of a situation for absurd profit, it is another.
      Agreed! Do you have solid evidence that gouging not only kills people, but that it kills more people than your plan?

      Actually, arresting and prosecuting people who gouge others is something that can be done about it.
      Sure. We can also reduce pollution by banning cars.

      we expect heads to roll when a company poisons the ground water or illegally dumps toxic waste in your back yard.
      Did you just compare not selling something at a price that you like to poisoning someone? What about people who don't want to sell at all?

      "Ah, the authoritarian mindset..". You see, it's everyone's mindset.
      But is that a good thing? And can you fix that problem by banning it? :)

      You've done a halfway decent job defending the immorality of gouging and have taken a stab at a legal justification, but that has nothing to do with the argument I'm making. I'm suggesting that gouging bad, but banning it may be worse. No argument you make about the evils of gouging will change my mind, because I already agree with it. To persuade me that a ban would be justified, you have to show how the alternative is likely to be better, using an economic argument first to detail the consequences, (good and bad, intended and unintended), and only after we agree on that can we discuss morality.

      If you think a drug kills 1 person and saves 10, while I think it kills 10 and saves 1, telling me that death is bad is pointless. Showing me some drug trials would be much more useful.

    164. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It's difficult to just hand-wave this and say worry about it when it happens, because there are going to be problems enforcing this anywhere but in very tiny communities where everybody knows everybody (and the problem is less likely to occur anyways).

      No, its not difficult at all when your alternative is stress and lock the poor and less fortunate out of something they could normally afford in order to line your pockets with excessive profits. That's the problem, both scenarios have the potential to lock someone out of benefiting the resource, one is because you want to line your greed as the person in charge of the supplies, the other is out of someone's fear of not having supplies. Both are greed and both are wrong. It is neither of your decision to stop others from having the resource plain and simple. It's not your job in an emergency to worry about someone having more then you think they deserve. It definitely is not your job to recreate the same hardships that might cause a portion of the population to not have essential supplies because you fear someone might have more then you think they deserve and have a desire to make excessive profits.

      I know.... I was nonetheless suggesting that it might not be a bad idea to prohibit profiting at all on "essential" goods and services during an emergency without a license to otherwise do so during non-emergency, or otherwise being granted special permission to do so from the state. This might not stop hoarding completely, but it would remove the incentive that private people might have to try to sell their excess, which in turn could reduce their purchasing of excess in the first place, unless they had previously sincerely thought they were going to need that much.... their lack of foresight in how they dealt with the matter would at least result in them making more conscientious choices in the future. You might be right in that there's nothing theoretically wrong with people making a respectable honest profit, but I am suggesting it could still be worthwhile to temporarily suspend that privilege for unlicensed sellers of essential goods or services when a situation has arisen that requires people to be helpful.

      I know what you are trying to say, you are trying to set up a scenario of the drastic opposite of the situation you supported. I'm saying the answer is in between, there is no need for the drastic swing to the opposite.

      Licensed sellers would still be free to adjust their prices with respect to what may be necessary to discourage people from hoarding too much more than what they actually need, preventing people who may arrive later from being able to get any. I expect that limiting such price adjustments to licensed businesses would probably not result in any gouging unless there really was a genuine supply shortage. I know that you said you could try outlawing hoarding during times of emergency, but try to face the fact on that matter... it's just not going to work. You won't be able to enforce it anywhere but in very small communities, and people who want to will find ways around it (because they are probably motivated by interests of self-preservation, so even if their beliefs are entirely wrong, you won't be able to convince them of their error because such irrational beliefs are just that... irrational) .

      No, no. no. no. fucking no. It is not the civilian populations job to determine this and take steps that deny access to people who otherwise would have access to vital resources and supplies necessary for survival. It's the emergency response coordination's job to do this if it is needed. It is not your responsibility to determine who has too much then try to line your pockets while allowing others to die off. You are in a fucking emergency, if you act trying to micromanage an emergency by attempting to make excessive profits, you will cause people to be injured and possibly even die. That is a direct as

    165. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The government has long failed to do the government's job.

      They have failed to do it well or to your liking, but they have not failed to do the job. It certainly is a failure when you end up causing the same problems of hoarding in your attempt to line your pockets with excessive profits off the misfortune of other while claiming to be trying to prevent hoarding.

      What's the point of being affordable, if as a result it's just not there? You aren't maintaining access to the goods or services in question, if people aren't selling them and government isn't delivering them.

      Your response to hoarding and making sure you have a profit creates the exact same situation, it simply is not there for a portion of the population. If your greed is that important that you would create the exact situation you describe for a portion of the population in order to maintain an excessive profit due to the emergency, then you deserve to be prosecuted. You cannot justify it.

      A market and an open government would be superior. As to the emergency coordinator, they have no clue how much you need something. Paying lots of money to a "gouger" is a way to signal that you really need it (in addition to being an effective way to get it). Meanwhile the government could be open about what it's doing and how long till things come in. Then people could decide whether they really needed that stuff today or wait till the government gets around to providing it.

      Gouging only denies access to supplies to portions of the population while allowing you to make excessive profits due to the emergency. Your so called solution creates the exact same problems that need to be avoided. Your so called solution does exactly what you claim to be wanting to prevent with the exception of someone taking excessive profits that could only be possible because of the disaster and emergency.

      Greed that has been channeled to a useful purpose.

      It's going to cost you way more then you would ever make if there is ever a chance of the area recovering. If you truly and honestly believe that, then gouge people and wait to get prosecuted. If someone dies because they couldn't afford the resources you priced out of their reach, you should be charged with that as a murder too. It's no different then a government dealing with the needs of the poor by executing the poor. It's wrong plain and simple.

    166. Re:Morons. by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's wrong plain and simple.

      And this conversation exists because it isn't "plain and simple". You are plain and simply saying it's better to harm people by not providing a good that they desperately need in an emergency than for someone to "take advantage" of that need and provide them the good at an elevated price.

      When people get hurt because of these beliefs, you aren't going to get prosecuted or charged with murder. You're just going to feel good about yourself.

    167. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And this conversation exists because it isn't "plain and simple".

      Actually, it is plain and simple to everyone who isn't letting greed cloud their judgement.

      You are plain and simply saying it's better to harm people by not providing a good that they desperately need in an emergency than for someone to "take advantage" of that need and provide them the good at an elevated price.

      Neither you nor anyone else has showed any good or service that was not provided by keeping prices normal and not allowing you to extort the situation for excessive profits. In fact, the people in the article actually hoarded supplies in an attempt to extort the desperation of people left dealing with limited supplies. Even if you remotely think what you posted it true, the practice of gouging is demonstrably causing the same, the biggest difference is more people have access to the goods or service at the lower costs and you don't get to extort excessive profits.

      Different people jump in trying to restate the same old arguments changing a word her or there but never addressing that problem. I've said where the problems were numerous times and you act like they don't exist in your magical all things will be a bed of roses if you can exploit an emergency for excessive profits thinking.

      When people get hurt because of these beliefs, you aren't going to get prosecuted or charged with murder. You're just going to feel good about yourself.

      You see, "when" presumes it will happen. But outlawing gouging, you can contrive an unlikely situation in which someone might not have access to resources. When you gouge, you empirically deny access to people who could otherwise afford the product or service necessary for coping with the emergency simply because you want to make windfall profits.

      That's your and everyone else' major disconnect with reality. Might happen, could happen, if you hold your tongue right and Skipp in circles should happen, does not equal will happen or is happening. It's all unproven theory that if you do not act like the most greediest bastards in the history of the world, someone will go without. However, when you do act like that, someone does go without, you lock resources out of the reach of others. You will go to jail, you will lose way more then any profit you made. So the lesson here is be reasonable.

    168. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If resupply is imminent, how much damage will a very brief spike in prices do, especially since most places won't raise prices in order to keep customer good will?

      How many people who ended up paying the extortion prices out of fear for their life, their family, neighbor, or property will not be able to afford the clear and proper prices after supplies are available? If the spike is because something has to be shipped by air from California or England or Germany, japan, China whatever, just to put a supply on the scene, that's just one thing that is necessary in dealing with the emergency. If the spike is because someone saw an opportunity to extort or exploit the victims of a disaster, that is completely different and reprehensible. People scam and swindle the elderly who are starting to lose their faculties and mentally challenges people all the time and I don't think it's much different when someone attempts to exploit an emergency to make excessive profits off the victims of a disaster. And no, I'm not saying those people are retarded, I'm saying they aren't thinking clearly because they just went through a freaking disaster and are trying their best to not lose everything they have left including the lives of their families, loved ones, or even their own.

      And if you leave prices the same and run out because of that, you are picking and choosing who lives and who dies, just based on time rather than money.

      That is only true if the disaster is so big that no other entity can respond to it and provide assistance and recovery direction and there is a complete breakdown of society. Despite that not happening here, if it did and no gouging happened, it would be a result of those failures related to the disaster, not because you or someone else all the sudden decided you could go profiteering.

      Agreed! Do you have solid evidence that gouging not only kills people, but that it kills more people than your plan?

      I don't need evidence of that. You take the blame when it is done on your behalf by gouging and locking the necessary resources out. You can look at it this way, you find a man frozen to death in an alleyway. It's an act of nature- and unfortunate thing. You steel the mans coat and he dies in an alleyway from hypothermia, you have killed him. It's murder. He is dead because of something you did. It is your fault. Why do you think it's proper to take the mans coat and not proper to leave him with it? That is in essence what you are saying. Gouging necessarily locks people out of a product or service assumed necessary for survival in an emergency. It might happen eventually without gouging, but it is a product of the disaster and not you then.

      Sure. We can also reduce pollution by banning cars.

      I'm not sure what you are getting at here, but it is done quite often in that area as well as others.

      Did you just compare not selling something at a price that you like to poisoning someone? What about people who don't want to sell at all?

      No, I said, you cannot stop greed, you can only go after the acts when appropriate. The comparison here is in how it is handled. And dumping poison in your back yard is not poisoning someone.

      But is that a good thing? And can you fix that problem by banning it? :)

      Actually, the first part of that is what you said. The point I was making is that only a minority of people think it's authoritarian. Most people think it's the decent and respectable thing to do which is why 38 states have anti gouging laws. And yes, you can fix gouging by banning it in must the same way any other law works. You end up reminding people it is illegal, when someone breaks the law, you prosecute them. It's rather simple.

      You've done a halfway decent job defending the immorality of gouging and have ta

    169. Re:Morons. by Entropius · · Score: 1

      I both read the statistics and read several professional statisticians' analysis of them. I myself am a physicist in a field that is fairly statistics-intensive, enough to confirm that what the statisticians did wasn't crazy or blatantly biased.

      "Stupidity on part of gun owner" isn't really a thing that matters here -- the solution to that is "don't be stupid", and it is hardly the fault of a law if someone makes a choice and hurts themselves. We don't ban alcohol despite the fact that beer+stupid causes far more injuries than guns+stupid.

      And, I'm sorry, as much as you say "Statistics are bad", if you're going to say "Many people are misguided morons who are more likely to shoot themselves or their loved ones", you're going to need to back that up. The one instance where the Australian gun ban has "done some good", or at least can't be shown to not have done any good, was in reducing the suicide rate somewhat. The reason the overall murder rate in Australia is so much lower (before and after the gun ban) than in the US has everything to do with differences between Australians and Americans, not in the countries' laws.

      As far as safety, you're backwards. I have lived in three cities in the US for extended periods: Huntsville AL (liberal gun laws), Tucson AZ (even more liberal gun laws), and Washington DC (essentially a gun ban). Which of those cities is most dangerous? Washington, BY FAR. There are very few places in Tucson I'd be afraid to walk around in after dark. In Washington (despite the fact that it has the highest average income of the three), I've been afraid to walk out of my own door at night.

    170. Re:Morons. by crutchy · · Score: 1

      the solution to that is "don't be stupid"

      BAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

      that's like telling a drunk not to drink... good luck with that

      The reason the overall murder rate in Australia is so much lower (before and after the gun ban) than in the US has everything to do with differences between Australians and Americans, not in the countries' laws

      wrong again sunshine... actually its because Australia has never been as liberal with gun ownership as in the US, where bearing arms is a constitutional right (regardless of which state you're in).

    171. Re:Morons. by crutchy · · Score: 1

      you'll probably find (if you bothered to look) that washington is more dangerous for several reasons, not limited to difference in population and urbanisation compared to huntsville and tucson, differences in demographics (there is a higher population of african americans in huntsville and washington compared to tucson - and no i'm not racist but the police and justice system in the US is, because of which makes sense why blacks would see more of a need to keep their own "protection"), etc... but no worries cause you're all tied up in your selective statistics. i guess it's no surprise that you're a physicist... if you got out more your cyclotron-vision may not be so severe.

    172. Re:Morons. by khallow · · Score: 1

      How's that recovery from Hurricane Sandy coming along BTW? It's almost been two weeks. They still have power outages, gas rationing, etc. Over a hundred thousand people are suffering, but we can't let greed win.

    173. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Please tell me exactly how greed would have made it any different. If anything, it would have made it worse.

    174. Re:Morons. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Because the goods those people needed would be trucked in voluntarily rather than waiting on the munificence of somewhat incompetent governments. You could buy with money what you couldn't buy with time (waiting in line for your handout). Hence, you could spend your time working to improve your circumstances or to help the recovery effort.

    175. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      lol.. you as this thread title states. The power is regulated by the governments and outside of using generators (which hey are highly regulated too) in limited situations, there is absolutely nothing that private parties could do. The gas problems are due to using generators and the lack of functioning infrastructure. The distribution of gas is highly regulated as well as is the storage and dispensing of it.

      All the third party greed would do is take the existing resources and the funds necessary to gain more. it would be worse. why don't you try looking at the real situation instead of relying on whatever fiction exists in you mind. Do you really think you can go into these areas and set up a gas station or electric utility network?.. you make me laugh.

    176. Re:Morons. by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      True. But when government regulates, there's always someone who breaks the rules and profits (c.f. prohibition).

    177. Re:Morons. by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      If someone dies because of something you did, the law says its on you.

      Slaughtering children is different than not donating your bottom dollar to charity.
      Taking a man's coat is different than not selling them one.
      Assaulting someone is different than not stopping an assault.
      Driving drunk is different than not forcing someone into AA.
      Firing a gun is different than not taking the gun away.
      Stealing gas is different than not selling at a low price.

      --Do you have solid evidence that gouging not only kills people, but that it kills more people than your plan?
      I don't need evidence of that. You take the blame when it is done on your behalf by gouging and locking the necessary resources out.

      You seem to think that, given the choice between preventing one murder and saving two people from accidental death, that we should favor preventing the murder because someone will "have blood on their hands". I believe that we should attempt to prevent as many deaths as possible, regardless of the circumstances of those deaths or our feelings toward the people involved. Until one of us changes the other's mind I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

    178. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Slaughtering children is different than not donating your bottom dollar to charity.
      Taking a man's coat is different than not selling them one.
      Assaulting someone is different than not stopping an assault.
      Driving drunk is different than not forcing someone into AA.
      Firing a gun is different than not taking the gun away.
      Stealing gas is different than not selling at a low price.

      I'm not sure what your point is. I said thing you do and you list how things someone does not do. You are proving my point but then seem to get confused- at least you confused me on your attempt.

      You seem to think that, given the choice between preventing one murder and saving two people from accidental death, that we should favor preventing the murder because someone will "have blood on their hands". I believe that we should attempt to prevent as many deaths as possible, regardless of the circumstances of those deaths or our feelings toward the people involved. Until one of us changes the other's mind I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

      Here is the problem. by locking the resources out of the reach of certain people because you want to increase your profit due to their emergency, you are essentially causing someone to be harmed where as there is only potential for that person to be harmed otherwise. To date, no one has demonstrated that anyone has went without or will run out. There are people who had to wait in lines forever and people stealing crap, but I've heard of no situations where anything necessary for survival has been used up with no chance of getting anything else in or anyone suffering anything other then hassle.

      But with gouging, we know for certain someone would be priced out. We know for certain that someone would run out of the means to purchase the resources faster. It's simple math. It seems that in this situation, as been the case in every other emergency I can think of, saving the most lives is accomplished by preventing gouging.

    179. Re:Morons. by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what your point is. I said thing you do and you list how things someone does not do. You are proving my point but then seem to get confused- at least you confused me on your attempt.

      You might want to read them again. All of the things on the left are actions that cause harm and are often illegal, while the ones on the right are not actions and are almost never illegal, and that includes the subject at hand - "not selling at a low price". I really don't know how to make the distinction more explicit.

      The justification for this should be clear from the first example - "Slaughtering children is different than not donating your bottom dollar to charity." If not acting to save someone can in all cases be considered a crime, then we are all guilty. That's why outside of a certain limited set of situations (parents and their children, guards and their prisoners, doctors and their patients, in some areas calling 911 for an ambulance or reporting violent crimes) refraining from acting is almost never a crime, even if it seems heartless. You expect the possibility of legal problems if you steal a candy bar from a major business, even if the loss is trivial to them, but do you expect jail time for not giving a homeless man your coat, even if it kills him? I don't think so.

      by locking the resources out of the reach of certain people ... you are essentially causing someone to be harmed

      Are gas station owners who lock up their shops before fleeing a disaster even more evil? If someone is harmed when they can't afford $15 gas aren't they harmed just as much by not being able to purchase it at any price?

      To date, no one has demonstrated that anyone has went without or will run out. ... But with gouging, we know for certain someone would be priced out.

      You're willing to make those assumptions, but I want supporting evidence (since I want a solid case to be made before declaring something to be criminal).

    180. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You might want to read them again. All of the things on the left are actions that cause harm and are often illegal, while the ones on the right are not actions and are almost never illegal, and that includes the subject at hand - "not selling at a low price". I really don't know how to make the distinction more explicit.That's probably because you line of reasoning makes absolutely no sense. Keeping profit margins normal would be doing nothing. Raising them to gouge the victims of an emergency would be the action. Raising prices is not gouging, trying to get windfall profits is. If it costs more, then charge more. If it costs more only because it is needed to cope with an emergency and someone is going to take more then normal profits, it is gouging. I think you are confused on several fronts here.

      The justification for this should be clear from the first example - "Slaughtering children is different than not donating your bottom dollar to charity." If not acting to save someone can in all cases be considered a crime, then we are all guilty. That's why outside of a certain limited set of situations (parents and their children, guards and their prisoners, doctors and their patients, in some areas calling 911 for an ambulance or reporting violent crimes) refraining from acting is almost never a crime, even if it seems heartless. You expect the possibility of legal problems if you steal a candy bar from a major business, even if the loss is trivial to them, but do you expect jail time for not giving a homeless man your coat, even if it kills him? I don't think so.

      Again, you are confused. Keeping your profits as normal is not doing anything, raising them to take advantage of the victims of an emergency so you can preserve hoarding is doing something. You have it completely backwards. You see, not raising your profit margins is not doing anything. Raising them is doing something.

      You're willing to make those assumptions, but I want supporting evidence (since I want a solid case to be made before declaring something to be criminal).

      Well, I can't prove something that didn't happen. Why don't you prove it did happen to support your assertions? I mean they are not going to report, no one died because there was no gouging. That is normal and expected as in not taking any action to degrade the situation. What they will report is that because no one gouged someone died or was seriously injured if anyone thought it was true. If someone was harmed seriously or killed because the supplies weren't there, there would be outrage at the response agencies and it would be completely news worthy.

      Well, that is unless every single news agency is in some sort of conspiracy to hide it. I mean there could be this elaborate plan in place to protect the administration and every aid worker and all the residents, politicians, and news agencies are involved. But I find that much more unlikely then it just isn't happening the way you think it should.

    181. Re:Morons. by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      Keeping your profits as normal is not doing anything, raising them to take advantage of the victims of an emergency so you can preserve hoarding is doing something.

      If I take a drink, or breathe, or sell something, those are actions. If I don't take a drink, or don't breathe, or don't sell, then I've chosen not to take an action. I know the English language muddles this up a bit, but when an alcoholic "stops drinking", that's not actually an action. It may involve making a choice, it may involve willpower, but "not pouring a drink" is not an "action" the way I've been using the word (and the way the legal system uses the word in this context). By this usage "keeping profits normal" is continuing to act - you're going to keep selling something, right? And "hoarding" what they already own is not acting, it's essentially the same situation you'd have if they'd left the area before the storm.

      If you use a looser definition, even dead people are taking lots of actions - skipping work, standing up dates, being delinquent with their bills, letting the lawn get overgrown, neglecting their pets, dodging taxes and jury duty, and their dieting like you wouldn't believe! But even if you don't like the language, I think it's clear that a dead person being rude by ignoring you is a different kind of action that the same corpse attacking you and trying to eat your brain.

      Why don't you prove it did happen to support your assertions?

      Because in a free society everything is presumed to be legal. If we're going to disrupt lives even more and spend money on courts and prisons because of a law you suggest, you're the one who has to make the case.

    182. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If I take a drink, or breathe, or sell something, those are actions. If I don't take a drink, or don't breathe, or don't sell, then I've chosen not to take an action. I know the English language muddles this up a bit, but when an alcoholic "stops drinking", that's not actually an action. It may involve making a choice, it may involve willpower, but "not pouring a drink" is not an "action" the way I've been using the word (and the way the legal system uses the word in this context). By this usage "keeping profits normal" is continuing to act - you're going to keep selling something, right? And "hoarding" what they already own is not acting, it's essentially the same situation you'd have if they'd left the area before the storm.Normal
      .
      conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
      2.
      serving to establish a standard.

      All the examples you cited went against what is normal. It is taking action of some sort. Read what was said again and this time pay attention please.

      Keeping your profits as normal is not doing anything, raising them to take advantage of the victims of an emergency so you can preserve hoarding is doing something.

      Because in a free society everything is presumed to be legal. If we're going to disrupt lives even more and spend money on courts and prisons because of a law you suggest, you're the one who has to make the case.

      So then you were just talking shit when you said

      You're willing to make those assumptions, but I want supporting evidence (since I want a solid case to be made before declaring something to be criminal).

      Now your comment about a free society, you are correct in that everything is presumed to be legal, until there is a law making it illegal. This law exists in 38 states. It's not my law, it is the reality you live in. It is in place because other people believe the same as me. I have made the case because I understand what they do.

    183. Re:Morons. by Entropius · · Score: 1

      You're such a troll, but I'll bite.

      I'm aware of the demographics, believe me. I live here. That's exactly the point: whether a place is safe or not has very little to do with gun laws and a lot to do with these other factors. If you banned guns in Tucson, the streets would still be pretty safe. If you legalized guns in Washington, the streets would still be quite dangerous. It's the people, not the laws.

      And I don't work with cyclotrons, so try again.

    184. Re:Morons. by crutchy · · Score: 1

      we're all trolls here on slashdot, so welcome to the family :)

      why are gun laws any less a factor than any of "these other factors" that you mention?
      you're not much of a physicist if you're willing to ignore the effect of one factor merely because it doesn't suit your hypothesis.
      maybe you're really a mad scientist

    185. Re:Morons. by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      Keeping your profits as normal is not doing anything

      Breathing normally is not doing anything? Not just metaphorically, not just "nothing unusual", but literally nothing at all, even though you have to keep doing it?

      But as I pointed out before, the language is irrelevant - swap "action/inaction" with "exchange/not exchange" or "type A activities/type B activities" if you like. No wordplay will get you escape the fact that refusing to sell your coat to someone is morally quite different from stealing their coat, no matter how similar the result is for the other person, or what situational factors lead to your decision, including price.

      So then you were just talking shit when you said

      I can't begin to understand your level of obtuseness. We live in a free society, legality is presumed. This means the supporters of a law prohibiting something (not those in favor of repealing a law) have the obligation to present a case for that prohibition, including evidence of the likely difference that law makes or will make. What the law is currently, what other people believe, and what authorities support are all irrelevant to a discussion of what the law should be.

    186. Re:Morons. by crutchy · · Score: 1

      If you banned guns in Tucson, the streets would still be pretty safe. If you legalized guns in Washington, the streets would still be quite dangerous

      you're previous post arguing that gun bans don't make washington safer and liberal gun laws don't make tucson any more dangerous was pretty pointless if you're now saying the danger level has more to do with factors other than gun laws

    187. Re:Morons. by crutchy · · Score: 1

      in other words, for you to assess the impact of gun law introduction, it would only be worth comparing statistics for the same place before and after, and it would be completely useless to compare washington and tucson at any point because they are fundamentally different... but anyway time to troll elsewhere :)

    188. Re:Morons. by crutchy · · Score: 1

      oh and i wasn't comparing the effects of gun laws in australia and america, i was comparing gun owners (there is no fundamental difference between a gun owner in america and in australia)... they are both morons... there is a difference in gun laws though... it might be possible to compare similar sized cities in australia and the USA, and i'm sure in that case you would find that australians are inherently safer, not because of any difference in people (we are all much the same underneath), but the difference in what people are permitted to get away with. any cultural or attitude difference with respect to guns would have no doubt stemmed from the long time differences in gun laws

    189. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Breathing normally is not doing anything? Not just metaphorically, not just "nothing unusual", but literally nothing at all, even though you have to keep doing it?

      You can't be this stupid can you? Selling something in the first place is doing something. It's the deviation from normal that is the point. Fuck dude, I don't know how to make it more clear without a crayon and paper to draw you a fucking picture. There is nothing obtuse about this.

      But as I pointed out before, the language is irrelevant - swap "action/inaction" with "exchange/not exchange" or "type A activities/type B activities" if you like. No wordplay will get you escape the fact that refusing to sell your coat to someone is morally quite different from stealing their coat, no matter how similar the result is for the other person, or what situational factors lead to your decision, including price.

      Wordplay must not be irrelevant. You are certainly spending as much time as possible on it while pretending it somehow helps your case. All it is really doing is showing how little we should trust your judgement.

      I can't begin to understand your level of obtuseness. We live in a free society, legality is presumed. This means the supporters of a law prohibiting something (not those in favor of repealing a law) have the obligation to present a case for that prohibition, including evidence of the likely difference that law makes or will make. What the law is currently, what other people believe, and what authorities support are all irrelevant to a discussion of what the law should be.

      Are there not laws making things illegal in this society? Is it still called or considered free? The mere fact that you say we live in a free society means you are wrong on this because the laws already exist and they have existed in some cases, longer then you have been alive. The law, the case for it, all that has already been presented and accepted when they were made into law. It's a done deal.The only one supposing a change to the law as it exists is you in fighting for what you think is your right to take advantage of an emergency to gank massive profits that you otherwise would not be able to gain. I've made my case extremely well, your inability to understand it, or even the concept of normal and the deviation from it doesn't change that. Perhaps you can post an address and I'll have my 5 year old draw you a picture and send it to you. Maybe then you will understand. Then again, maybe your greed is too powerful.

    190. Re:Morons. by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      I've made my case extremely well

      You've done a decent job of presenting the basics, and I do understand the argument you're making. On the other hand, you have no clue about my argument, because you systematically misinterpret what I've written, and that's why you haven't been able to attack it properly.

      I believe that action/inaction is the proper dividing line, and you believe that it should be normalcy/deviation. Those are two perfectly reasonable point of view, and we could have a good discussion about it. But you simply refuse to acknowledge that I'm even making that particular argument, and instead assume I'm saying something completely different.

      If you really want to keep doing this, please just answer one question: Is refusing to sell your coat to someone morally different from stealing their coat?

    191. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I believe that action/inaction is the proper dividing line, and you believe that it should be normalcy/deviation. Those are two perfectly reasonable point of view, and we could have a good discussion about it. But you simply refuse to acknowledge that I'm even making that particular argument, and instead assume I'm saying something completely different.

      I don't think you understand. I see the entirety of action/deviation:inaction/normalcy as the exact same. I simply do not see them as separate points. I'll explain a bit more in my answer to your next statement.

      If you really want to keep doing this, please just answer one question: Is refusing to sell your coat to someone morally different from stealing their coat?

      The answer to this depends on if you are in the business of selling coats or listed your coat for sale. You see, if you are not in that business or aren't selling a coat, then refusing to sell one to anyone would be inaction/normalcy. But if you are in the business or are selling a coat and that someone has otherwise the ability to meet your requirements, in that case, not selling is action/deviation. As for the morality of it, I do not really think I'm arguing morality- I'm arguing culpability for actions you take. But if I must make a morality measurement, if you aren't already selling a coat, then it's more immoral to steal a coat from someone. If you are selling coats and refuse to sell to someone for whatever reason, it is about the same as stealing the coat.

    192. Re:Morons. by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      I see the entirety of action/deviation:inaction/normalcy as the exact same. I simply do not see them as separate points.

      Exactly! An analogy: you divide people into tall and short, which is a perfectly good way to categorize and might be valid for, say, amusement part rides. But since the topic is legal responsibility, I think age is more appropriate. Of course when you replace 'age' with 'height' (because you think they're not just related, but identical) then my argument becomes absurd.

      But if you are in the business or are selling a coat and that someone has otherwise the ability to meet your requirements, in that case, not selling is action/deviation.

      I agree that previous actions set up a pattern of behavior, and sometimes only changes in behavior are important, so normalcy and deviation are a good division for some purposes. But for other purposes (whether my inventory is different, or the ownership of things has changed, or I've agreed to something) we probably should use a different division which we might call action (or activity, or 'doing something'). And when we're dealing with that division, history is irrelevant.

      If you are selling coats and refuse to sell to someone for whatever reason, it is about the same as stealing the coat.

      I could go on about how this is a gross misrepresentation of estoppel, or an attitude of entitlement, but I'll try my standard liberal counterargument - take out the money and see how well the argument works: Imagine if the last time someone broke up with you that you had gone to court and demanded that they keep having sex with you (or keep buying you nice dinners, or keep helping with that term paper), arguing that they were 'depriving you' of something that they 'owed' to you so long as you kept up your half of the relationship 'bargain'.

      You'd never even think of doing something so horrid, would you? And even if you did, you wouldn't expect any first-world court to buy that argument. But why does swapping 'gas' for 'sex' suddenly make the argument valid? The only differences are that one is a personal relationship and one is business, and that one is life-and-death and the other isn't. The first leads down the well-worn path of 'money is so different that is justifies anything', the other leads me to asking for evidence before I support sending people to prison.

    193. Re:Morons. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Exactly! An analogy: you divide people into tall and short, which is a perfectly good way to categorize and might be valid for, say, amusement part rides. But since the topic is legal responsibility, I think age is more appropriate. Of course when you replace 'age' with 'height' (because you think they're not just related, but identical) then my argument becomes absurd.

      I'm not sure why you are insisting on arguing something that wasn't argued. I didn't divide people up, I made comments about people's actions. Do you somehow think introducing a red herring will strengthen your position that is failing otherwise?

      I agree that previous actions set up a pattern of behavior, and sometimes only changes in behavior are important, so normalcy and deviation are a good division for some purposes. But for other purposes (whether my inventory is different, or the ownership of things has changed, or I've agreed to something) we probably should use a different division which we might call action (or activity, or 'doing something'). And when we're dealing with that division, history is irrelevant.

      Not at all. My position assumes nothing has changed other then someone's willingness to sell to a specific person. Action and deviation is exactly the same.

      I could go on about how this is a gross misrepresentation of estoppel, or an attitude of entitlement, but I'll try my standard liberal counterargument - take out the money and see how well the argument works: Imagine if the last time someone broke up with you that you had gone to court and demanded that they keep having sex with you (or keep buying you nice dinners, or keep helping with that term paper), arguing that they were 'depriving you' of something that they 'owed' to you so long as you kept up your half of the relationship 'bargain'.

      You could go on about estoppel and entitlement, but you would be showing how ignorant you are. You specifically asked about morality not legality. All the sudden switching that does not help your case. In fact, it shows how weak your argument is when you cannot keep it to the confines you set. You further adulterate it by injecting some mythical depriving of sex argument in law. The courts have never suggested anyone had a right to sex, they have said people have a right to not be denied sex as long as it is consensual (sodomy laws, interracial relationships and so on).

      But lets change your argument to one that more closely faces reality. Suppose someone's wife was a stay at home wife who depended on her husbands income for survival. She catches him cheating on her and decides it is time to leave. She goes to court to demand that he continue to support her and enable her to live a similar lifestyle she had been accustomed to until she can find a job doing the same. This happens all the time and women as well as men get alimony all the time. But this and your ill thought out example really has nothing to do with how a business or person acts in an emergency situation. It's worse then apples to oranges comparisons, you're trying to submit apples to bananas and bringing up ham steaks to support the claim.

      You'd never even think of doing something so horrid, would you? And even if you did, you wouldn't expect any first-world court to buy that argument. But why does swapping 'gas' for 'sex' suddenly make the argument valid? The only differences are that one is a personal relationship and one is business, and that one is life-and-death and the other isn't. The first leads down the well-worn path of 'money is so different that is justifies anything', the other leads me to asking for evidence before I support sending people to prison.

      Swapping sex for anything of value is prostitution. Some areas outlaw that while others allow it. I personally do not care about it one way or the other. If you are so desperate that you have to trade goods for sex with someone else tha

    194. Re:Morons. by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      Action and deviation is exactly the same.

      I've repeatedly explained that I'm trying to make a distinction that is different than what you call normalcy/deviation. The entirety of your counterargument is that despite my protests, and with nothing but your own assumptions to support the idea, that I am not making a distinction that is different.

      Best of luck to you.

  2. Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or just pandering bluster for the nit wits?

    1. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by alen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Buying up stuff at retail after a disaster and reselling it at huge markups is not free enterprise

    2. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So when at what point are the supply and demand curves "illegal"?

    3. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      What part of it do you think isn't compatible with the government placing few restrictions on the activities and ownership of businesses?

    4. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is it not exactly? It really is kind of text book free enterprise. That is taking advantage of the market when it benefits you most and guarantees the highest rate of return on your investment.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    5. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by DriedClexler · · Score: 3, Funny

      I guess most of free enterprise isn't free enterprise then.

      "How *dare* you buy up food from farms on the cheap just to sell at a fat retail markup, just to profit off of people who can't make it out to the farms to buy their food!"

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    6. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by RajivSLK · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Allowing price gouging post disaster can be very dangerous because it exacerbates any shortages. No only are people in need vying for scare resources but price gougers who buy and hold much more than they individually need in an effort to reap a profit on resale. This causes more gouging and hoarding as people become scared that prices will increase. The ultimate result is that people will go without and possibly die while resources go unused.

    7. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buying up stuff at retail after a disaster and reselling it at huge markups is not free enterprise

      When there is blood on the streets... buy property.

    8. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the point where they are artificial, and umm, "unconscionable"
      For scumbags who don't know what unconscionable means, we have courtrooms available to explain it to them.

      Taking advantage of other people's pain is not viewed as favorably as it is in Russia. But what do I know, I'm a right wing nut job who believes in God and ethics and irrelevant crap like this.

    9. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by blade8086 · · Score: 2

      Evidently, in New York, when they involve:

      a) hurricanes
      b) large sodas
      c) trans fats
      d) taxicabs

      but not when they involve:

      a) Facebook IPO valuations
      b) High frequency Trading
      c) Fake watches, purses, etc. south of Houston St.

      Everything else is determined by a thumb war between Mayor Bloomberg and an 19 year old russian model from Brighton Beach
      who is 6'2" and weighs 2.35lbs, Referreed by Bill Clinton and an overweight Jewish Malcom X impersonator named Herschel.

    10. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Bigby · · Score: 1

      It also preserves the supply.

    11. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Bigby · · Score: 1

      That makes no sense. Raising the prices actually preserves the supply. In either situation, a lot of people won't be getting gas. But with gouging, you at least have the option.

      Also, with high prices, it makes it more profitable to redirect supplies to the disaster area. If you have price controls, the incentive to bring supply in is not there. You may actually lose money because of the risk of driving into a disaster area.

      Under your scenario, a lot of people bought the gas on the cheap and hoarded it anyway. So it still went unused. And when a true emergency happens and they need gas, the retail store won't have any to sell.

    12. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buying stuff and reselling it at huge markups IS free enterprise. "Whatever the market will bear." is an essential part of capitalism. I've always wondered about the difference between indecent profits and price gouging...both seem identical to me.

      We've certainly had prices of gas skyrocket, week by week, for almost a year, but we didn't make any arrests or give any fines for that.

    13. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by RajivSLK · · Score: 1

      Gouging is not 100% efficient- gouger's will inevitably buy and store more than they sell and still make a profit. Furthermore gouging causes people to hoard. If I know that gas will remain a roughly the same price it is now and likely return to normal in a week or so, I am probably just going to fill the tanks in all my cars and maybe get a small jerrycan before the storm. If I think gas will rocket to $20/gallon after the storm I am going to buy a 500 gallon tank rush to the pumps and suck them dry before everybody else does.

      Our behavior will create massive shortages, nothing like what we currently see. Creating an incentive to direct supplies to a disaster area is something that government can do far more efficiently than price gouging.

      Also, we haven't even talked about those people who can't afford increased prices. Those people would certainly go without in a gouging scenario. In a large disaster I would imagine that would result in civil unrest, increase crime and violence.

    14. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes no sense. Raising the prices actually preserves the supply. In either situation, a lot of people won't be getting gas.
       
      Yes. It preserves the supply for the 1%. Fuck the poor.

    15. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, buy guns and ammo.

    16. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by alen · · Score: 0

      This is not Home Depot marking up prices

      These are scumbags going to Home Depot buying up all the generators and reselling them to people too busy cleaning out the ruins of their homes or trying to feed their kids

      Legit businesses will try to increase their supply with msrp prices at the most in times like this

    17. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you were smiling as you were typing this and thought you were being quite clever. The only thing you've done, being the average drone on Slashdot is expose how little you know about anything.
      You don't know anything about actual farm costs, amortizations and subsidies.
      You know less about legislated retail markups.
      And nothing of transportation costs or who pays for them.
      You are an average big mouth American who has spent too much time in school and not enough time doing anything useful. But you have been told that your vote counts! Which is why you keep shooting your big mouth off about things you aren't qualified to offer your priceless advice.

    18. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How dare you complain that I've gotten monopoly contracts from all the farmer, and now you can't get any!"

      "How dare you complain that I've released locusts after harvesting my farms, and created a famine!"

      Keep trying, keep trying.

      Maybe one day, you'll learn to avoid the petty fallacies.

    19. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Allowing price gouging post disaster can be very dangerous because it exacerbates any shortages. No only are people in need vying for scare resources but price gougers who buy and hold much more than they individually need in an effort to reap a profit on resale. This causes more gouging and hoarding as people become scared that prices will increase. The ultimate result is that people will go without and possibly die while resources go unused.

      Yeah, but these are also "gougers" who will sustain a 100% loss if no one can buy what they are selling. It is in the "gouger's" best interests to set a price that the market will bear, even if that price fails the criteria of "higher than RajivSLK would approve of".

      If a scalper prices his concert tickets at $100 billion each, he is going to lose whatever he invested in buying the tickets. The concert will end before he could possibly sell them - total loss. Food etc. will expire and become inedible before the "gouger" can sell them - total loss. Gasoline will either expire or we will recover from the disaster and return to normal markets before the "gouger" can sell the gas - huge loss for the "gouger". Huge losses up to 100%, and more than 100% if you include opportunity cost and wasted time, well those do not attract self-interested sellers.

      Again this is basic economics. Prices are mostly determined by two things. Supply and demand primarily, and secondarily, what the market will bear. Markets tend towards an equilibrium. "Gougers" who get too greedy end up with nothing.

      The very best way to avoid being "gouged" is to stop trying to control entire markets and everybody in them. Instead, have at least a few days of critical supplies on hand at all times. When times are good and shit is cheap, stock up. Then you can weather the storm. Only the sheeple wait until the hurricane is battering their town to think about privisions. Any extra money they pay to "gougers" is merely a Stupidity Tax, or if you like, a "this is your alternative to starving to death" tax.

      Ever read Aesop's Fables? The Ant And The Grasshopper comes to mind. Most people insist on being the grasshopper, for some confounded reason. They are not victims. They made a choice. They made a bed and now they lay in it. Stop feeling sorry for them. Honestly, you are making it worse with your misplaced compassion. These are adults. Not only is it okay to expect them to plan ahead, it's pathological not to.

    20. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by nolife · · Score: 1

      Is selling an iPhone lightning cable for double the price on CL considered illegal and gouging? Where is that line? Do these people need gas to survive this disaster? I don't think so.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    21. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like Home Depot was charging too little.

    22. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by tkrotchko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So your take is its better for no one to have generators than to have people who value the generator pay more for it?

      All you do with this kind of rational is ensure there is a generator shortage.

      I live far away from the carnage, but I have a Honda portable generator.

      I'm willing to sell it for $2,000 to anyone who wants it. For $3,000 I'll deliver.

      Am I now a scumbag?

      Or consider:

      I have a generator, but its not worth my while to sell it to you at what you consider a fair price.

      Now I'm a good guy, right?

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    23. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

      "Allowing price gouging post disaster can be very dangerous because it exacerbates any shortages."

      No, it will eventually alleviate the shortage.

      If you don't understand why, then you have no concept of supply & demand.

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    24. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of it this way. If I can buy bread at $1 a loaf where I am and sell it for $10 a loaf 12 hours away, I would be much more likely to get a car/truck and fill it with bread and drive it to the disaster area than if I could only sell the bread for $1.50.

    25. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by nolife · · Score: 2

      Assume I live in western PA where generators and gas are plentiful. I load 10 of them in my truck, fill them up with gas and drive to NJ and try to sell them. What if I want $1000 a piece for them even though I only paid $500 for them. What if I live in NJ and made a round trip to western PA instead to get them. Am I gouging or am I helping someone out? What if I try to sell them for $2000? If I get arrested for selling them for anything over $500, where is my incentive to attempt to bring supplies in?

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    26. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by khallow · · Score: 1

      You know what I believe? I believe it would be a damn shame if a person who is willing to buy gas at say $150 per gallon, couldn't buy gas at any price.

    27. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      The 9th Rule of Acquisition says "Opportunity plus instinct equals profit."
      Your moogie obviously hasn't taught you in between chewing your toothgrubs. You definitely don't have the lobes. You have been corrupted by those humon concepts like decency. The FCA liquidators are on their way to bankrupt you.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    28. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by nolife · · Score: 1

      posted before I was done..

      Let's assume Joe sees me making $500 profit and he goes to western PA and does the same thing. Now there are 20 of them, not as many people want to pay $1000 so we lower out price to $800. Jim wants in on the deal, he brings some in and now we are selling them for $650. Home depot gets wind of this, loads up a truck load of them from Arkansas and sells them for $625. They wouldn't make money selling them at $500 for the trip. At $625, they are willing to give it a try. In the end EVERYONE wins. Obviously there some more details here but there has to be an incentive for businesses and regular Joes to bring in the supplies. Without that incentive, no one gets anything. The answer? Take some personal responsibility and do some basic preparing for a disaster yourself when the prices are low. If everyone did that, there would be less shortages and panics and those that got completely wiped out and lost everything can be helped first.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    29. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah.. 500 gallon tanks are cheap, easy to source (especially on short notice), and effortless to have installed. Good luck turning a profit on a short term shortage. And then what are you going to do with the tank after the shortage? Sell it, but to who? Those with a long term need for one.. kinda have one already.

      Cheap prices encourage hoarding because.. its fucking cheap, so why the hell not. You ever seen grocery stores in areas not used to winter storms when one might hit within a day? They're empty. Because people are hoarding food they don't need, because they might need it and the food is still cheap.

    30. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      If they are artificially high, then no trade takes place, as there are other offers available. If they are artificially low (ie free gas from FEMA), then the supply rapidly runs out, then no-one has any gas, no matter how much they need it.

      Which was this guy doing? The one that hurts no-one, or the one who hurts everyone?

    31. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      You would prefer for them to have nothing, and for no-one to bring it to them. Very compassionate.

    32. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Not living on a farm" does not qualify as a disaster.

      There's free enterprise, and then there's being in the midst of massive human suffering and ripping people off in an attempt to make an obscene profit.

      If you can't see the difference, you need serious help.

    33. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So your take is its better for no one to have generators than to have people who value the generator pay more for it?

      All you do with this kind of rational is ensure there is a generator shortage.

      I live far away from the carnage, but I have a Honda portable generator.

      I'm willing to sell it for $2,000 to anyone who wants it. For $3,000 I'll deliver.

      Am I now a scumbag?

      Or consider:

      I have a generator, but its not worth my while to sell it to you at what you consider a fair price.

      Now I'm a good guy, right?

      There is the same number of generators regardless.

      Is it smart ensure only the wealthy can afford provisions in an emergency?
      That's not the time or place for a free market.

    34. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Alamais · · Score: 1

      You sure told him, Anonymous Coward! ...

    35. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or, you could, you know, not be a dick and sell it for what you paid for it when someone is dealing with an emergency. This argument doesn't hold water unless people act like the emergency is some opportunity for profit. Emergencies are opportunities to help out your fellow humans, not act like selfish pricks and take advantage of the misfortune of others.

      Your anecdotal example is also nonsense because if this kind of price gouging were allowed to occur "gougers" would buy up all the generators locally and just drive the price higher and scarcity even further causing even more harm to people in immediate need.

      Finally the shortage was not created because of some lack of a few people on Craigslist not being able to price-gouge, the shortages were caused by supply line problems. You being allowed to sell a generator for $2000 doesn't open the highways or remove downed trees.

    36. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Allowing price gouging post disaster can be very dangerous because it exacerbates any shortages.

      This is absolute nonsense. Rising prices will increase the supply. If the price of gas is $4/gal in Texas and $4/gal in NJ, then there is little incentive to drive a truck of gas from TX to NJ. But if the price is allowed to go to $8/gal, then a truck driver with a 10000 gal tanker truck can make $40,000 for a single drive. Plenty of people would jump at an opportunity like that. If there was no electricity, then flatbed trucks full of diesel generators would arriving too, as generator dealers and flatbed drivers tried to cash in on the bonanza. But this won't happen if it is illegal because the "central planners" don't approve.

    37. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Billlagr · · Score: 1

      Way too much Oo-mox

    38. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your anecdotal example is also nonsense because if this kind of price gouging were allowed to occur "gougers" would buy up all the generators locally and just drive the price higher and scarcity even further causing even more harm to people in immediate need.

      No, because the ones doing the "gouging" would be the people who already have them in stock. At least that way, retailers would have an incentive to keep a larger quantity of emergency supplies on hand. As it is, we tell those people you have to sell stuff at a price *we* consider to be reasonable, and then others buy up that stock and sell it to the less fortunate in the parking lot.

    39. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, the gas prices normally going up before a holiday weekend / other "high travel" period, and gas companies making obscene profits - you're just fine with that? But if it rains a lot the day before prices go up, that's no good? You might want to look up "double standard" there, Anonymous.

    40. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Entropius · · Score: 1

      A guy willing to buy gas at $150/gallon would be a massive boon to the poor.

    41. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Did you even read his post? There aren't the same number of generators in NYC. He said he lives far away, and is willing to bring his to NYC if paid for it. That makes there be one more generator in New York.

    42. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Entropius · · Score: 1

      He never mentioned monopolies or vandalism.

    43. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

      " not be a dick and sell it for what you paid for it when someone is dealing with an emergency."

      Its my property, and I don't really want to sell it, but if you offer me enough profit on anything I own, I will sell it.

      If you allow me to make $2K profit on the generator, it will go from sitting in my basement to keeping some house heated.

      So if you want to prosecute me or insult me because my stuff is for sale, go ahead. But I still have the generator and you don't.

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    44. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with what you're doing is basically saying that your generator isn't important enough for you to keep, but is just important enough to nakedly profiteer from it. Assuming your generator was worth $1,500 new, you're selling it used to people you know don't have the money to pay for it for three or four times it's actual current value. That just makes you a cunt, not some kind of philanthropist who is being prevented by the big bad government from giving your stuff to people who really need it.

      You are correct in that it would make a difference in how quickly those people would get a generator, but this isn't what the law is intending in this regard. It's to stop you from being a complete and utter asshole, and in that respect it does its job.

      So basically, it's up to you to decide your intent. If you want to help, help. If you want to make money, fuck off - these people deserve better.

    45. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by khallow · · Score: 1

      If you want to make money, fuck off - these people deserve better.

      You know who's getting fucked here? The people who deserve better. It's interesting how people willing kill other people for their own petty moral arguments.

    46. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you've just ensured that somebody is cold because of a misplaced sense of how to get a job done.

      My generator is still in my basement.

      You want it? $3,000.

      That's just common sense.

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    47. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting how people willing kill other people for their own petty moral arguments.

      What's so interesting about it? No really, clue me in as I consider myself an amoral sociopath. From where I'm standing, you're just as full of petty morals as the GP (in case you missed it, I'm not the same AC)

      There's no rational reason to be against people killing each other, only moral. No, spare me the rationalizations on how civilization came to be because we build things instead of killing and destroying - I'm not saying we kill each other so much we destroy all progress. *Some* killing happens. The history of civilization is full of fighting and killing. There are plenty of times when people thought killing other people is the best way to further their own civilization (and they're right about it, as the victors write the history books, and the USA for one wouldn't be around if they didn't kill enough British folks and destroy British assets for them to leave America alone)

      In fact, killing each other is a defining trait of humanity. Animals usually only kill for survival. We humans are pretty much #1 in making up all sorts of reason to kill each other.

    48. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You being allowed to sell a generator for $2000 doesn't open the highways or remove downed trees.

      If I have generators that normally sell for $$$ and they will go for $$$$ in the disaster zone, I'll load 'em up on a 4x4 truck along with some gas and chainsaws and get them there. If the law says I can't charge more than $$$ anyway, why bother?

    49. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by khallow · · Score: 1

      What's so interesting about it? No really, clue me in as I consider myself an amoral sociopath.

      It's the inherent paradox and cognitive dissonance. Something beneficial is forbidden because it somehow seems unfair.

      There's no rational reason to be against people killing each other, only moral. No, spare me the rationalizations on how civilization came to be because we build things instead of killing and destroying

      So I'm supposed to argue this one with a hand tied behind my back? I'm not that dumb. Sounds like you've already argued the point for me. Sure, once you exclude rational reasons (such as societal prohibitions against killing helping keep societies together) to be against people killing each other, then you end up with the rest.

      Sure, there are allowed means to kill. But why should I be allowed to kill when I have nothing at stake and am bothered just because something goes against my sense of fairness?

      As to the original point, what is "petty"? I consider killing innocent people because you don't want icky price gouging to be petty. Killing people to survive (especially for your society to survive) is not petty.

      In fact, killing each other is a defining trait of humanity. Animals usually only kill for survival. We humans are pretty much #1 in making up all sorts of reason to kill each other.

      No, any aggressively territorial animal does that even if survival isn't at stake. For example, a lot of social birds can be pretty nasty with gang rapes, chick kidnappings, etc. Lots of animals will kill young that aren't related to them. It's just obvious with us, because survival is so easy.

    50. Re:Cracking Down On Free Enterprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the inherent paradox and cognitive dissonance. Something beneficial is forbidden because it somehow seems unfair.

      Again, what's so interesting about that? People do it all the time. You're doing it too.

      So I'm supposed to argue this one with a hand tied behind my back? I'm not that dumb.

      Huh? I'm not asking you to argue with a hand tied behind your back. I think that says a lot in how weak your own position is and your inability to defend your own position, if you think I was able to corner you so much.

      Sounds like you've already argued the point for me.

      I didn't... you might want to get your ears checked if that's what it sounded like. I preemptively refuted the possible argument that there's a rational reason to reject people killing each other.

      Sure, once you exclude rational reasons (such as societal prohibitions against killing helping keep societies together) to be against people killing each other, then you end up with the rest.

      Which is my point: I preemptively ruled out the rational reasons as being the proper explanations, so there is no rational reason against people killing each other.

      BTW, "societal prohibitions against killing helping keep societies together" is wrong. You don't need to prohibit killing to keep societies together. Witch burning, wars, death penalties, honor killing, etc. plenty of societies are kept together (some still up to this day) while still retaining plenty of killing. The last 10 years the US has been on a witch hunt on its own and its president authorize the killing of its own citizens. That president got reelected (though it's not like the other candidate

      Sure, there are allowed means to kill. But why should I be allowed to kill when I have nothing at stake and am bothered just because something goes against my sense of fairness?

      I'm the one asking the questions here. Why SHOULDN'T you be allowed to kill? You're a free individual are you not? It's only your own moral compass that is holding you back.

      And you're wrong about having nothing at stake. Like you said, you find that "something goes against my [your] sense of fairness". That's your stake right there, and that's a stake that nobody else but yourself can take care of (I mean, do you expect me to do something about your sense of fairness? Or anybody else? Or government?)

      I'll come back to this below

      As to the original point, what is "petty"? I consider killing innocent people because you don't want icky price gouging to be petty. Killing people to survive (especially for your society to survive) is not petty.

      Wait what...? I think you missed the part where I said I'm not the other AC. I'm don't care about "icky price gouging".

      As I said below, killing for reasons other than survival is a very common and very human thing. There is no rational reason for you to consider that to be "petty". It's is your own moral compass that tells you that. YOU are the one who thinks it's somehow unfair to kill for non-survival reasons. That's YOU finding "something going against your sense of fairness"

      So you are no different than the other AC, who has his own sense of fairness, and is thus doing something about it (which may involve killing other people, which might set off YOUR sense of fairness, but that's not his problem, that's your problem)

      No, any aggressively territorial animal does that even if survival isn't at stake. For example, a lot of social birds can be pretty nasty with gang rapes, chick kidnappings, etc. Lots of animals will kill young that aren't related to them. It's just obvious with us, because survival is so easy.

      Nothing you said contradicts what I said. I said animals USUALLY only kill for survival. Never said they wouldn't kill for other reasons. The point is us humans are #1 at killing for non-survival

  3. Not quite sure how it is price gouging by fsck1nhippies · · Score: 1

    A private seller should be able to put any price they want on something. $100000 for a bubble gum wrapper if they want.

    1. Re:Not quite sure how it is price gouging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      many sellers on CS are commercial retailers(i.e. they have a license to sell goods),. i don't think they state will be propsecuting private sales

    2. Re:Not quite sure how it is price gouging by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      What they should be able and what they can legally do don't have to be the same.

      I should be able use marijuana, but legally I can not. I should be able to keep and bear a fully automatic assault rifle but legally I can not. I should be able to use the services of a prostitute, but legally I can not. I should be able to commit adultery, but legally I can not. I should be able to sell my property for an unconscionably excessive price during a declared emergency, but legally I can not.

      Now different people will disagree on which of those you "should" be able to do, but they are all against the law in New York.

    3. Re:Not quite sure how it is price gouging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or then there are the Craigslist posts where people were offering gasoline for sex. I guess whether that's a reasonable price or not depends on who responds and how good they are in bed?

    4. Re:Not quite sure how it is price gouging by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      I wonder if he will go after Ebay sellers too. After all, an auction is by definition a price maximizing enterprise.

      And I also wonder if he will go after the out-of-state people who came from hundreds of miles away, just so they could make money selling generators and hard-to-find provisions. After all, those people probably incurred significant expenses buying inventory and driving to New York on such short notice.

    5. Re:Not quite sure how it is price gouging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't want the government regulating your sale? Fine, then don't get them involved when I bring a firearm to help "negotiate" the sale price.

    6. Re:Not quite sure how it is price gouging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And I also wonder if he will go after the out-of-state people who came from hundreds of miles away, just so they could make money selling generators and hard-to-find provisions. After all, those people probably incurred significant expenses buying inventory and driving to New York on such short notice.

      How dare they do such unconscionable things like bringing in supplies to a disaster area that requires them and then expect to actually be paid for those supplies!

      Also, the datacenter that paid $9,000 for guaranteed shipments of gas for their backup generators should be branded as outlaws! How dare they hoard that gas for their selfish generator needs!

    7. Re:Not quite sure how it is price gouging by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

      The state has no obligation to stop your "negotiation".

      They may prosecute for your actions, but there is no legal obligation the police have to stop you from actually committing a crime, even if they know a crime is in progress.

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    8. Re:Not quite sure how it is price gouging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess that would depend on whether or not the government has been taxing them so that they can provide those services.

  4. Or how about this... by sconeu · · Score: 1

    Looking for gasoline, post-refinery-fire that is excessively expensive, and consists of price gouging....

    90% of the people in CA would loveit.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:Or how about this... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Haha I was thinking something similar. They're after price gougers in the aftermath of a natural disaster, but the everyday gougers walk free.

      Some nanny state.

    2. Re:Or how about this... by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      The day after power was lost here in Long Island, there were guys selling 5 gallon cans of gas for $50, and people were buying!

    3. Re:Or how about this... by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      The outcome will be the same, exactly nothing. This is just bluster, these guys aren't really going to do anything.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    4. Re:Or how about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We pay $10 a gallon for "gas" every day, you insensitive clod

      Signed, Great(est) Britain.

    5. Re:Or how about this... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      That's less than double the regular price around here. Expensive, sure, but 'unconscionable gouging' doesn't really fit.

    6. Re:Or how about this... by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      No offense meant, guys. Here in the U.S., a 5 gallon can of gas should cost less than $25.00, we are spoiled here. That's the reality though, and here it is considered 'gouging'.

    7. Re:Or how about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The day after power was lost here in Long Island, there were guys selling 5 gallon cans of gas for $50, and people were buying!

      Well 5 gallon gas cans seem to sell from $15 to $30 on Amazon depending on quality and features (ex no-spill). Were those good cans or dented rusted 1970s era cans?

    8. Re:Or how about this... by causality · · Score: 1

      Haha I was thinking something similar. They're after price gougers in the aftermath of a natural disaster, but the everyday gougers walk free. Some nanny state.

      An emergency situation lowers the barriers to entry; now anyone with a little foresight who can plan ahead (a minority, but anyone who wants to can do it) can do it. But it's spontaneous and it isn't business as usual. So it stands out.

      Everyday gougers tend to be politically connected. They tend to have lobbyists. The very finest example is the RIAA - once an initial investment is made, their cost to make perfect copies is marginal at most. The rest is entirely artificial scarcity. So they made certain to acquire political clout. So not only are they left alone by the law, they are actively assisted by it. That's the difference.

      This attorney general is essentially pandering to a popular cause. The problem is not that some are profiting by delivering supplies purchased at the very last possible minute. No, the problem is that so many people wait until the very last minute to prepare for such an event. Otherwise there would be little to no demand for such services.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    9. Re:Or how about this... by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      The day after power was lost here in Long Island, there were guys selling 5 gallon cans of gas for $50, and people were buying!

      Well 5 gallon gas cans seem to sell from $15 to $30 on Amazon depending on quality and features (ex no-spill). Were those good cans or dented rusted 1970s era cans?

      People weren't buying the can, they were paying for the gas IN the can.

    10. Re:Or how about this... by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Clearly you should be complaining about price gouging. Oh wait, it's because of government taxes, and the government has all your guns. Whoops.

    11. Re:Or how about this... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "This attorney general is essentially pandering to a popular cause."

      Well... given that, (shifting gears here), it's still a bad thing because pandering to "The Cause of the Day" is the worst kind of politics, and the source of much of our recent loss of freedom... regardless of the actual motive of the panderers.

      I know there is a good historical quote about this but I did not find it after a short look. I will have to hunt it up for my collection.

    12. Re:Or how about this... by causality · · Score: 1

      "This attorney general is essentially pandering to a popular cause."

      Well... given that, (shifting gears here), it's still a bad thing because pandering to "The Cause of the Day" is the worst kind of politics, and the source of much of our recent loss of freedom... regardless of the actual motive of the panderers. I know there is a good historical quote about this but I did not find it after a short look. I will have to hunt it up for my collection.

      I like reading your posts and have generally felt like they were worthwhile. I would enjoy seeing this quote if you manage to find it.

      And I know what you mean about having a collection. My quotes file is a plain text file over 55k in size. Whenever I encounter a good one, I add it to that file. Over the years it's grown.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  5. What about Bloomberg? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why aren't they subpoena'ing Bloomberg, who set up much-needed generators for a marathon rather than to help the people who needed it?

    -- Ethanol-fueled

    1. Re:What about Bloomberg? by Bigby · · Score: 1

      What about the media, that had the equipment, know-how, and generators to help people? Instead they just stood there and talked to a camera.

    2. Re:What about Bloomberg? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they don't call him king bloomberg for nothing.
      i'll be happy if i never set foot in NY again.

      the only thing good about the entire state is the Adirondacks.

    3. Re:What about Bloomberg? by hawguy · · Score: 2

      Why aren't they subpoena'ing Bloomberg, who set up much-needed generators for a marathon rather than to help the people who needed it?

      -- Ethanol-fueled

      Actually, I think it was the private race organizers that had the generators.

      But even if they turned the generators over to the city, what would the city do with them? Just parking a generator in front of an apartment building does nothing to help the residents. Do you just let residents run extension cords out their windows?

      Was there an actual shortage of mid-range generators that could be used safely? (I'm not talking about a 1KW generator that someone may put on his balcony, fueled by carrying cans of gasoline through the livingroom, no city emergency services agency would condone a setup like that). Possibly some multi-megawatt generators could have been used to light entire buildings, as long as electricians could provide adequate connectivity, but there's still a safety issue, temporary power is hard to do right, especially in a disaster when you don't have access to all of the electrical supplies you may need.

    4. Re:What about Bloomberg? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Because that isn't selling something at an excessive price. Just because I'm not allowed to sell you something at an excessive price doesn't mean i have to give it to you.

    5. Re:What about Bloomberg? by Fast+Thick+Pants · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think it was the private race organizers that had the generators.

      Yes it was, until they were shamed by the New York Post. They suggested that they be donated or at least lent to the recovery effort in some way. Even though the race was cancelled, the generators still just sat there in the park. Bloomberg, as a mayor and billionaire, is the kind of person who probably could have arranged for the generators to be commandeered, but he didn't, and neither did anyone else. (I'm not judging, especially because there's probably more to the story.)

      Do you just let residents run extension cords out their windows?

      Sure, why not? They would also be handy for running elevators, powering the pumps for the plumbing in buildings big enough that higher floors have no water pressure, lighting and heating for the lobby at least...

    6. Re:What about Bloomberg? by hawguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, I think it was the private race organizers that had the generators.

      Yes it was, until they were shamed by the New York Post.

      Actually, I think it was the Mayor who wanted the race to go on, they just went ahead with his wishes

      Do you just let residents run extension cords out their windows?

      Sure, why not? They would also be handy for running elevators, powering the pumps for the plumbing in buildings big enough that higher floors have no water pressure, lighting and heating for the lobby at least...

      Why not? Because having 100 residents run 100 extension cords out their windows to the streetside generator is street is unsafe. Even ignoring the overloading "Look mom, we can plug in the refrigerator, this space heater *and* my hair dryer" issues, the generator is not on the same ground plane as the building so there's an additional shock hazard unless you get an electrician to ground the generator to the building ground (and possibly installing a local grounding rod at the generator, depending on local regulations)

      But if they wanted to power the elevators, it's not as simple as just buying a long extension cord at Home Depot. The elevators in my building run on 480V 3 Phase power and are on a 150A breaker, so they may need a few hundred feet of 00 or 000 gauge cable just to hook into the electrical panel. I don't know if it's even legal to run unprotected 480V cables on the floor, or to run an energized panel with the covers off if there's no cable inlet to hook up the cables.

      And, of course, you need electricians to do all of this work - electricians that could be working on repairing damage that's preventing entire buildings from being energized instead of hooking up temporary power for an elevator that might be used for 24 hours before power comes back up.

    7. Re:What about Bloomberg? by causality · · Score: 1

      Because that isn't selling something at an excessive price. Just because I'm not allowed to sell you something at an excessive price doesn't mean i have to give it to you.

      While technically correct, you miss the entire point. Doing that does seem popular around here. It's like the average Slashdotter thinks that missing the point entirely is the most effective way to disagree with it. Well, that's not so. Moving on ...

      The point is, great concern about whether two adults should be engaged in a voluntary market transaction is not so different from concern about whether two adults should be engaged in a charitable donation.

      Both involve an active micromanagement of the financial affairs of people who are not using force and not using fraud. The principles which justify one could easily be used to justify the other. If you believe those principles are valid, then the news crew should have been forced to yield their generators to people who needed it. If you believe those principles are invalid, then the government has no business concerning itself with what the price of a market should be.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    8. Re:What about Bloomberg? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      The law says one thing is illegal and the other things is legal. The morality is irrelevant.

    9. Re:What about Bloomberg? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      If the grid had been designed for it, it'd not be difficult to stick a big 'emergency power' socket at substations so a generator truck can just patch in safely. But that would require planning for disasters years in advance, and someone would have to pay for it.

    10. Re:What about Bloomberg? by Entropius · · Score: 1

      The race organizers (and the people talking to them) are idiots. They should have realized that they'd not be running another race in NY for a while and didn't really need the generators, and sold them at a 20% (or 50%, or whatever) markup to someone who wanted them, confident in their ability to buy more once stuff got back to normal. More people have generators, and the guys running the race make a profit off of their extra stuff that someone else wanted.

    11. Re:What about Bloomberg? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      The race organizers (and the people talking to them) are idiots. They should have realized that they'd not be running another race in NY for a while and didn't really need the generators, and sold them at a 20% (or 50%, or whatever) markup to someone who wanted them, confident in their ability to buy more once stuff got back to normal. More people have generators, and the guys running the race make a profit off of their extra stuff that someone else wanted.

      I think the generators in question were large rented generators, so the race organizers probably could not legally turn them over to someone else. The government could commandeer them, but most rental contracts won't allow you to sub-rent the equipment.

      But even if they were owned generators, selling used generators for a 20% - 50% markup probably constitutes price gouging.

    12. Re:What about Bloomberg? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Not when you're discussing the morality of the legal situation.

    13. Re:What about Bloomberg? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      "Why aren't they subpoena'ing Bloomberg" is not a question of morals. You subpoena about things which are against the law, not about things which are immoral.

    14. Re:What about Bloomberg? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if the law says all Jews have to be starved to death at the concentration camps, the morality is irrelevant as well? There should be some point where the law ends and morality takes over. Welcome to the Nazi camp.

    15. Re:What about Bloomberg? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      You can't issue subpoena for things you don't like that are legal. Why is this such a hard concept?

    16. Re:What about Bloomberg? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      You're correct. I missed that the thread had forked somehow.

  6. Zero tolerance... by langelgjm · · Score: 2

    How horrible that all those people were forced to buy from Craigslist sellers at excessively high prices...

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  7. Price Gouging Is News For Nerds?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this story on slashdot?

    There's not tech aspects or any geek relevance whatsoever.

    1. Re:Price Gouging Is News For Nerds?? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Slow news day.

    2. Re:Price Gouging Is News For Nerds?? by killkillkill · · Score: 1

      the New York State Attorney General has subpoenaed Craigslist, demanding that the site identify more than 100 sellers

      Rather appropriate for the YRO section that has been on Slashdot as long as I've been a reader

    3. Re:Price Gouging Is News For Nerds?? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The net been up but no gas, people using tech to seek/buy/trade/the comments about what the 'gas' can be traded for .... the type of person and picture needed to even be considered in some listings.
      People boasting they have deep supply lines and saved up supply (not a person with a few cans at home ie commercial ownership with clear local/federal laws in time of need). They kept gas back for 'special' deals for a subset of woman and not for "cash".
      So you have the net been used, images having to be sent up a powered telco network in a zone with not much power and then the 'price' or 'act' needed to ensure you get a can of gas.
      The legal, moral, networking and 'alternative' payments just after a few days of power/gas shortages are very telling. US law enforcement is still working in the areas, ip's been collected and tracked. Yet the ads read like a few months have gone by and its a legal free for all.
      US infrastructure is unable to cope or help? Just in time computer controlled supply lines have been pushed to their limits with no local supply even with days of storm warnings...
      Local gas stations in a storm/flood zone where not required to be fitted with backup on site wired in power?
      Lots of news for nerds and the US press I would say.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  8. What's wrong ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this simply capitalism ?

    And what's wrong with that ? Unless someone is saying they desparately need a certain type of medicine to survive and the seller is saying "OK, $1million"

    1. Re:What's wrong ? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      This sounds like pharmaceutical companies in the USA.

    2. Re:What's wrong ? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      If your not young, female, pretty, of the correct race, able to send a photo and willing to engage in a list of 'acts' .... NO gas for you.
      Most parts of the world would offer gas to *anyone* who waits in line - with a police office keeping order until the tanks are empty for a fair cash payment.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  9. 50 busy AGs come Christmas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because I'm 99.9999% sure that WiiU and such will be hard to find on the shelves but the asshole 'price gougers' will have plenty of 2-3x MSRP units on eBay and Craigslist for us.

    1. Re:50 busy AGs come Christmas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A wiiU isn't exactly an emergency need.

  10. Waste of time for government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The power companies have monopolies and don't upgrade their power lines and infrastructure. Areas where people pay enormous taxes and utility bills are approaching two weeks without power. But the power companies are doing things slowly and cheaply because they have geographic monopolies. The government has no ability to refuel gas stations after nearly two weeks of no new gas truck deliveries to stations. Staten Island, Long Island, and New Jersey are devastated.

    But Manhattan is fine and the city government wanted to run the marathon. Now they are worried about 100 Craigslist postings, many of them are fake like the "will trade blowjobs for gas" posts that are clearly there for laughs, instead of the hundreds of thousands being fucked with by the monopolistic power companies.

  11. Grammar? by SBJ95 · · Score: 1

    Doesn't anybody check the articles for grammar anymore?

    1. Re:Grammar? by killkillkill · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that grammar was ever checked.

  12. In a free market, high demand means high prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Does Craigslist hold a monopoly on advertising emergency supplies for consumers? The last I heard, sellers can charge whatever price they want to, so long as (1) they're not preventing their competitors from selling in the same market and (2) they're not colluding with their competitors to raise the price.

    The N.Y. AG knows this. This is nothing but a political stunt.

    1. Re:In a free market, high demand means high prices by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Read the ads, its not just 'sellers' - its people who have held back bulk supply for sex.
      ie not just a random person who has a few extra cans at home and wants a deal.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  13. Supply and demand by JBMcB · · Score: 5, Informative

    If I remember the first thing we learned in Macro 101 correctly, if supply goes down, price remains the same and demand remains the same or increases, you run out of supply pretty quickly.

    If you increase prices, you can afford to resell more expensive gas, trucking it in from further out of state.

    What would you rather have: expensive gas, or cheap but non-existent gas?

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Supply and demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems they'd prefer to have super long gas lines where after waiting for hours you discover they've run out, instead of paying the fair market price for gas. Do people really think there time is so worthless? Do they really think a lottery is the best way to choose who needs gas the most? *sigh* Worse, some of the examples of price gauging were doubling in price. If you let people sell generators for more, they might stock up on them before the storm and you'd have more on hand.

    2. Re:Supply and demand by sjames · · Score: 2

      That's not gouging, that's just costs resulting in a higher price. Gouging is when you increase your margin (sometimes by orders of magnitude) in order to take advantage of people being desperate and shell shocked. It results in miss-allocation of resources.

      They're not talking about $10 or $15/gallon gas trucked in, they're talking about $120/gallon gas.

    3. Re:Supply and demand by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      No-one is arguing that goods are more difficult to come by in an emercency, and suppliers often have higher costs when source goods. It is normal and reasonable to then pass those costs on to the consumers.

      The issue is when the price increase far outweighs the increased costs, and becomes "'unconscionably excessive". Given the emergency nature, this is hugely immoral.

    4. Re:Supply and demand by explosivejared · · Score: 2

      The interesting thing about this whole episode is that, despite no obvious interventions by the state, the market itself failed to raise prices to clear the market.

      In shortages like this, the logistics of gasoline make it difficult to really up capacity even by significant price raises. The gasoline market is highly segmented. It's not very easy to divert supplies from elsewhere and ship gasoline in the quantities needed, unlike with things like food and water.

      What "price gouging" can do, however, is eliminate hoarding and frivolous use. $8.00 a gallon really makes you think twice whether you need that generator running 24 hours a day. That can help to calm down the shortage.

      The puzzling thing is that gas stations seem to be much to afraid of being seen reaping a windfall profit by raising prices. So instead, we get lines miles long, essentially a gasoline lottery.

      --
      I got a catholic block.
    5. Re:Supply and demand by Bigby · · Score: 2

      It was stupid. I am in Jersey City. One of the most affected gas shortage areas.

      If I owned a gas station, I would have turned it into a "club" gas station. I would have charged $50 to enter my property for the right to buy gas. Then charge normal price. Price gouging is the best way to handle the situation. Like you said, it would have made all the suppliers send gas to the area, because it would have been more profitible for them. But instead you enforce this idea of "government only" solutions: price controls and forced supply lines. We always want someone to get dictatorial over it.

      For me, it was simple. Don't use gas. No one here was going to work anyway. You couldn't. And with no heat, you used some extra blankets. Boo hoo. I even have a 20 degree rated sleeping bag that I didn't even need to bring out.

      For those not prepared. Move if you aren't prepared for stuff like this. The Federal government and other governments don't need to be subsidizing this area. I don't want someone in Kansas paying for stuff in NYC, just like I don't want to pay for something in Kansas. You are only distorting the market, enticing people to move to disaster prone areas, and causing more deaths.

    6. Re:Supply and demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't even just talking about $120/gallon gas.

      They're talking about $100/gallon empty gas containers.

    7. Re:Supply and demand by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the toiletpaper and gas shortages in the Soviet Union; often times the only way to get the stuff was on the black market...

    8. Re:Supply and demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the price isn't right, then someone else will come in and undercut you. This is one of the most basic tenants of Free Market Economics.

      Offering something for a very high price doesn't hurt ANYONE. It can only HELP someone who REALLY REALLY needs it.

    9. Re:Supply and demand by tmosley · · Score: 1

      That immorality insures continued supply. Human beings are motivated by profits, primarily. If there is a lot of money to be made, it will make people get off their asses and get to providing. Stupid laws like this discourage people from doing so, meaning that only those who skirt the law will fill the void, raising prices and introducing violence, fraud, etc.

      You have to understand that everything you think you know about morality is just plain wrong. Backwards. Destructive. But who cares, at least they get to go to Heaven (lol).

    10. Re:Supply and demand by sjames · · Score: 0

      It DOES hurt people. It hurts people who can't afford the price. It hurts people who could have put it to good use but died while it sat unbought on the shelf.

      Perhaps you didn't notice that the market was under water.

      Perhaps we should allow it to descend even further into anarchy, hand it over and we won't string you up as a warning to others!

    11. Re:Supply and demand by tofubeer · · Score: 1

      Since when did morality enter into the Free Market? To be fair though, I'll assume for a second that none of the people complaining about the high prices were also complaining about "socialism" during the election. Because if they are not in favoud or the "socialist" policies then they should have zero issue with the market setting the price...

    12. Re:Supply and demand by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      Maybe the people you live with are motvated by profits, but not where I come from. I'd rather live in a community where (gasp!!) poeple actually care about each other. Oh the horror!!

      Religion or not, selfish attitudes like yours make the world a worse place.

    13. Re:Supply and demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not talking about $10 or $15/gallon gas trucked in, they're talking about $120/gallon gas.

      There is a simple solution to that: don't buy at $120/gallon and you won't get "gouged".

    14. Re:Supply and demand by sjames · · Score: 1

      That sounds just grand. Don't deplete the supply and try to resell it for $120 and you won't get strung up.

      Rent seeking is bad mmmmm'kay.

    15. Re:Supply and demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I like my gas in my tank as it is, but if someone really needs it so much that they will pay 120$/gallon for it, well OK then, they can have it and I'll just do without." Yeah, that's really evil. Then you say maybe these people are actually stockpiling ahead of time in order to sell expensively when there is a shortage. If that is true then the gas they are selling would simply not have been available otherwise, so they aren't taking anything from anyone, they are making an additional source of gas available. The alternative is not cheap gas, the alternative is no gas. What should ideally happen is that LOTS of people would be doing what these gougers are doing, at which point there would be no shortage at all and prices would not rise.

    16. Re:Supply and demand by udachny · · Score: 0

      So if somebody has a second car, the car has a full tank of gas and a disaster hits. You would prevent that person from setting up a craigslist ad selling gas from his car at whatever price he wants. Hell, the price for gas could be 120 dollars in 10 years anyway. How about 1000 dollars per gallon?

      There is no such thing as 'price gouging', it's political nonsense (which you are engaged in here on regular basis as well).

      A person can put an ad up to sell gas at 1000000 dollars per gallon. You don't like the price? Don't buy.

      No price controls work, preventing people from putting ads on craigslist is the same exact thing as telling employers that they cannot put up ads with job offers below minimum wage.

      You don't like the wage? Don't take the job. You think the job will be offered at a higher wage if government declares the minimum wage above what the job offers? Most likely it won't be. If an employer is willing to hire 100 people at 4$/hour, if you force minimum wage to 8$ per hour the employer may only hire half of those people (at best). It's not like an employer has unlimited savings and it's not like every position is actually worth that money. There used to be plenty of jobs that are no longer done by people in USA (who is checking your oil at a gas pump? Is anybody bagging those groceries? Is anybody picking up the phone?)

      Instead the positions will be automated, outsourced or simply would not be filled. And so there is no grocery bagger and nobody is checking your oil and windshield washing fluid, because some asshole declares it to be an illegal activity, to post a job offer at a price that he deems to be too low to be offered.

      Same thing: a price is 'gouging' or the wage is must be 'minimum', all it does it prevents 2 private parties from coming to a mutually beneficial agreement and some needs to unmet, some efficiencies are not realized and some asshole in an office gets to put it into an election ad.

    17. Re:Supply and demand by sjames · · Score: 1

      If the price won't rise, wouldn't your first statement suggest it'll just sit in your tank?

      It's more like someone jumps in and buys up all they can for $10/gallon, then (having created an artificial shortage) they can sell it for $120.

      That is called rent seeking, and it is absolutely a good idea to regulate it.

      Then, there's also moral and ethical considerations. I realize that psychopathy is the new black, but it's bad for society as a whole.

    18. Re:Supply and demand by sjames · · Score: 1

      Utter claptrap. If there is no such thing as gouging, why is there a word for it? Why are people being prosecuted for it?

      If you want to live in a dystopia, be my guest, but here in the civilized world we have laws against some of the more sociopathic behaviors. In times past, the answer was simple, "don't want your head shot off of your neck? Then don't gouge during a disaster". These days we prefer a somewhat more civilized approach involving prosecution.

    19. Re:Supply and demand by udachny · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as gouging, the word for it comes from political nonsense and complete misunderstanding of economics.

      There is also no god, but there is a word.

      There are also no witches, but there is a word.

      There are also no unicorns, but hey, we have a word.

    20. Re:Supply and demand by mark-t · · Score: 1

      And running out of goods because people are hoarding them so that there isn't any left at *ANY* price hurts everybody.... and takes a longer time to recover from than if the price is raised high enough to keep supplies in place at a time when the natural compulsion is going to be to hoard anyways, long enough for it to be replenished.

    21. Re:Supply and demand by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      The issue is when the price increase far outweighs the increased costs, and becomes "'unconscionably excessive".

      The problem with this argument is that it's based on a very fundamental misunderstanding of economics: the belief that price is based on cost, that is, that production/manufacturing comes first, then the price. This isn't so. Never was, and never will. Price is based solely on a single factor: how much potential purchasers are willing to pay. If the willingness to pay is higher than the producing cost, then the product gets produced and sold, otherwise it doesn't. So, the actual, real world sequence is this: price first, cost second. Or, in other words, the exact reversal of what we intuitively tend to think. What shouldn't come as a surprise: in almost all fields out there, things tend to be different in reality from what our intuition dictates us. No matter what your senses tell you, it's the Earth that moves around the Sun, not the Sun around the Earth.

      That said, the situation with prices in a context of emergency is quite simple: if you have 1,000 of something that you want to sell, but 10,000 people wanting it, you can either sell it to the first 1,000 arriving, or you can tell those 10,000 to bid for it, with the 1,000 most willing to get it actually getting it. In both cases, 9,000 people will end up without any of it no matter what. The end result being the same, why exactly is the "queue method" the morally correct one? Why is favoring those who had the luck of getting there earlier more moral than favoring those who had the luck of having more in their wallets? Luck by luck, what makes one better than the other?

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    22. Re:Supply and demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "if supply goes down, price remains the same and demand remains the same or increases"

      I think you meant:

      "if supply goes down, AND THE price remains the same and demand remains the same or increases"

      Otherwise it's easy to think that you meant to imply that if the supply goes down, the price remains the same. (You probably can't even understand what I mean because you apparently don't think the words 'and the' were necessary in the first place...)

    23. Re:Supply and demand by sjames · · Score: 1

      Gouging can be seen as a form of rent seeking based on the sevcere disruption of the market caused by a disaster.

      Anyone with a more than rudimentary knowledge of economics will recognize the problem with rent seeking.

    24. Re:Supply and demand by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm REALLY going to need a citation there. Note that some rise in price that reflects the difficulty of bringing in a supply is not seen as gouging (or at least it doesn't rise to a level that will be prosecuted). It's just when the margins rise by orders of magnitude.

      Typically, gouging is where the seller raises prices WAY above where he would actually be willing to sell based on his knowledge of the buyer's desperation and the disruption of the market.

    25. Re:Supply and demand by udachny · · Score: 0

      'rent seeking', the favorite words of the inflation happy, government touting idiots. "Rent seeking" means applying savings to the market and getting a return on that investment.

      Just like the case of a person with a second car and a full tank of gas in it, the gas is his savings, the market is the disaster area and the return on investment is the profit that he makes in case he sells the gas.

      So now you would come alone and punish the guy with the savings, you'd call him a 'rent seeker' and I suppose you'd use legal system against him, because somehow it should be obvious that his actions, of finding another voluntary side to complete the transaction is 'immoral' in your eyes.

      All you are talking about is greed, and it's NOT the person who sells the gas that is greedy, it's you.

      There was an AC in this story, saying that he'd rather have no gas himself as long as nobody else could get gas at higher price and as long as nobody would make a profit on a transaction like that.

      Now that is telling. There is no honor among thieves and the real thieves are people who want to steal other people's ability to live freely and trade with others freely.

      You call people with savings 'rent seekers' as if it is a pejorative of some sort. So the people who saved are bad people, but the people who haven't saved and have nothing are the virtuous ones.

      So the people who create jobs by using their savings and risking their savings and time to start an enterprise are greedy profiteers.

      The people who vote as a mob to elect politicians that promise to take from the ones that have more and give to the mob, those are good, honorable people. And those are the same type of people who'd say: if I cannot have it, then nobody should have it.

      As I said, no honor among thieves.

    26. Re:Supply and demand by sjames · · Score: 1

      That is NOT what rent seeking means though it can be an example of it. If you are missing fundamentals like that, it's no wonder you have such whacked out ideas about commerce.

    27. Re:Supply and demand by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      Where did that guy get the $10/gallon gas, I'll pay $12/gallon and sell it for $110.

      Now I'll be rich and that fool will be bankrupt.

      Rinse and Repeat this algorithm...

      What happens?

    28. Re:Supply and demand by sjames · · Score: 1

      That 'fool' doesn't go bankrupt, he just doesn't profit handsomely from the misery of others. You get to explain yourself to a judge and you better hope he's in a good mood.

    29. Re:Supply and demand by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      Wrong... Without government interference, the 'fool' MUST either lower his prices to be competitive with the market, or FORGO otherwise available profits, so he will go bankrupt.

      Without government interference the prices will find the point where sale prices == buy prices and maximum goods will be transferred to where the economy can allocated them most efficiently. You know, economics... that's what you're not getting.

      With government interference, you end up with no one being able to buy or sell at ANY price. Some people who could have helped are now in prison, and everyone else starves.

      You can't legislate prices. You couldn't cap gasoline at $0.10/gallon in a normal situation and expect it to be distributed, neither can you cap it at any price in an emergency... If it was capped the same as anywhere else, well fuck you, I'm selling it where the sky is sunny, the roads aren't blocked and the people aren't dangerously desperate. You might think this is better somehow.

      Instead of the government locking people up because they are willing to take a risk and find a price they can personally supply at... Hurting everyone and helping no one. Why wouldn't you have the government come in and simply undercut these people? Have the army come in and sell gas for $0.10/gallon? That would show those fools who bought it at more than $10/gallon. At least now someone would be concerning themselves with supplying gas and not just locking people up.

      I guess capitalism is stupid.

    30. Re:Supply and demand by sjames · · Score: 1

      Government interference? WHAT government interference, it was the middle of a natural disaster! You seem to be one of those people who thinks that but for government interference God would fling open the gates and create heaven on Earth, but you do your cause no good when you declare that government interference was the problem in the middle of a temporary anarchy.

      In fact, those gougers could have profited just fine at $10 or even as high as $15, but instead chose to profit from the misery of others (and thus, increase misery). They took advantage of a temporary failure of the social order ( due to the storm) in the same way looters take advantage and with no better ethics. Throughout history, that has been seen as unacceptable behavior.

      Your 'ideal world' sounds like an amoral hell hole filled with hucksters and cheats, quite frankly.

    31. Re:Supply and demand by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      Government interference in the market... Trying to cap prices artificially through the threat of force. I am not saying everything would be perfect without government interference, I am saying it is counter productive and the outcomes are actually worse.

      No, looting is theft... Market transactions are voluntary agreements between individuals. It might not be pretty, but price signals are what drive markets... High prices mean significantly higher supply, which gets everything moving again quickly, which causes prices to come back down much faster.

      Even if they could make a profit at $15, if demand outstrips supply, it won't be long before they run out and can no longer supply... Its called market price, the price the market will bear... To low, no supply, to high, no demand.

      The problem you have, is that you think people are forced to pay these high prices simply because someone is offering them, and that simply isn't true. If you can't get it cheaper anywhere else, you go without, but someone who needs it, and is willing to pay that, CAN get hold of it and put it to good use (using it to make more money running their grocery store business for example)... With price caps, all the food goes off as the grocer cannot get the gasoline to run his generator at ANY price because people who don't need it will be the first to buy it at the cheap prices and the seller will run out.

      Can I offer my time for labour at $1M/day? I think so... maybe someone else will think so, but probably not and no one will demand my labour at those rates. I can't force them to take my labour... damn would be nice if I could though.

      What if I capped your price of labour to $0.01/day with threat of prison if you ask/get more? Would you bother going to work? Suddenly, everyone wants you to work for them (at that rate)... but supply has disappeared.

      So, instead, you keep your gasoline, because you can't get what it is WORTH. Its worth changes because, shit, everything is now fucked up... but if you don't let its new worth be reflected in its price, its going to be misallocated. It now goes to my good friend to power his generator so we can watch comedy on television and not the grocer to keep his food cold for hundreds of people. The difference between price and value means we would allocate it based on socio-political value (friends of friends) rather than market value, its still worth the same.

      That's a bad thing.

      Also, surprised you think its better just to let people go without than have the government supply critical needs in a time of crisis... This seems like a far better solution. Capitalism, underwritten with a strong social safety net. No need for punitive solutions.

      Lastly, I am of course, not referring to fraud here... As long as the transactions are honest and voluntary, price should not be anyone's business except buyer/seller.

      BTW: I'll sell you a gallon of petrol for $1M... heck, I'll even deliver. Got a problem with that? You might think that's nor 'fair', but just wait till peak oil hits, and that might be a bargain. You can't alter value/worth with government decree, only price...

    32. Re:Supply and demand by sjames · · Score: 1

      Your failing is that you believe you have absolutely no ethical obligations whatsoever under any circumstance. That is, you are amoral (at best).

      This is about a market that has been totally derailed by an external force for a short time and about a few who wanted to capitalize on that misery and prolong it rather than doing their part to get things back to functional again.

      The problem is that these bad actors snap up available supplies (thus reducing supply) until they can charge outrageous prices. That is, it is rent seeking. It is market manipulation rather than participating in a market.

    33. Re:Supply and demand by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      No, the market hasn't been derailed, the relative VALUE and WORTH of everything has CHANGED due to CIRCUMSTANCE... exactly what the market is designed for.

      Capitalism is a mechanism that allocates resources efficiently based on price... those people temporarily increase the price, which increases the INCENTIVES for others to supply, which increases supply, which fixes things quicker and brings the costs back down faster as the situation more rapidly improves.

      If they can 'snap up available supplies', it means that they saw that the VALUE of what they bought up was greater than the PRICE they could purchase for, and they can then sell for a profit. Maybe its their last 10 gallons, maybe its just as difficult for them to buy as anyone else.

      If someone could buy up EVERY item in the ENTIRE world and hoard it, you might just have a point... but they can't... which means they will have COMPETITION... and CANNOT sell at arbitrarily high prices. The system works, BECAUSE it is self correcting... take away the self correction, you end up with no supply (on the buyer side, and empty wharehouses with capped prices), or sitting on a worthless stockpile of crap (seller side, with competition).

      No one is buying up all the gasoline in the world.

      Quite honestly, if you aren't down in the streets working purely voluntarily for the good of the community, you are (in your evaluation) an amoral hypocrite who seems to have no ethical obligations whatsoever. You are effectively hoarding your labour, holding out for a better price. Why aren't you supplying these poor bastards with fuel? Instead you want other people with guns to lock up those that are.

    34. Re:Supply and demand by sjames · · Score: 1

      I don't live there, so I wasn't in a position to do very much. When we have storms HERE, I do help out.

      UI sincerely hope you one day find yourself choking and don't have the $100 the guy next to you wants to perform the Heimlich. Then just as you start to black out, someone does it because it's the right thing to do. Apparently, nothing less than a brush with death will allow you to expand your thinking.

    35. Re:Supply and demand by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't drive down there to deliver fuel for $120/gallon? See how that could work?

      You can still drive down there and deliver fuel for market prices you hypocritical selfish cunt. That's the whole point... with enough incentives, people would do that, even if they lived FAR FAR AWAY and are normally useless lazy assholes. You are the problem, not the solution.

      Dude, this is micro-economics were are talking about... I don't advocate it because its selfish, I advocate it because its outcomes are better than the alternative. It USES greed to deliver VALUE.

      Luckily for me, my friends value my life even if I am penniless (high socio-political worth). You see, you can't change the VALUE of anything, only the price!

    36. Re:Supply and demand by sjames · · Score: 1

      I guess your friends must be fools. You seem to believe only a fool would provide a service at cost.

    37. Re:Supply and demand by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      You never studied even the lowest levels of economics have you?

      Maybe my friends are fools, what does it matter? Its like the guy who gifts the gas he has to run a generator to watch television at his mates house rather than getting it to the grocers, its a socio-political exchange of value rather than monetary exchange. I already said why that's bad, because the value goes to the connected, not those that can use it well.

      > You seem to believe only a fool would provide a service at cost.

      But you AREN'T willing to provide those services, and you want to IMPRISON anyone who would do so for a profit. At $120, there would be NO SHORTAGE of gasoline, just a shortage of those willing to pay that much --- which is a good thing when it is in short supply. It means timely delivery of gasoline and then the price drops as supply overshoots demand.

      Its more like, you see someone choking who has $100, and you imprison the only guy who was willing to help, while you still stand there like some useless turd and feel smug that no one made a profit while the guy dies.

      Go FUCKING HELP or admit that your philosophy is broken... cause you AREN'T WILLING TO HELP!!!

    38. Re:Supply and demand by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Right, so where would you prefer to live, Guilded Age America, where everyone was motivated by profit, or a Medieval papal state, where those who rules loved you so much they wold set you on fire to save you from eternal damnation?

      I like how you value sentiment over results. What was the road to hell paved in again?

    39. Re:Supply and demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      micro, not macro.

  14. Rationing by price rises is desireable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Idiots.

    Price rises in time of shortage cause limited supplies to be distributed to those who really actually do REALLY need them, because those with lesser needs just won't pay the inflated prices.

    Adam Smith wrote about this in Wealth of Nations - back in the late 1700s! he spoke abouy grain prices rising in time of shortage, and the complaints the government made about it - when in fact by rising prices, they caused consumption to decline *gradually*, rather than keeping prices the same such that consumption remains unchanged and then after six months there's NOTHING LEFT.

    1. Re:Rationing by price rises is desireable by aXis100 · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. If someone earns $1M a year and wants to pay $100 a gallon for gas for his sports car, is his need greater than the guy who earns $30k a year and wants to drive his family to work? The remaining goods go to those who can afford it, need has very little to do with it.

      Of course prices are affected by supply in an emercency, the issue here is deliberate price hikes far beyond the increased supply cost, made specifically to profit from someone's hardship. It's immoral - in a fucked up capitalist kind of way - thought it may be a bit too "left" for many Americans to understand.

      Not sure if you realise but the rest of the world is quite disgusted by the way America treats its less fortunate. Katrina was very telling, and there's aspects of this disaster that are similar.

    2. Re:Rationing by price rises is desireable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > If someone earns $1M a year and wants to pay $100 a gallon for gas for his sports car, is his need greater than the guy who earns $30k a year and wants to drive his family to work?

      Yes, it is. He's willing to pay more, so his need must, by definition, be greater.

      The $1M / year guy must be producing a lot more goods and services to justify that salary level. So from a standpoint of total economic productivity, it's simply more important for him to be able to go places than the middle-class guy.

    3. Re:Rationing by price rises is desireable by tmosley · · Score: 1

      But they don't do that, you fucking retard. You think people get rich by pissing away their money?

      Katrina? You mean the one where government troops kept people from leaving New Orleans at gunpoint? That wasn't we the people doing that. It was dumbshit government officials. Also funny that you talk about Katrina, with it's death toll of 1833, while a few years ago France allowed 3000 old people to die from a fucking heat wave. Just because you see what America does more often doesn't make it worse than anyone else, even Western European countries.

    4. Re:Rationing by price rises is desireable by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      Maybe he inherited that $1M salary and is completely farking useless, snorts coke and is a blight on society. Income is no guarantee of productivity or value.

      My opinions of Amercians has gone sharply downhill since reading this thread.

    5. Re:Rationing by price rises is desireable by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Someone can inherit a salary where you live? Neat! I'm leaving my current job to my 6 year old nephew.

  15. Auctions? by ebonum · · Score: 2

    What about Ebay auctions? Are they going to come after me when buyers overpay for the stuff I'm selling?

    Perhaps the government should set prices on everything to keep things simple.

    1. Re:Auctions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn you. Don't give them any ideas!!

  16. Private transaction? by forceman130 · · Score: 1

    If this is a private transaction between two individuals, how is the government even involved? I can see if it is a regulated or licensed company like a hotel, but just 2 people on Craigslist?

    --
    Wow, a 7 digit ID - let that be a lesson in the perils of procrastination.
    1. Re:Private transaction? by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

      This is New York, the liberal nanny state, where every aspect of your private life is regulated, right down to how much soda you are allowed to drink.

    2. Re:Private transaction? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      If you only want woman and have a comment about body size and race...?
      Adding in your running a licensed fuel company and held back.... ie way beyond "2 people"

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Private transaction? by KiloByte · · Score: 2

      And this is a case of distorting the word "liberal". In the rest of the word, it means freedom both personal and economic.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    4. Re:Private transaction? by tmosley · · Score: 0

      Ri~ight. Not exactly a world traveller, are you?

      "Liberal" outside the US generally means something a lot closer to what "socialist" means in the US. Liberal hasn't meant what you said there for many decades anywhere. At least not to my knowledge.

    5. Re:Private transaction? by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      In the rest of the world we call the US "liberal" ideology as "left-wing".

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    6. Re:Private transaction? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Funny how your version of the "rest of the world" refers to political ideology based on how the parties were seated in the US congress in the 1800's.

  17. Lets define this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    NOT PRICE GOUGING
    Someone needs a medical service and is charged $20,000/day from the local tax payer subsidized hospital which has the protection of the local criminal syndicate (city/county/state) that passes 'regulations' allowing them to sustain this exponentially inflated non-market price by operating without competition.

    PRICE GOUGING
    A private individual sets a price to sell his own goods or services that will only be paid by people willing to freely pay it, (a/k/a fair market value) but the local criminal syndicate (city/county/state) decide they don't like this price, probably because they are not getting a big enough cut.

  18. "Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by bennomatic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is exactly what was wrong with Romney et al's stance on FEMA. If there's a profit motive, then you're going to get the highest possible cost for the least possible value of goods and services. Where there's reasonable infrastructure, competition can reduce that, but a post-hurricane disaster zone is more likely to resemble turf-based economies (drugs, prostitution) than it is to resemble truly competitive markets (e.g. bazaars).

    If your kid is at home coughing up a lung due to a flu and there's no heat in the house, and if phone lines and emergency services are basically unavailable because of the greater circumstance, you're going to buy that last can of chicken soup from your corner market rather than shopping around for a better deal further away. Call it supply and demand if you will, but shopkeepers who engaged in price gouging are profiteering off of others' misery, plain and simple, and there should be consequences.

    On the other hand, there are stories of great generosity, like the pizzeria that kept making pies throughout the peak of the crisis, and gave away something on the order of 1000 pizzas to hungry families and emergency workers. That business deserves to prosper. I hope that some anonymous millionaire hands them an envelope containing ten times the profit they would have made had they sold all those pizzas. Hell, maybe FEMA should cut them a check for helping out. At the very least, they should be able to write those costs off for tax purposes.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
    1. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you're going to buy that last can of chicken soup from your corner market rather than shopping around for a better deal further away

      Except, when prices are allowed to rise, if you *really need* that can it is still available. If the store is forced to keep it at their normal price, the can would have been gone hours before you got there, to some random person who could have done just as well with a can of ravioli.

    2. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In its purest of essences, the Neocon / Goldman Sachs idea of 100% free "capitalism" (actually, I'd argue it is not capitalism at all) boils down to:
      Everybody can do everything! Even if that means murdering children for profit!

      And, also in its purest of essences, the *actual* idea of socialism boils down to:
      Let's just everybody be *fuckin'* nice to each other for a change!! How about that?

      I don't know about you... but I’m going with the latter. Teamwork is a cornerstone of humanity's success. Let's just damn be *nice*! What an idea!

      It is sad, that the mindset "socialism" is apparently defined nowadays, on the basis of a couple of failed states that had not much to do with being nice and everything with being fuckin' asshole dictators!

      Just as it is sad, that the above twisted definition of "capitalism" is missing plain and simple human dignity and fairness. Keeping a business partner, not because he has no choice even though you rip him off, but because you won't rip him off even if you can, since you want to gain and deserve his respect and trust! *That* is real capitalism, with real long-term success, in my opinion!

      And as you can see, those two do not conflict at all! The whole either-or is completely made up! Good capitalism is social! Good socialism supports good capitalism.

      And I for one, will be nice to you in all my deals. I don't have the heart to rip people off. And if that means I will lose on the market, then so be it! At least I'll lose with my heart still at the right place, and me still being a fuckin' human being!

    3. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue, as it says in TFA, the law only prohibits "unconscionably excessive price[s]" during an emergency.

      So it's perfectly legal for a store to, say, double the price of a can of soup if it can demonstrate that their costs have gone up by that much.

      It is NOT legal for someone on Craigslist to try to sell a 5-gallon gas can for $500, or for individuals to sell generators that they had bought before the storm at double their retail value.

      This isn't just slightly increasing costs to cover expenses. This is trying to make a profit off of people in need.

    4. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 5, Insightful

      or for individuals to sell generators that they had bought before the storm at double their retail value.

      By making that illegal it becomes better for someone who has an extra generator to simply not sell it. While the generator would be doing no one any good, it is still available to the person holding it in case he needs it - to him the $700 generator is worth $1400 (the risk of needing it and not having it is worth $700 to him) but by not being allowed to sell it at that price, he would be taking a perceived loss for no reason. I fail to see how this is better than allowing supply/demand to take over.

      As for gas, keep in mind this is the NY metro area. Very few people actually *need* gas. If the prices at the stations were allowed to rise to $10, people who do need the gas would be able to get it, and people who don't would take the bus/railroad/subway. Right now, the commodity being sacrificed is time: people who have more time on their hands and can sit on a line for 5 hours are better able to get gas than those working 3 jobs. How is that right?

    5. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      At the very least, they should be able to write those costs off for tax purposes.

      This is a common misconception. They could write off those costs for tax purposes if they made 1000 pizzas and dumped them in the garbage, or if they took $1000 in cash and set it on fire.

      Businesses are taxed on the amount they take in minus the amount they spend. So, any kind of spending reduces their taxes, regardless of purpose. Now, for some purposes they could get other kinds of tax benefits like reductions in property taxes or state sales taxes on their purchases.

    6. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shopkeepers who engaged in price gouging are profiteering off of others' misery, plain and simple
       
      Just like news organizations

    7. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by superwiz · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot. The only way to take advantage of the problem is to provide a solution. The only way to make a lot of money on providing a solution is to provide a solution where no other solution exists. These people provided gas which wasn't available from any other source. They deserved whatever money they charged.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    8. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by russotto · · Score: 1

      As for gas, keep in mind this is the NY metro area. Very few people actually *need* gas. If the prices at the stations were allowed to rise to $10, people who do need the gas would be able to get it, and people who don't would take the bus/railroad/subway.

      A lot of the railroads aren't running.

    9. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Are you retarded? Drugs and prostitution only cause violence because the government has outlawed them. There isn't any violence associated with them in the Netherlands, where they are legal.

      High prices attract competition. Extraordinarily high prices attract competition FAST.

      But you would prefer to just let everyone die in the dark, it seems. And they will, thanks to people like you, and those who use guns to enforce your sadistic "morality" upon the unwilling.

    10. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isn't. You have forgotten about the government entity known as the Federal Reserve, which prints money and gives it to them, which allows them to distort and break markets with no fear of ever going bankrupt. That system is functionally no different than Communism, and will end in a similar manner (collapse).

      Socialism never did anything but rob from the future to make eaters today. This has been tried numerous times throughout history, and always ends the same way. Savor it when it comes. You have done much to deserve it.

    11. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by Solandri · · Score: 2

      On top of that, higher prices help hasten the recovery. If the price of canned food is allowed to rise in the disaster area, some enterprising person outside but nearby the disaster area is going to head to his local supermarket, buy 500 cans of food for $2/ea, load then into his pickup truck, drive 100 miles to the disaster area, and sell them for $4/ea. The area now has 500 more cans of food than if you'd forced the price to remain at $3/ea. If the price went up to $10/ea, then you'd have hundreds if not thousands of people loading up their cars with canned food and transporting them to the area in need.

      Higher prices are the incentive the market uses to alleviate shortages. Eliminate them and you just prolong the shortage.

    12. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extra generator guy's only choices are 100% profit or not selling?
      Public transportation reduces the need for gas in the area these generators are being used?
      $10/gallon gas will eliminate lines?

      I'm glad I don't live on your planet, it sounds rather silly.

    13. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your kid is at home coughing up a lung due to a flu and there's no heat in the house, and if phone lines and emergency services are basically unavailable because of the greater circumstance, you're going to buy that last can of chicken soup from your corner market rather than shopping around for a better deal further away.

      This sounds like a horrible situation no matter whether you have a law against price gouging or not. Without a law against price gouging, you pay too much for the can of soup. That sucks. With the law (assuming it's enforced), the store tells you, "No soup for you; it's illegal for me to sell it." That sucks more.

      shopkeepers who engaged in price gouging are profiteering off of others' misery

      And shopkeepers who don't sell, cause misery. (That is, unless the reason they don't sell is that someone is pointing a gun at them, warning them to not sell. Then I'd say the gunman is causing misery.)

    14. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That business deserves to prosper. I hope that some anonymous millionaire hands them an envelope containing ten times the profit they would have made had they sold all those pizzas.

      Holy shit, listen to yourself. You think it's immoral to raise prices, but you yourself won't do anything to reward a business who doesn't. For the pizzeria who did the "moral" thing, you're praying to your Jesus in the sky for fortune or a millionnaire. Your dollars (through higher prices) will do a business a lot more good than your warm fuzzy feelings about what the business "deserves". Also, you're an idiot.

    15. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Almost all of the MTA's services are back to normal, with a few minor branches being bussed. Even if it is a shuttle bus public transit is still the most viable option.

      However I agree that the NJ railroads are still unbelievably fucked. It's bad enough that they've had to borrow buses from neighboring states so I would agree that the rules are a bit different there - however this article was about NY. In fact the AG's plan might screw up NJ even more, now people who might have wanted to drive some upstate NY gas (no shortage) down to NJ residents and sell it at $20/gallon won't be allowed to.

    16. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Ameritard recipe:
      Rule No. 1) If he doesn't fit your delusional world view, he is "THE OTHER SIDE"
      Rule No. 2) IGNORE THE HELL OUT OF THE OTHER SIDE! ACT AS IF IT NEVER HAPPENED!! EVERYTHING THE OTHER SIDE SAYS DOESN'T EVEN EXIST!
      Rule No. 3) PARROT THE SAME OLD DISTORTED BULLSHIT OUT, THAT YOUR OPINION MAKERS PROGRAMMED YOU TO PARROT!
      Rule No. 4) AT ALL COSTS: DO NOT EMPLOY BRAIN! DO NOT EVER START THINKING FOR YOURSELF! KEEP ON PARROTING! NEVER EVER LEAVE THE REALITY DISTORTION BUBBLE! EVER!

      Congratulations! You are a 100% genuine Ameritard! You fulfill all criteria to the fullest! Congratulations to being a DEAD MAN WALKING!

    17. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you would prefer to just let everyone die in the dark, it seems.

      Strawman arguments are lies.

    18. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      I should have said, "unregulated drugs and prostitution". Would I be wrong to say that the legalized offerings in the Netherlands are heavily regulated? I was talking about unregulated environments where unfettered capitalism prevails; the Netherlands may have nothing to do with what I was talking about.

      That being said, it may indeed after all. Do you have any direct involvement with drug parlors or brothels in the Netherlands, i.e. not as a customer, but in running them? I'd be very surprised if there was not a significant underground economy happening behind the scenes even where it's legalized, as people tend to want forbidden fruit, even if a wider variety of fruits are readily available.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    19. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by tmosley · · Score: 1

      So the less regulated whorehouses in rural Nevada are dens of violence and destruction?

      Get real. If something isn't violently opposed by the government, it won't produce violence on its own. This isn't rocket science. Just because you think that some extra-legal dealing may be going on in the back rooms doesn't mean anything. The important part is that SWAT teams aren't breaking down the doors to the houses of ill repute in those places, and as a result, there is little to no violence or exploitation going on.

    20. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Try opening up another unregulated brothel down the road from an existing one, and try hiring away their "escorts", and I'm sure you'd see some interesting activity. I'm not making this stuff up; I lived most of my life in Oakland, where you didn't have to look hard to find evidence of turf wars between pimps and drug dealers, where a new ho on the wrong corner would be beaten up or killed by the more established ones who thought that corner was their spot.

      Fully unregulated capitalism leads to the worst abuses and excesses. Just because you don't see it when you pay to play doesn't mean that there is not all kinds of bad stuff going on.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    21. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Christ, you are incredibly fucking stupid. Stop making up lies. There is more than one whorehouse in Nevada. A LOT more.

    22. Re:"Better yet, leave it to the private sector." by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      You stupid short-sighted moronic American. But I repeat myself.

      There is plenty of organised crime and violence around drugs and prostitution in the Netherlands. Take it from one who lives there.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  19. Patience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps the government should set prices on everything to keep things simple.

    Give them a chance. They are working towards that end and they'll get to it. These things take time!

  20. How about zero tolerance for mortgage fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or is that asking too much? I'm sure it's a lot easier to crack down on a few dozen individuals looking to gouge a quick buck than well-connected corporations scamming billions.

    1. Re:How about zero tolerance for mortgage fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That would put most major US bankers and politicians in jail... Not that it would be a bad thing, mind you. But, you know... They vote the laws they apply to themselves, so good luck with that.

  21. You know what is unconcionable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    The price of textbooks, in any weather.

  22. Its the law - no price gouging during emergencies by Andy+Prough · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a criminal offense, Florida's law is typical. Price gouging may be charged when a supplier of essential goods or services sharply raises the prices asked in anticipation of or during a civil emergency, or when it cancels or dishonors contracts in order to take advantage of an increase in prices related to such an emergency. The model case is a retailer who increases the price of existing stocks of milk and bread when a hurricane is imminent. It is a defense to show that the price increase mostly reflects increased costs, such as running an emergency generator, or hazard pay for workers.

  23. After the fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't say I agree with the people out there doing this kind of thing, but... I also think there should be fair warning that gouging behavior in a stricken area like this will be prosecuted. Kind of like Marshal law but not. There will always be those out there to take advantage of the situation and if you put them on notice and the do it anyway rather than doing the right thing, go get 'em...

  24. Shouldn't apply unless these were businesses by John3 · · Score: 2

    If these were ads from storefront businesses then the AG should get involved, but if it was private individuals reselling items at a market price then I don't see a real case here for prosecution. I own a hardware store and we have been crazy busy these past two weeks trying to keep up with demand for batteries, gas cans, generators, extension cords, and other storm goods. Our prices are the same today as they were a month ago, and in fact some of our batteries are on sale and we kept them on sale. I know of a few stores that did raise their prices on generators and some other goods, seems like a poor decision as the customer will likely find out later (or already knew) and will remember that price gouge when choosing where to shop during "normal" times.

    --
    "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
    1. Re:Shouldn't apply unless these were businesses by phorm · · Score: 1

      but if it was private individuals reselling items at a market price then I don't see a real case here for prosecution

      So "Bob's hardware" sells a few dozen generators to "Bob" at regular price, who then sells them as a private individual at the currently inflated market-price...

      Seems a bit easy to abuse.

    2. Re:Shouldn't apply unless these were businesses by John3 · · Score: 1

      but if it was private individuals reselling items at a market price then I don't see a real case here for prosecution

      So "Bob's hardware" sells a few dozen generators to "Bob" at regular price, who then sells them as a private individual at the currently inflated market-price...

      Seems a bit easy to abuse.

      I don't know about "easy". Bob's Hardware would need to collect sales tax from Bob, and Bob would be limited in the payment methods he could accept (i.e. cash). If he took other payment methods (Paypal, bankcard, check) it would leave a paper trail with big numbers of the size that catch the eye of tax auditors. Even cash is tougher to hide now thanks to the anti-terrorism laws.

      And of course the scenario itself is clearly not even an arms-length transaction so I believe your example would fall under the jurisdiction of the AG.

      I am not actually familiar with the laws that apply in this case. I know there were news reports of people buying out the stock at Home Depot and then selling from their trucks a few miles away. They may not have been illegally price gouging, but they likely were violating laws about commercial activity on public streets, failure to collect sales tax, zoning restrictions against commercial activity in a residential zone, etc.

      --
      "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
  25. Price Cougars? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Oh wait... Never mind.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Price Cougars? by Billlagr · · Score: 1

      Weren't there reports of offers of sex for gas on craigslist too?

    2. Re:Price Cougars? by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Thank heavens I wasn't the only one who read it that way. I was wondering if there was some roundup of older women named Sandy, and thought "that name can't be *that* popular"...

  26. Oh really? by kurt555gs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And how about pharmaceutical companies that charge $1000s for pills that cost less than the plastic bottle they come in? Want real price gauging?

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:Oh really? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      They don't cost less than the plastic bottle. Only an imbecile would take such a facile view of the costs of bringing pharmaceuticals to market.

  27. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you sell cheaper than everyone else, you're accused of dumping.

    If you sell at the same price as everyone else, you're accused of price fixing.

    If you sell more expensively than everyone else, you're price gouging.

    It's how the Socialists condemn Capitalism no matter what Capitalists do.

    1. Re:Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      If you sell cheaper than everyone else, you're accused of dumping.

      If you sell at the same price as everyone else, you're accused of price fixing.

      If you sell more expensively than everyone else, you're price gouging.

      It's how the Socialists condemn Capitalism no matter what Capitalists do.

      Don't forget, even if you don't sell or buy anything at all, you're still engaging in interstate trade and may be penalized/taxed.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent and GP up.

  28. Gas in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in Canada. There is gouging on gasoline 365 days a year here. Price of oil goes up, gas price goes up. Price of oil goes down, price of gas goes up.

  29. Now I get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now I understand. Those $1000s for pills that cost less than the plastic bottle isn't price gouging, even if people die because they can't afford them. If they had been selling for "only" $500s for those pills, then double after a disaster, then that's price gouging...even though there is no difference in the end price or profit.

  30. Its a political stunt ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Price controls have exactly the same effect in an emergency that they have at any other time. If you prohibit higher gas prices, you guarantee shortages.

    The NY AG is a politician. He just wants to be on record, and in the news, as "doing something" about price gouging. Whether that "something" is helpful, useless or counter productive does not really matter to voters. Politicians in the US seem to be graded on their stated intentions not their actual results.

    1. Re:Its a political stunt ... by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      Ding ding ding.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    2. Re:Its a political stunt ... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Politicians in the US seem to be graded on their stated intentions not their actual results.

      This is so true. Reagan massively increased the size of the government and ran up huge deficits. Bill Clinton kicked millions off of welfare, and balanced the budget. Yet Reagan is champion of the right, and Clinton of the left, because their talk was the opposite of their actions.

    3. Re:Its a political stunt ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Politicians in the US seem to be graded on their stated intentions not their actual results.

      This is so true. Reagan massively increased the size of the government and ran up huge deficits. Bill Clinton kicked millions off of welfare, and balanced the budget. Yet Reagan is champion of the right, and Clinton of the left, because their talk was the opposite of their actions.

      Bill Clinton was a bit to the left his first two years. Then voters smacked him down hard giving the Republicans control of Congress. Bill Clinton then brought in Dick Morris (Yes, a regular on Fox News today) who convinced Clinton the only way to save his Presidency was to move to the right. Clinton did so and worked with the Republican controlled Congress to reform welfare, reduce the deficit, etc. Clinton's previous advisors hated all this and despised Morris. The Republican controlled Congress deserves as much credit for the 90's good times as Clinton. Do not let the Republican controlled Congress of the 00's confuse you, they were nothing like their predecessors. I guess the moral of the story is that divided government works best. It forces compromise or nothing gets done. Either of these seems to work much better than when one single party controls the Presidency and Congress.

    4. Re:Its a political stunt ... by hawk · · Score: 1

      Clinton kicked them off???

      Clinton opposed both of those, right until they (and the rest of the "Contract With America") swept the republican Congress into power.

      On the balancing the budget, he called it "irresponsible" during the election, then countered with an offer of a year shorter, to which the Republican congress replied with a year shorter, and falling interest rates brought a year shorter than that.

      Clinton's role in the balanced budget, though, was in working with those who had defeated him on the issue.

      hawk

  31. Junior Econ Assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think all of you are missing the point.

    This is not an economics issue. When a natural disaster is killing people and leaving others stranded from the basic necessities of life, that is not the time to make a quick buck and in turn screw over the poor. Heaven forbid the working class guy left without a home be able to afford gas to get his family to a relative's house with heat, food, and shelter. I would hate for you junior economists to have to suspend your theories on how the markets work so as many people as possible can be given a chance to survive another day.

    Is it all that shocking to see us get fucked over by corporations when people seem to value being a good business man over being a good person.

    1. Re:Junior Econ Assholes by tmosley · · Score: 2

      I wonder if you even realize how many people thoughts like that have slaughtered in just the past century?

      Saying "this is not an economics issue" is like saying "this is not a physics issue" in the middle of a plane crash. If there was ever a time you wanted to know and follow the laws of economics, it is during a disaster. If there was ever a time you wanted to know and follow the laws of physics, it's during a plane crash, It might just save you life, and those of others. Hell, if you can reach the cockpit, you might even be able to right the plane, especially when you have a madman at the helm.

    2. Re:Junior Econ Assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

      The "Laws" of economics are not like physical laws. Unlike a law of thermodynamics, with buying and selling, people get to choose. And greedy sociopaths who care more about turning a profit than they do about extending compassion simply try to legitimize their sicko efforts by touting crap about so-called "Laws" of economics.

      We control sociopaths by making self-serving behavior which harms others illegal. In a disaster, it is entirely reasonable to implement resource management systems to ensure that the populace gets back on its feet quickly and effectively. It's called "Governance" and it's not a bad thing because it is the system which separates us from the animals in the jungle. If we let the sociopaths have their way, we'd all still be living the fucking trees. It wasn't the "Laws" of economics which allowed us to climb down from them. It was the marvelous human brain which understands that working together is the only way to build healthy, prosperous communities.

      Claiming otherwise is just more psychopathic yodeling and nonsense arguments which all boil down to, "How dare you prevent me from predating on others!?"

    3. Re:Junior Econ Assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if you even realize how many people thoughts like that have slaughtered in just the past century?

      QFT. The road to Holodomors/Great Leap Forwards is paved with collectivists' optimistic estimation of human nature. When the masses prove to be insufficiently altruistic for the collectivists' agenda to function, well *naturally* the solution is to cull the intransigents (or anyone else who gets in the way). Remember, they consider it a "win" if 100 million die in order for 100 million + 1 to have a better life.

      For all the declamation about how libertarianism would theoretically cause the strong to prey on the weak, they fail to acknowledge the proven history of collectivism that has caused the destruction of untold millions of people.

  32. Re:Its the law - no price gouging during emergenci by haystor · · Score: 1

    "essential", "sharply", "emergency"

    Yea, nothing vague there.

    It's the masses voting to take what isn't theirs, plain and simple.

    --
    t
  33. economics by compass and straightedge by epine · · Score: 0

    That makes no sense. Raising the prices actually preserves the supply. In either situation, a lot of people won't be getting gas. But with gouging, you at least have the option.

    Most of us must know the old aphorism brought to us by Laffernomics: To a man with a compass and straightedge, every gradient is a straight line, where one end is labeled "stupid" and the other end is labeled "what we were going to do anyway".

    The willingness-to-pay utility curve is ugly on both sides. On one side the clueless and unprepared grouse far more than any person with self-respect ought to be caught dead doing. On the other side, one must proceed anecdotally.

    You are alone in a dark, inner city alley and you feel cold hard steel pressed against your temple. Your willingness-to-pay lands on A) zero, it's just a bluff; B) contents of wallet, but not what you've also got hidden in your shoe; C) a quick net-present-value calculation factoring in the boundary condition "you can't take it with you".

    You are crossing between two tall buildings through a walkway tunnel when global warming causes a floor tile to pop out--your reactions are quick and now you are hanging there by both hands, twenty floors up in the air, without the strength to pull yourself back in through the hole. A quick-thinking lawyer happens to walk past just then. He immediately whips out a pen and a title deed, which he proffers first to your white-knuckled right hand and then to your wobbly left hand in a gesture of good-will and Samaritanism, fine print attached, which you presume will terminate your mortgage.

    You are among the huddles coping with the failure of major public infrastructure and you haven't tasted a sip of fresh water for more than two days. Furio Giunta saunters past with a gym bag, offering 1 liter bottles of Evian for $1000 a pop, cold cash only. Elite huddlers in tattered alligator shoes coalesce into cliques pooling cash resources for some sliver of sustenance. Furio conducts a roaring business, clearing 50 big ones in an afternoon. The trucker who was assigned the task of bringing Evian to the masses awakes in the gutter with only a small concussion and not very much pneumonia.

    A block away a young computer whiz sells water for $500 a bottle after prudently stockpiling supplies. How could this people be so stupid! Such a simple matter to hack the department of meteorology, fix a few glaring errors in the weather system model, then fire off a covert day-long simulation until the accounting flag for doubly nested black-op (so secretive that nobody who can admit he exists will ever see the expense report). He makes enough cash to pay four years of tuition at state college (where most of this will go to the football coach and the director of athletics). Unfortunately, a day later he takes a "bad fall" in front of Satriale's Pork Store (as he reports his condition to police). Despite being unable to explain to the IRS where his windfall has gone to, he's awarded a national medal of honour for saving more lives at less cost than Soliris.

    Enough anecdotes? By the time that the pimps and mobsters and hustlers and assholes amount to a larger share of the relief effort than the police, the firemen, the coast guard, and the reserve there's a case to be made for quelling the entrepreneurial straightedge.

    1. Re:economics by compass and straightedge by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

      But the alternative is long lines and most people not getting it anyway.

      The net result is the same: Most people won't get the scarce resource anyway.

      Your method ensure the distribution is essentially random, allowing price rises to what the market will bear has two advantages:

      1) The people who most highly value (or can afford) that resource will get it

      2) It will encourage other suppliers to step in to fill the void.

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    2. Re:economics by compass and straightedge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That Econ-101 theory does not fit the situation. This is a natural disaster, not a textbook free market example.

      1) The resource will not go to those who most highly value it, merely those with the most money. A poor family might need gas to get a kid to dialysis and can't afford it, but a rich person might think nothing of spending more on gas than the poor person has just to drive around a bit to alleviate boredom. The alternative has a much better chance of those who value the resource more actually getting it. If you need it, you'll wait in line. If you just have money to burn and are bored, you won't.

      2) If other suppliers could step in and fill the void, they would have. But the reason resources are scarce is that other suppliers can't get them there right now.

    3. Re:economics by compass and straightedge by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

      So you've doomed yourself to long lines and most people not getting the scare resource anyway.

      Enjoy.

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  34. If you want to stop price gouging.... by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... then sell the same stuff that people are being gouged on at a lower price.

  35. Re:In Soviet Union... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do know that during the American Revolution, there were merchants who attempted price gouging...and laws to prevent it, right?

    Maybe you should take your tricorn hat and check out Colonial Williamsburg.

  36. "taking advantage"? by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Everybody who solves a problem takes advantage of the fact that the problem exists. If the private merchants solved the problem that NY state could not, the state owes them a thank you -- not a subpoena. Oh, and what an ass hole.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  37. an ass hole and a coward by superwiz · · Score: 1

    The AG knows full well he is morally wrong to charge people who provided solutions which the state could not provide. Otherwise, he would have subpoenaed these records before the election.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  38. Captain, I think I'm havin' an apostrophe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You mean an epiphany, Smee?"

    No, I mean the Slashdot editors really need to get their shit together, captain. Yo ho!

  39. Re:Its the law - no price gouging during emergenci by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "essential", "sharply", "emergency"

    Yea, nothing vague there.

    It's the masses voting to take what isn't theirs, plain and simple.

    That's why we have some crazy thing called a judicial system instead of masses of asshattery on the Internet decidering the law.

  40. Supply and Demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't like the "price gouging" simply offer the gas and generators at a much lower price in an emergency? If you weren't prepared with an abundance of gas and generators in an emergency then buy them from the gougers and sell them at a "fair price". If the emergency were sufficiently severe it warranted stealing gas and generators from individuals (a shift from enforcing ownership of physical goods not by law but by force will have a radical effect on supply and demand equilibria) then fair enough but in such an extreme situation I expect a total lack of fucks to be given on what "local authorities" want.

  41. $85 gumboots before the storm by dbIII · · Score: 1

    You're thinking that the price is arbitrary, and set by the supplier.

    And in many cases that is correct. It's the good old American tradition of hitting people when they are desperate and will pay anything, right up there with claim salting and medicine shows.

    1. Re:$85 gumboots before the storm by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      some people are like that. they're not all american. it's human nature. most of it reflects real market forces. it's charge high prices or turn customers away. either way few get fuel because there isn't enough to go around.

    2. Re:$85 gumboots before the storm by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The American thing is an assumption that such behaviour should be allowed or is even meritorious under some sort of "I've got mine" libertarian philosophy. When it happens in other places it just gets called greed.

    3. Re:$85 gumboots before the storm by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      How would YOU propose that we allocate a scarce resource?

      1. Government bureaucrats come in, confiscate the goods from the rightful owner and make arbitrary decisions about who gets the goods on the basis of "need"?

      2. Government sets price controls and allocates resources on a "first come/first served basis"? Then, people buy as much as possible and sell it for a massive profit on the black market?

      3. The owner of the product determines what they want to sell and at what price.

      4. ???

      Option #3 is the only fair method. When there is scarcity, the increase in the VALUE of the product has already happened! You're just arguing that the owner should not be the one who benefits from this increase in value.
      What is this "allowed" nonsense? You shouldn't need permission to do whatever you want with your own property! If some random occurrence causes the value of your property to increase, that value is yours and yours alone.

      Did you ever buy a stock or mutual fund and see the value go up? If the value went up 50%, should you be forced to sell it at a 5% profit and share the rest of the gain?

    4. Re:$85 gumboots before the storm by enjerth · · Score: 1

      You're thinking that the price is arbitrary, and set by the supplier.

      And in many cases that is correct. It's the good old American tradition of hitting people when they are desperate and will pay anything, right up there with claim salting and medicine shows.

      In all the analyzation about pricing supply and demand, I haven't seen a single comment about the nature of money and it's function in serving this purpose.

      What is money? It's a liquid asset.
      Why do we keep a liquid asset? For the uncertainty of what you may need or want to acquire in the future.
      What happens when you don't have enough liquid assets? Adapt. Aside from fighting each other, that's what we do best. We can survive, if we make good decisions.

      Having a reserve of liquid assets is one of those ways we PLAN for survival. But should the market be bent for your benefit if you failed to plan for surviving? No. That affects everyone else and their ability to utilize the market to solve their problems.

      And money has a supply and a demand, as well.

      In an emergency situation, the need to acquire or hold excess liquidity is suspended, and the VALUE OF MONEY takes a temporary tumble in relation to the need for scarce products and services to relieve the emergency situation.

      Anti-price gouging laws is straight up price fixing, and it's immoral. It practically guarantees scarcity, because everyone knows that the money isn't actually worth much under the given conditions. Most people will treat $8/gallon gas with a lot more caution than $4/gallon gas.

      Money doesn't fix problems. The market does.

    5. Re:$85 gumboots before the storm by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Number 3 is pretty well a major reason why people band together and form governments instead of relying on crumbs from the local warlord or anyone else that can impose their will due to a monopoly of a resource.
      I'm sorry, but you come across as very naive and I find it difficult to take you seriously with such simplistic excuses for profiteering as those you have provided above.

  42. Being simplistic and misleading by dbIII · · Score: 2

    That free fuel would be in limited amounts per person if the disaster workers had the common sense to survive to adulthood. Assuming that they do not is a pointless distraction and really tells us more about yourself than anything to do with the discussion.

    1. Re:Being simplistic and misleading by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Right, just trust the authorities. Surely they all have well proven track records and weren't simply hired straight out of college with nothing but a degree in the humanities.

      Also funny that you don't seem to realize that there are a lot of people. As such, it doesn't really matter how much you limit the amount of free fuel, it will remain poorly distributed and misused.

  43. The AG is economically clueless. by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

    Bob Murphy does a good job in this video explaining how the market would work better than the price controls the AG is enforcing.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  44. As long as you don't fix the damage by gelfling · · Score: 1

    And focus on this all is good. Now's a good time for Mayor Bloomberg to enact a new law restricting something. Like the amount of caffeine in coffee or the calories of muffins. But whatever you do DON'T fix anything.

  45. But it was fine for NYers to gouge after Tornados? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF?

    Get real.

    People are greedy. If it was online sales, it means they weren't in a store in NY, so the NYAG has no say or buy in. Nobody *had* to buy them.
    Retail outlets do the same thing during crisis.... Supply and demand... The supply didn't magically go up due to the crisis, in fact, it slumped due to all the demand, hence the prices went up, and yes, some people did raise them tremendously, because some people would pay anything to be able to watch Oprah. (j/k).

    Look at online sales of other "fad" items - yes, it was an emergency, but it was also a short-lived *fad* item - you think people will be so hot to buy them when the power is back on? Nope. People have paid $200.00 for an empty box on e-bay - the list seemed like it was for the item, but the fine print said box only. Talk about gouging, and you think those people got their money back? Nope.

    Just remember the old saying. Buyer beware. (Works for price gouging as well as the oldest profession on earth)

  46. To all those 'free market' advocates Read below by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yeah, its about time. You know what happened in NJ? a day or two so before the storm, guys with a pickup truck or van went and bought several generators each from HD, Lowes, etc. It was not any coordinated attack or such, but such scum do know how to do these and together. Others (say, folks with day jobs, working in NYC, etc) when they went to buy one generator for their family, there were none in HD, Lowes, etc. craigs list was the *only * place where you could get them pretty much.

    Many a-holes were selling them at double the price, some triple. I saw ppl selling them from backs of trucks etc. What's unsold, these guys will simply return to HD if needed. Several even posted in CG showing their hoard.

    So, my free market morons, the authorities are perfectly right in going after these a-holes. these guys caused the shortages in the first place, and had the option of returning what's unsold after the storm. In other countries, 'freemarket consumers' will take care of them and may be some of them would end up with a broken leg or arm. In the cultured US you cannot do that, right? So let the law pursue them. If this happens in NJ, I would be happy to pass on the names and emails and phone numbers of several who responded to my mails with high prices.

    1. Re:To all those 'free market' advocates Read below by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God, you stupid asshole. You think this is why there were no generators, because you saw a few guys selling them? Do you actually think Lowes and Home Depot had enough to sell to everyone anyway? You can't stop people from buying them, so how exactly do you propose to remedy this type of situation?

    2. Re:To all those 'free market' advocates Read below by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen, motherfucker, regardless lowes had enough or not, people who would ahve gotten one for fair price were cheated out of it. I take it you were one of the sellers, werent you cocksuker? Suck my dick you shit eater.

    3. Re:To all those 'free market' advocates Read below by neminem · · Score: 1

      Totally off topic, but your last sentence just struck me as particularly hilarious: think about what you actually said. Would you actually wanted someone who routinely put human refuse into his mouth to go anywhere near your nether regions with that same mouth? I sure wouldn't.

  47. God, what a bastion of idiocy. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0

    First, outlaw large sodas. Then, outlaw the immutable laws of supply and demand. For the final trick, I expect them to take on the laws of Thermodynamics!

    "Price gouging" (lol, must be defined like obscenity, I guess you know it when you see it?) is a means of controlling demand and allows supply to be more stable and normalize.

    Furthermore, especially with private individuals, let's say the options are that A) they offer 10 gallons for $500 on Craigslist or B) they don't offer any gas. Please explain how having option A and option B is worse than only having option B? You can't. There is no possible logical defense for them going after these people.

  48. Re:Its the law - no price gouging during emergenci by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Really, if it was so cheap to have essential goods or services available during a time of emergency why doesn't the state try doing it themselves, ans providing such goods throughout any such disaster at regular costs.

    Oh, that's right... they can't. Because IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE.

    The defense rests.

  49. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unregulated markets are OK as long as I decide so. An example of the finest capitalist mind...

  50. supply and demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    free enterprise.
    this is what made america great right?
    right??

    controls on supply, demand and pricing... well thats just socialism isnt it.
    and socialism's bad, right?
    right??

    .

  51. What about the price of gas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm from Alabama, and just after hurricane Katrina, gas prices tripled. This lasted for about a month, maybe 6 weeks. Also, the price of generators tripled, as well as the price of anything useful.

  52. The concern is liquidity by wanax · · Score: 1

    I think the idea that the GP had in mind is that a major problem in many disaster situations is that market liquidity (haha) breaks down, and so there's a huge incentive to hoard, and then use the relative paucity of suppliers to massively increase profit margins. Since illiquid markets are inefficient markets, the usual rules of supply and demand fail to hold -- the problem in the north east is that Sandy knocked out much of the oil importation infrastructure (as well as causing local refineries to shut down), which combined with fairly low inventory levels to pad the shock, means there isn't enough infrastructure for vendors to divert sufficient oil through at any price.

    To mitigate this type of supply shock and restore liquidity, you need to ration (to reduce hoarding, and increase the cost of driving, thereby lowering demand), discourage gouging by introducing price controls (also mitigates hoarding.. but requires rationing) and temporarily subsidize supply both directly (ie. put it on national guard fuel trucks and sell it to the gas stations under cost), and indirectly (say by suspending regulations that might limit supply like the Jones Act, or low-sulfur fuel oil requirements.. to name two examples of what's been done). Letting the prices spike is only going to increase misery and give people incentives to do really stupid things, like the idiot who got caught with 120 gallons of fuel in home depot buckets (great, until his SUV explodes and closes a route for the real fuel trucks).

    1. Re:The concern is liquidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To mitigate this type of supply shock and restore liquidity, you need to ration

      Oh, for crying out loud.

      There truly are none so blind as those who will not see.

      -jcr

    2. Re:The concern is liquidity by wanax · · Score: 1

      Would you then say that England during WWI or WWII took the wrong action by taking those three steps? The situation is not very different -- the effected area is wealthy enough to pay for the resources under normal market conditions, there's a shortage of supply, and the infrastructure required to alleviate the situation isn't adequate to meet the demand.

      Markets are not magic, they work extremely well in the appropriate domain -- but once you get into a supply or demand shock, core assumptions of market pricing go out the window, whether it be liquidity, or that the real rate of return on investing is greater than holding, respectively.

    3. Re:The concern is liquidity by jcr · · Score: 1

      Would you then say that England during WWI or WWII took the wrong action by taking those three steps?

      Yes.

      Markets are not magic, they work extremely well in the appropriate domain ...but when the chips are down, there's always someone like you ready to rationalize violence to make things worse.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  53. Prices aren't just made up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Prices aren't just made up. Prices are important market signals reflecting the relative scarcity conditions of any good. Rising prices imply an increase in the scarcity, or expected scarcity, of a good. In other words, if a good becomes scarcer or is expected to become scarcer, it's price will rise. The opposite is true when a good becomes abundant or is expected to become abundant.

    When a good becomes scarce, there are several socially optimal responses: consumers should economize on its usage and search for cheaper substitutes. Producers should increase production of the good and search for substitutes. Rising prices provide both consumers and producers with incentives to behave in socially optimal ways. Plus, they do so voluntarily

    http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/03/wonders.html

  54. Re:Its the law - no price gouging during emergenci by sureshot007 · · Score: 1

    As a criminal offense, Florida's law is typical. Price gouging may be charged when a supplier of essential goods or services sharply raises the prices asked in anticipation of or during a civil emergency, or when it cancels or dishonors contracts in order to take advantage of an increase in prices related to such an emergency. The model case is a retailer who increases the price of existing stocks of milk and bread when a hurricane is imminent. It is a defense to show that the price increase mostly reflects increased costs, such as running an emergency generator, or hazard pay for workers.

    Well guess what? I'm not a "supplier" or "retailer" of any goods...hence why I'm selling it on craigslist!

    (I didn't actually sell anything, but I don't quite like the idea of the state being able to come to my garage sale and arrest me for my prices being to high)

  55. 'unconscionably excessive price' ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody remember the prosecutions for 'unconscionably excessive price' for wireless? Oh right, there weren't any.
    So the lesson is: Don't gouge people one at a time; instead, think big!
    What these people did was profiteering and immoral, but not illegal. And their acts have no consequence on society at large, which might have justified making an example of them. AG is just trying to score some easy points. What will be the cost of these proceedings to the public and to the targets of this investigation and is this in any way justified by the damage done by the actions under investigation?

  56. Not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how it's price gouging when only a few individuals do it but it's supply and demand when corporations do it.

  57. In Soviet America government controls commerce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wtf is "price gouging" and why do I need to stand 7 hours at the pump (not kidding, actual lines in New York City as of a few days ago stretched ~10 city blocks) when all that is needed is raise the price by a few bucks per gallon?

  58. Untrue. NJ's 'price gouging' is a 10% increase. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They're talking about $4/gallon gas. NJ's 'price gouging' laws stipulate a limit of 10% increases over 'normal' prices.

    "New Jersey law prohibits excessive price increases during a declared state of emergency and for 30 days after the termination of the state of emergency. An excessive price increase is defined as more than 10% higher than the price at which merchandise was sold during the normal course of business prior to the state of emergency"

    Or are you implying that hurricane conditions are unlikely to increase availability costs by more than 10%? This is a *stupid* law, which is unsurprising because generally politicians have no training in math or economics.

  59. how is grounding a problem? by Chirs · · Score: 1

    Construction workers use generators with long cords all the time, how would this be any worse?

  60. Re:Untrue. NJ's 'price gouging' is a 10% increase. by sjames · · Score: 1

    I was speaking of the general case, but now that you mention it, that expensive gas was most likely drawn from existing stock already in a station's tank or a truck that was there before the storm, so the only additional cost would be using a hand pump rather than electric to fill a can (which was also likely there before the storm.