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
I'm sure Germans will be completely ecstatic subsidizing the power the US uses. Or did you not read enough of the article to see where the green power was subsidized?
Some believe a supernatural being created the world in 6 days 6000 some years ago. Some believe we were a prison colony for aliens. Some believe all sorts of things. I think we live in a time when we need more then what someone believes and need to act through evidence and fact.
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.
It won't happen over night though. It will happen over a period of decades or more and yes, that will result in a bump. There will be plenty of time to adjust to that.
The failures of crops as you put it was caused by well known weather functions that can be explained by weather system and impacts without injecting the climate change propaganda into the mix. It has happened before and will happen again with or without climate change. There is no empirical evidence linking them together and it is mostly speculation based around hypothetical and hyperbole. It's no different then normal weather disturbances we suffer from periodically.
The problem with Climate Change is that anything that happens in the weather can be claimed to be because of Climate Change. The wind blows, global warming, it rained, global warming, it's hot, global warming, it's cold, global warming, it's sunny, global warming, it flooded, global warming, there's a drought, global warming. All those conditions existed before global warming and will exist well after it.
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.
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
The religious like to think of the bible as a source of hermetic wisdom, something you can learn the answers to life's questions from if you are only open to the spirit. This is an easy way
As I said, you can suffer the same problems elsewhere. The post I replied to was chastising someone for having a religious belief and the thread we are in was started by someone saying they were sickened that someone opens their mouth about certain things. Sounds to me like they found an easy way "of dividing people into groups of "enlightened" or "unenlightened" based on whether or not they agree with you, with no need to explain oneself."
You can find nearly any answer you want in the bible, with a bit of knowledge and the ability to construct an interpretation. This makes it a terribly poor source of knowledge about anything more than the history of a particular religious group, and even that requires additional documents and research to provide context.
I guess if you aren't paying attention. The bible talked about hygiene and passing on diseases long before Science had a competent understanding and practice of it. Look at Leviticus and ignore the animal sacrifices.
Anyways, it is no different then any other source of knowledge. Studying science isn't going to answer the meaning of life or give guidance on how to deal with other people. Philosophical questions pondered in other sources are just as hit or miss. You need the ability to discover in your own right many of these things as if it doesn't make sense, you are likely not going to follow or practice it.
I was an Evangelical Christian. Read the bible a few times. I'm pretty familiar with how this argument works.
I've heard similar statements before. I've been consistently unimpressed by some of their knowledge and conclusion. But that is not important, the point is that it's really no different then anything else.
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.
Unless Obama is assassinated, I wouldn't get my hopes up. The democrats would never allow an impeachment to go through to a removal of office. They would more then likely pretend to be all for it, then raise 3 kinds of holey hell about it trying to make the republicans look bad like they did with Clinton.
But yeah, I agree something should be done about it. Although I do not think Biden is clean either. I think they wanted something to happen to somehow use it to aid in getting reelected (like they thought terrorism got Bush reelected) but then realized how much of a problem it was going to be when Romney came out swinging before half the news agencies reported on it.
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.
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.
People die in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois every year from the same. They become seriously ill too. I'm not posting to take away from what you said, just to add that the necessity of being able to cool off exists in more places around the country too. In the northern states, high temps sometimes have high humidity with it making it extremely difficult for the body to cool naturally. But even in low humidity, the cooling process can be overwhelmed too.
If our productivity was limited to planting in the cool spring and harvesting in the cool autumn, it wouldn't be as much a problem. Obviously, modern society is a long ways away from that.
I'm betting his reference should be KWH instead. My usage averages 502kwh to 700kwh per month on my usage in a two bedroom home. I guess that's 6000 kwh on the low side per year and 8400 kwh on the high side. My electric rate is actually 8.4 cents per KWH though.
lol.. because I'm not irrationally scared of religion or think it is some massive threat to science because someone thinks differently then I do? Go cower in fear before I thump you with the bible.
IT varies from state to state and some states, the requirement is limited to offering an option for customers to purchase up to a certain amount of their energy from a certified Green source.
I doubt your electric company doesn't purchase any energy. Usually the peak production is maxed out and they sell over the base load for profit then purchase peak power back. Selling the excess over 12 to 16 hours when it is not peak would bring in more revenue they purchasing the slightly more expensive peak power for 6-10 hours per day. Your utility company might not do that, but they would be losing out on some opportunities to lower costs of operation. I don't know the specifics of your utility, they might have some other way of dealing with it that is more efficient but that's the traditional model.
Fact means exactly what it means. You can use a dictionary if you are confused. Reading comprehension helps a bit though. Try understanding what was said and perhaps you might have a different understanding instead of appearing ignorant and unthinking.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here, but it is done quite often in that area as well as others.
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.
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.
When? Are you sure it isn't already happening?
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81960109/
Might as well, it will do about as much good as a carbon tax that they insist will do something.
I'm sure Germans will be completely ecstatic subsidizing the power the US uses. Or did you not read enough of the article to see where the green power was subsidized?
Didn't you know that when your only tool is a hammer, everything starts looking like nails? It doesn't matter if its actually a nail or not.
And it's still a fact that all available evidence is showing decades if any.
Some believe a supernatural being created the world in 6 days 6000 some years ago. Some believe we were a prison colony for aliens. Some believe all sorts of things. I think we live in a time when we need more then what someone believes and need to act through evidence and fact.
Actually, it is plain and simple to everyone who isn't letting greed cloud their judgement.
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.
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.
It won't happen over night though. It will happen over a period of decades or more and yes, that will result in a bump. There will be plenty of time to adjust to that.
The failures of crops as you put it was caused by well known weather functions that can be explained by weather system and impacts without injecting the climate change propaganda into the mix. It has happened before and will happen again with or without climate change. There is no empirical evidence linking them together and it is mostly speculation based around hypothetical and hyperbole. It's no different then normal weather disturbances we suffer from periodically.
The problem with Climate Change is that anything that happens in the weather can be claimed to be because of Climate Change. The wind blows, global warming, it rained, global warming, it's hot, global warming, it's cold, global warming, it's sunny, global warming, it flooded, global warming, there's a drought, global warming. All those conditions existed before global warming and will exist well after it.
Someone mod this up.
It so true it seems more than true.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
As I said, you can suffer the same problems elsewhere. The post I replied to was chastising someone for having a religious belief and the thread we are in was started by someone saying they were sickened that someone opens their mouth about certain things. Sounds to me like they found an easy way "of dividing people into groups of "enlightened" or "unenlightened" based on whether or not they agree with you, with no need to explain oneself."
I guess if you aren't paying attention. The bible talked about hygiene and passing on diseases long before Science had a competent understanding and practice of it. Look at Leviticus and ignore the animal sacrifices.
Anyways, it is no different then any other source of knowledge. Studying science isn't going to answer the meaning of life or give guidance on how to deal with other people. Philosophical questions pondered in other sources are just as hit or miss. You need the ability to discover in your own right many of these things as if it doesn't make sense, you are likely not going to follow or practice it.
I've heard similar statements before. I've been consistently unimpressed by some of their knowledge and conclusion. But that is not important, the point is that it's really no different then anything else.
If the job needs to be done, it's 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.
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.
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.
Unless Obama is assassinated, I wouldn't get my hopes up. The democrats would never allow an impeachment to go through to a removal of office. They would more then likely pretend to be all for it, then raise 3 kinds of holey hell about it trying to make the republicans look bad like they did with Clinton.
But yeah, I agree something should be done about it. Although I do not think Biden is clean either. I think they wanted something to happen to somehow use it to aid in getting reelected (like they thought terrorism got Bush reelected) but then realized how much of a problem it was going to be when Romney came out swinging before half the news agencies reported on it.
That's something the government has to deal with when it comes up though, just like they are dealing with gouging.
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.
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.
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.
You can suffer that problem no matter where you look for answers. It's also closely associated with your abilities.
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.
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.
People die in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois every year from the same. They become seriously ill too. I'm not posting to take away from what you said, just to add that the necessity of being able to cool off exists in more places around the country too. In the northern states, high temps sometimes have high humidity with it making it extremely difficult for the body to cool naturally. But even in low humidity, the cooling process can be overwhelmed too.
If our productivity was limited to planting in the cool spring and harvesting in the cool autumn, it wouldn't be as much a problem. Obviously, modern society is a long ways away from that.
I'm betting his reference should be KWH instead. My usage averages 502kwh to 700kwh per month on my usage in a two bedroom home. I guess that's 6000 kwh on the low side per year and 8400 kwh on the high side. My electric rate is actually 8.4 cents per KWH though.
lol.. because I'm not irrationally scared of religion or think it is some massive threat to science because someone thinks differently then I do? Go cower in fear before I thump you with the bible.
IT varies from state to state and some states, the requirement is limited to offering an option for customers to purchase up to a certain amount of their energy from a certified Green source.
I doubt your electric company doesn't purchase any energy. Usually the peak production is maxed out and they sell over the base load for profit then purchase peak power back. Selling the excess over 12 to 16 hours when it is not peak would bring in more revenue they purchasing the slightly more expensive peak power for 6-10 hours per day. Your utility company might not do that, but they would be losing out on some opportunities to lower costs of operation. I don't know the specifics of your utility, they might have some other way of dealing with it that is more efficient but that's the traditional model.
Fact means exactly what it means. You can use a dictionary if you are confused. Reading comprehension helps a bit though. Try understanding what was said and perhaps you might have a different understanding instead of appearing ignorant and unthinking.
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.