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.
So if someone doesn't believe exactly like you, they are not welcome? I mean we don't have to get into the entire evolution verses creation or the fact that evolution could be a product of creation, it seems you just think anyone who doesn't think like you is not worthy of all the rights everyone else hold. Do I have that right?
Wow, gay marriage and anti abortion is the best you have against him? lol.. Those are not even scientific issues, they are social issues. You are not trying to say Science says Gays should be or have to be married and that Abortion must be available as birth control are you?
As for the global warming, it is a belief held by many who are not what you consider religious either. The conspiracy surrounding global warming is very well documented. The entire science has been corrupted including attempts to mitigate the damages like the Kyoto accords that had no real intentions of fixing global warming. In fact, of the 157 countries who signed on to it, only 37 has limits on their Co2 productions with 2 of them being set at levels they expected to reach more then 10 years down the road while the limited countries could skate around their restrictions by moving the production and the investments of infrastructure into another member country who doesn't have limits. The Jubilee 200 campaign who was among one of the several groups in the 1990's trying to get the world bank and first world countries to forgive the third world debt created by the 1970's oil embargo, announced after the Kyoto accord was negotiated that they had a means to achieve their goals though the Kyoto protocol. His statement on global warming has to do more with fact and perceived reality then religious dogma. Of course if you weren't indoctrinated against all things you don't agree with, you would have seen that too. This is why the US never signed onto Kyoto and why Clinton attempted to hide the debate around it. And yes, Hansen, Gore, Mann, all were supporters of the jubilee 2000 campaign.
Broun proposed failed legislation that would have proclaimed 2010 "The Year Of The Bible".
Other then your fear of religion, what has this got to do with science that he was involved with? You see, it's your paranoia not his actions.
The rest of your comment is exactly the same. Paranoid opinions based around your fears and emotion, not facts or reality.
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.
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.
Yes, when he was speaking to some Methodist group (or some other religious entity) he made those comments. Why no one ran against him, probably because he represents his constituents well and someone else wouldn't be elected.
BTW, the entire comments issue is blown out of portion. nothing he has done politically supports that ideology. It was pandering at its best but anyone who looks at his record doesn't believe he puts those views over science. It's more or less just a bunch of Atheists wanting attention and acting outraged because someone associated with science even in a cursory fashion had the gull to act like religion was more important then science.
It was probably more for him to pick up the pieces then anything but there is the threat of someone trying to blackmail him or his spouse or a family member if they knew about the affair and he was trying to keep it secrete.
Of course this could just be an excuse to not wanting to work under another Obama administration considering the flack the CIA received over the Benghazi attacks.
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.
They probably monitor those too. And yes, I agreed that they are morons.
In most of the corporate environments I admin, we block Gmail, yahoo mail, GMX, AOL, and hot mail. Pretty much every mail service we can find is blocked at the router with a redirect to the corporate policy..But using those services doesn't stop anything from inspecting the packets for information. Only the log ins seem to be secure.
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.
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.
I do not think McCain could have danced around anything on it. The reason we did the SOFA agreement was because we recognized the Iraqi government as being legit enough that it controls it's own sovereignty. In other words, we needed permission to stay just like we would need permission to send troops into Mexico or England or China or Russia. Ignoring them would be an act of war all over again and I do not think McCain would have the stomach for that. People who've been to war are a lot less enthusiastic to go to war.
We are out because the US and international community determined in 2008 that the Iraqi government was established enough to be in control of the country's governing. This had more then just the US or Barack Obama behind it. All Obama did was rename the terms used for the training troops and anti terrorism activities.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
Not in this case though. The Generally in your statement indicates not all the time. I do not disagree with that.
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.
So if someone doesn't believe exactly like you, they are not welcome? I mean we don't have to get into the entire evolution verses creation or the fact that evolution could be a product of creation, it seems you just think anyone who doesn't think like you is not worthy of all the rights everyone else hold. Do I have that right?
Actually, lots of answers in life can be found in that book. It depends on the questions you are asking.
Wow, gay marriage and anti abortion is the best you have against him? lol.. Those are not even scientific issues, they are social issues. You are not trying to say Science says Gays should be or have to be married and that Abortion must be available as birth control are you?
As for the global warming, it is a belief held by many who are not what you consider religious either. The conspiracy surrounding global warming is very well documented. The entire science has been corrupted including attempts to mitigate the damages like the Kyoto accords that had no real intentions of fixing global warming. In fact, of the 157 countries who signed on to it, only 37 has limits on their Co2 productions with 2 of them being set at levels they expected to reach more then 10 years down the road while the limited countries could skate around their restrictions by moving the production and the investments of infrastructure into another member country who doesn't have limits. The Jubilee 200 campaign who was among one of the several groups in the 1990's trying to get the world bank and first world countries to forgive the third world debt created by the 1970's oil embargo, announced after the Kyoto accord was negotiated that they had a means to achieve their goals though the Kyoto protocol. His statement on global warming has to do more with fact and perceived reality then religious dogma. Of course if you weren't indoctrinated against all things you don't agree with, you would have seen that too. This is why the US never signed onto Kyoto and why Clinton attempted to hide the debate around it. And yes, Hansen, Gore, Mann, all were supporters of the jubilee 2000 campaign.
Other then your fear of religion, what has this got to do with science that he was involved with? You see, it's your paranoia not his actions.
The rest of your comment is exactly the same. Paranoid opinions based around your fears and emotion, not facts or reality.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, when he was speaking to some Methodist group (or some other religious entity) he made those comments. Why no one ran against him, probably because he represents his constituents well and someone else wouldn't be elected.
BTW, the entire comments issue is blown out of portion. nothing he has done politically supports that ideology. It was pandering at its best but anyone who looks at his record doesn't believe he puts those views over science. It's more or less just a bunch of Atheists wanting attention and acting outraged because someone associated with science even in a cursory fashion had the gull to act like religion was more important then science.
It was probably more for him to pick up the pieces then anything but there is the threat of someone trying to blackmail him or his spouse or a family member if they knew about the affair and he was trying to keep it secrete.
Of course this could just be an excuse to not wanting to work under another Obama administration considering the flack the CIA received over the Benghazi attacks.
lol.. Yep, it's artificial. There are no normal market forces at play other then an artificial shortage due to the disaster.
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.
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.
They probably monitor those too. And yes, I agreed that they are morons.
In most of the corporate environments I admin, we block Gmail, yahoo mail, GMX, AOL, and hot mail. Pretty much every mail service we can find is blocked at the router with a redirect to the corporate policy..But using those services doesn't stop anything from inspecting the packets for information. Only the log ins seem to be secure.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
I do not think McCain could have danced around anything on it. The reason we did the SOFA agreement was because we recognized the Iraqi government as being legit enough that it controls it's own sovereignty. In other words, we needed permission to stay just like we would need permission to send troops into Mexico or England or China or Russia. Ignoring them would be an act of war all over again and I do not think McCain would have the stomach for that. People who've been to war are a lot less enthusiastic to go to war.
We are out because the US and international community determined in 2008 that the Iraqi government was established enough to be in control of the country's governing. This had more then just the US or Barack Obama behind it. All Obama did was rename the terms used for the training troops and anti terrorism activities.
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.
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.
No, people would buy it because they panic in an emergency.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.