Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know libertarians think they are very clever and aren't on anybody's side, but enlightened selfishness is still the enemy of progress. That philosophy is pretty darn right-wing on economic and social issues. You can't just slap "personal freedom" on top of that and claim it comes out smelling like a rose.
> enlightened selfishness is still the enemy of progress Baloney.
$5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA
411–420 of 450 posts
Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA
#412Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems to me that it's unlikely the toilet paper producers are perpetually running at 100% factory output. Something tells me they will respond by increasing production. Why? Because they are seeing enormous sales currently. Of course they want more. With some of the supply chain troubles we are having with everything closing, though, the delay might be slightly longer. I highly doubt this shortage will last longer th…
There's another benefit of the signal sent by high prices. It encourages the use of alternatives. There are many substitutes for toilet paper including other paper products and bidets.
Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
A: No price controls, scalpers buy everything and resell at 1000%. Only people who can pay that much get it until the manufacturer ends up at 10x output, which can take a long time. B: Price controls, at least some distrubution of everyone gets some, less incentive to hoard, stores still allowed to raise prices a little (just not a predatory amount detached from real costs) when the manufacturer does when ramping up…
In your A: situation you are explicitly saying that the normal suppliers are not raising the price. I am saying that the best solution to this problem is for the normal suppliers to raise their prices so that scalpers are disencentivized and regular consumers are judicious in their purchases. So you are forcing a false choice between your A and B scenarios.
Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA
#414Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jesus. Yeah, it's sick. There's another story along the same lines, to the tune of $70k in disaster profiteering: https://abc14news.com/2020/03/14/canadian-couple-make-more-t...
Is this not just the world we live in? Personally I agree with you but then I also consider how there are a handful of billionaires with more wealth than a huge portion of the global population and big pharma/ insurance companies charge so much that people are dying because they can't afford medication like Insulin. If that's the way the world is then why should anyone be expected to behave any differently? It's not…
Who is this "we" you speak of?
Let me see if I understand your argument: because there is someone out there who will "give a free pass" to big pharma, the rest of us should politely shut up about disaster profiteers? We should all just say "oh well, pharma co's do it, so no biggie". Is that about right?
Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA
#415Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this not just the world we live in? Personally I agree with you but then I also consider how there are a handful of billionaires with more wealth than a huge portion of the global population and big pharma/ insurance companies charge so much that people are dying because they can't afford medication like Insulin. If that's the way the world is then why should anyone be expected to behave any differently? It's not…
> It's not right to vilify these people while we give a free pass to everyone else doing equally unethical things. Who is this "we" you speak of? Let me see if I understand your argument: because there is someone out there who will "give a free pass" to big pharma, the rest of us should politely shut up about disaster profiteers? We should all just say "oh well, pharma co's do it, so no biggie". Is that about right?
And the argument is correct. You cannot keep teaching people unlimited greed and profiteering is okay because "it's free market" and then expect them to behave ethically. You have to change what is acceptable and tolerated. The current situation is an excellent starting point, but we shouldn't stop here.
Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA
#416A lot of people in this thread are willfully ignoring some basic facts here. These products are being made in sufficient quantity for everyone. There is not a significant decrease in production. There is a significant increase in hoarding, and in many cases it is for the explicit purpose of creating artificial scarcity to increase the price of a product. This is not a case of toilet paper suddenly costing more to pro…
> This is not a case of toilet paper suddenly costing more to produce Production and logistics have gotten more expensive. That has happened economy-wide, and will only get worse as the pandemic exponentiates. They’ve also become less reliable, which is why we have hoarding. The purpose of price spikes is to incentivise production, to create slack in the system. (It also reduces the quantity demanded. Toilet paper at…
Except we're not really limited to only two options. Rationing might be an unpopular option, but it works just fine.
Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA
#417Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you know your actions are going to lead to shortages and you pursue them anyway to make profit (rather than meet your minimum personal needs), then you're absolutely trying to create it.
The statement's conclusion doesn't follow from its assumptions. And, in any case, you ignored the point made myself and others in this thread, that any individual's actions have ~zero impact on whether there is a shortage. It's the collective result of many individual actions.
Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA
#418Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not right to vilify these people while we give a free pass to everyone else doing equally unethical things. Who is this "we" you speak of? Let me see if I understand your argument: because there is someone out there who will "give a free pass" to big pharma, the rest of us should politely shut up about disaster profiteers? We should all just say "oh well, pharma co's do it, so no biggie". Is that about right?
No, the argument was pretty clear: we're at this point because the majority has been tolerating -- and even defending -- similar behavior for a long time; therefore, we should stop tolerating this kind of behavior in general, not just for this special case under these special circumstances. And the argument is correct. You cannot keep teaching people unlimited greed and profiteering is okay because "it's free market"…
> It's not right to vilify these people while we give a free pass to everyone else doing equally unethical things.
Seems to say, we should stop criticizing these scumbag disaster profiteers, simply because there exist equally loathsome corporate profiteers.
Taken at face value, this is quintessential whataboutist bullshit. Now maybe I misinterpreted, which is why I asked, but your new goal posts have not answered my question.
Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA
#419Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Damnit, just let me gouge! You can do something about it once I've cashed out! No thanks. I'd prefer inflicting a social cost to disincentivize the behavior in light of the taint on one's reputation for doing it.
Why do you value the idea of preventing people from meeting demand for a good or service? You are advocating for some magical price point that is morally virtuous regardless of the context and dynamic nature of supply and demand. Why? Why do you think that is better than actually incentivising people to satisfy demand by increasing supply or alternatively to signal to those people making irrational decisions that the…
If you cannot understand why this type of middleman profit-taking centric arbitrage by which no product is created but merely has it's destination altered via people looking to move the supply to the highest bidder, I don't know what to say to you other than you are clearly not thinking with the best interests of those where you're raiding that stock from. There was no shortage until these speculators created it. And no, the production, was fine, or would have been less problematic without their intervention.
Information does not magically propagate. The manufacturer has to receive orders through their customer's acquisition processes; which is triggered through the data that feeds them. In order to have an accurate forecast of what real affordable growth they can manage to fund or pull off goes into their (the supplier's) calculation of backlog time and CapEx to satisfy demand for new equipment or hiring, which influences what they can commit to, which then feeds back intopurchasing decisions by retailers, as well as requiring them to forward the orders to their suppliers, and so on and so forth. None of that gets done lightly or pivots on a dime, rendering disruptive arbitrage transactions as a highly destabilizing occurrence to the supply chain that only ends up being made obvious through careful analysis of data exterior to the in-place logistical chain. Something no directly involved actors tend to specialize at doing, seeing as they are the typical supplier. Furthermore, seeing as these people failed to make arrangements in the sense of properly batching their shipping, the energy cost per delivered goes through the damn roof.
If you want to solve increased demand, you go to the supplier directly, and get in line. You don't arbitrarily make the decision for an entire town that they don't need those supplies their demand facilitated the staging of at the local Dollar Store, and schluff them off elsewhere because you want an effing 3.5 to 7x profit factor. Not when everyone everywhere needs it at the same time. This isn't a case of statistical multiplexing. There is no "well they don't need it as much as we/they do."
When probability is unity, you spread your finite supply of mitigation of new viral spread as far and thin as you can in order to slow the viral propagation as much as possible, and damp it's intensity as low as you can overall; the more "holes" you create by arbitrage buying, the more vulnerable and intense will be the resulting propagation of the disease through the locale.
It isn't my fault these people can't seem to grok higher order consequences well enough to realize they should have left well enough a-damn-lone. Nor is it my fault you seem to think the laws of physics can be bent by throwing enough money around. It's a bloody crisis man. Information and supplies being where they need to be saves lives. Not sticking your %;&_ in everyone else's slice of the bloody logistical pie!
These aren't securities! These aren't "potential value". These are physical lots on which people's lives will be dependent upon. There should be a damn social cost to this destabilizing behavior, because it's like being a damn agitator in an already on the brink confrontation. We cannot afford for everyone to engage in this type of behavior throwing off everyone else's capability to plan and smoothly execute a bloody response which doesn't upset the overall allocation of finite human capital too disruptively.
You want to engage in arbitrage and play "the Free Market cures all ills"? You do that with your own community. Don't go and start ransacking everyone else's supplies, and expect everyone else to clap you on the back and say "Good on you, lad! Making all that profit! Hell, I'll miss Gram/Mom/Dad and I'll have to figure out how to pay Little Johnny's/Jane's/my wife's emergency room bill due to not getting my hands on some sanitizer/masks for them, but I'm pleased as punch you managed to eke so much more profit selling that product that we through our purchasing habits managed to keep stocked at a local business we fund as a support to the logistical needs of our own community. Bloody genius move!"
I'm not the one encouraging irrational behavior. You are, by applying magical thinking to just how all that signalling has to get translated before any meaningful intervention can take place.
I know what these systems look like. I know as much gets done as it is within the capability of the people making up the chain can manage to sift through, and I damn well know how disruptive particularly egregious acts of greed can change the logistical landscape because of the long-cycle nature of the signalling and pattern recognition. Thankfully, we have this wonderful communication network, and mechanisms for modifying human behavior through social pressure and legal processes to be able to short-circuit these malevolent practices before things get too chaotic or too much damage is done!
Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA
#420Earlier quoted context omitted.
Letting supply and demand determine prices doesn't necessarily redirect goods from poor people to wealthy people; it redirects goods towards those that actually need them, because those people are willing to pay the higher price. If we're talking about someone living paycheck to paycheck who really can't afford toilet paper being 2x more expensive, they may have to use a substitute, but with price ceilings the shelve…
When it comes to daily essentials like housing, food, medicine, and toilet paper, everybody needs them - that's why they're called "essential". When you have a good that everyone needs, the market-clearing price becomes a function of ability to pay, not willingness to pay.