Hoarding.

[raiha]

When is hoarding supply and demand (ethically sound)and at what point does it pass into the realm of (ethically questionable) me-first hoarding?

[awake]

Hoarding will get you alot of enemies fast - share and volunteer is the best route.

[Kludge]

You do not live for the collective. Hoarding is never immoral. Do as you please.

It would be "nice" if you pumped your money back in the system, but you have absolutely no obligation to -- if anyone tells you otherwise, you ought'a give 'em a boot in the ass.

[Original_Intent]

You do not live for the collective. Hoarding is never immoral. Do as you please.

It would be "nice" if you pumped your money back in the system, but you have absolutely no obligation to -- if anyone tells you otherwise, you ought'a give 'em a boot in the ass.

Wow I agree.

[Bodhi]

If you can hoard, then do it. You are under no obligation to anyone. The bankers have been hoarding for hundreds of years, it serves the well. I just hope you are nicer than they are!

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

I actually do wrestle with this. As much as I believe self-interest builds the best society, there's a bleeding heart deep inside me. OTOH, I'll be happy to trade my food or silver stores for items of value when necessary. In that respect, I'm sure my neighbors will thank me.

[Truth Warrior]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hoard Looks OK to me. :)

[CitizenPlain]

...

[raiha]

I'm trying to make the distinction between supply and demand (when it is great to buy in bulk, therefore helping businesses when all is flowing merrily, as it should and would do, in a genuine free market society.. and the more grasping, stepping on others heads to be first, when there ARE actual shortages.
I suspect the latter attitude could be a reason your country is in the mess that it is in and all of our countries' not far behind you.
I disagree that thinking of others is collectivist or communist. You gotta live with yourself when you are alone in the bathtub taking stock of your mental tendencies and habits not to mention when you are on your deathbed.

[cheapseats]

Fair enough, regarding the individual's right and indeed obligation to see to his own best interests.

But this is a country, a society, not some free-for-all on Reality TV.

We DARE to posture ourselves as a Christian nation?

To whom much is given, much is expected?

Extraordinary means warrant extraordinary gestures of philanthropy. A Los Angeles Times article a year or two back...I want to say the figures were for 2006...reported that the top One Percent, the crowd that controls over 22% of the wealth, cumulatively gave less than 1% of their wealth in charity with HALF of their total accounted for by Warren Buffet.

America is both at long at war and now in financial crisis...jeepers, maybe they're connected...and America's roughly 450 BILLIONAIRES are doing pretty much fuck-all to help out the country that was instrumental to their accumulation of riches.

They could be investing. They could afford to buy at the not absolute rock bottom price. The could go down as the ultimate Titans, with America's infrastructure bearing their names. But noooo, they're laying up. God forbid, they shouldn't make a killing on every deal. Wankers.

Hoarding during war...I dunno, isn't there something on the books about that?

[Deborah K]

When is hoarding supply and demand (ethically sound)and at what point does it pass into the realm of (ethically questionable) me-first hoarding?


Hoarding and stocking up are two different things. Hoarding is more of a psychological condition that involves an impulse control disorder (disposophobia) If you mean stocking up and not being willing to share it with the truly needy, then that would be extremely selfish.

[CitizenPlain]

...

[Bodhi]

You know what, this is really simple. If you want to make a law that an individual cannot hoard, then you have infringed upon his or her right to do whatever they see fit in their best interest.

To not allow someone to hoard because it is for the greater good amounts to socialism. period.

[RJB]

Hoarding and stocking up are two different things. Hoarding is more of a psychological condition that involves an impulse control disorder (disposophobia) If you mean stocking up and not being willing to share it with the truly needy, then that would be extremely selfish.

I agree. Also, I'd add that stocking up is something that you do BEFORE a crisis. Hoarding is something that is done DURING a crisis and it halts others from getting goods.

[Kludge]

I disagree that thinking of others is collectivist or communist. You gotta live with yourself when you are alone in the bathtub taking stock of your mental tendencies and habits not to mention when you are on your deathbed.

Hoarding is neither "bad" nor "good". The same applies with anything in which you enable a situation to occur indirectly. There is nothing wrong with selling "lethal" fireworks or "life-destroying" pornography. There is nothing wrong with selling weapons either. It is the person takes direct action and lights the firework or shoots someone unnecessarily with a gun who is at fault.

Producing is always virtuous -- you are creating wealth and, generally, happiness whenever you produce.

There is nothing "bad" about cartels. They provide "good" by allowing people to purchase their oil (a voluntary trade which benefits both). If others use it to... Idunno... drown someone in -- that is in no way the fault of the cartel, nor is it "bad" if prices go up because the cartel decided to cut supply to boost profit margins.

In the same sense, there is nothing "bad" about hoarding wealth -- unless you believe you exist to be sacrificed for others. If you believe there is some type of "good"-ness quota you must fill in every scenario you are presented with, then yes, you shouldn't hoard -- but then where do you draw the line? The short answer is... You can't, because it's totally arbitrary. I doubt anyone has the same irrational amount of "good" they need to do with every action.

[CitizenPlain]

...

[Original_Intent]

In my community, our leaders have been telling people to prepare by getting a year's supply of all necessities for decades.

A lot of my neighbor's make a lot more than I do and have enjoyed Big Screen TV's, big boats, all kinds of toys - while I have tried to prepare for the worst and hope for the best - have done without a LOT of toys I would have liked.

So hard times hit. All of my preparation might feed my neighborhood for a week. Am I oblilgated as a Christian to divvy up my preparations because they squandered their money instead of preparing for a rainy day? I don't think so!

Of course I will do my best to help others who will be in need, but supposing food becomes scarce in winter, am I going to risk my family not making it to feed people who had the means and the forewarning to prepare on their own? Again, don't think so and I don't think that is required.

Remember the parable of the ten virgins (for those of you saying not to help is unChristian). I will do what I can, but Christianity is not Communism.

[Bodhi]

There is nothing "bad" about cartels. T .

I disagree, a Cartel is not an individual. When people join together to hoard in a mutual self interest that excludes others that is a conspiracy.

If you want to hoard as an individual, that is fine with me. If you want to make a gang and hoard together, then that is where the sh@t hits the fan and I have to say no.

[Deborah K]

I disagree, a Cartel is not an individual. When people join together to hoard in a mutual self interest that excludes others that is a conspiracy.

If you want to hoard as an individual, that is fine with me. If you want to make a gang and hoard together, then that is where the sh@t hits the fan and I have to say no.


I always thought "cartels" were monopolies, which shut out competition....? :confused:

[Original_Intent]

I disagree, a Cartel is not an individual. When people join together to hoard in a mutual self interest that excludes others that is a conspiracy.

If you want to hoard as an individual, that is fine with me. If you want to make a gang and hoard together, then that is where the sh@t hits the fan and I have to say no.

I disagree. I f you are hoarding so you can sell at an incredible profit then I don't think that is good but if it is people banding together to hoard for their own use (and protection) that is the right of free association.

[cheapseats]

A person is free to share what he has worked for and
not foolishly wasted, but saved.
He has the freedom of choice to share with the poor
fool that wasted his and is now in need.
Should the waster expect the gift ?

Yep, yep and nope.

That said, I am referring to Made In America BILLIONAIRES...among whose ranks are counted some Robber Barons and Trust Fund Babies, it bears mention...who have America and its outrageously skewed tax labyrinth, as well as their own ingenuity and effort, to thank for their Extraordinary Wealth.

It's not about what they HAVE to do or are free NOT to do. It's about them being treated like Royalty AND behaving like Assholes.

In another time, rotten produce would be hurled at their limousines. Of course, in another time it would have been horses. ;)

While Congress would react to the crisis by bleeding several generations of Average Americans for The Fix, they have asked NOTHING superlative of our very richest citizens. It's bullshit.

[ForrestLayne]

my opinion

stocking up for your own future use is not hoarding.

hoarding is amassing more items than you possibly can or will use OR items you will not use for the sole purpose of profit from others when scarcity hits. Along with that is the idea of trying to acquire all of something so you can set your price and gouge people.

just my opinion

[Bodhi]

I disagree. I f you are hoarding so you can sell at an incredible profit then I don't think that is good but if it is people banding together to hoard for their own use (and protection) that is the right of free association.

Where do we draw the line of what the bankers are doing to us and what we have to do to survive? As free citizens with the right to liberty it is our duty to insure that no group with self interests be allowed to take advantage over any individual and that individuals right to liberty.

[liberteebell]

But in the American way, charity has to be voluntary.

We are all free to choose when, where, how much, and

to whom.


The key word being VOLUNTARY.

As to hoarding, it's just a word. Think of rational self-interest.

[No1ButPaul08]

Let's let Rothbard explain this,

"At what point does a man's cash balance become a faintly disreputable "hoard," or the prudent man a miser? It is impossible to fix any definite criterion: generally, the charge of "hoarding" means that A is keeping more cash than B thinks is appropriate for A."

From the "The Problem of "Hoarding"" section of What has Government Done to our Money" (http://mises.org/money/2s9.asp)

[CitizenPlain]

...

[Razorback Fan]

I "hoard" by saving as much money as I can, and by not spending on consumer goods I don't need. This is a selfish act.

I also give generously, directly to the people I feel need it most. This is also a selfish act, because I do it to make myself feel good.

Both acts are selfish and are the essence of good citizenship.

[pappy]

Howard Ruff says in one of his books (How to prosper in the coming bad years --or something like that--I think).

It is better to "hoard" ahead of time. I am sure everyone will be glad that my very large family (he is mormon) is not ahead of them in the food line when times get bad. (paraprhased from my memory--- from long ago---but that's the gist).

If you hoard now, you will not be part of the problem when it all goes down.

pappy

[Original_Intent]

Where do we draw the line of what the bankers are doing to us and what we have to do to survive? As free citizens with the right to liberty it is our duty to insure that no group with self interests be allowed to take advantage over any individual and that individuals right to liberty.

Not at all the same. What the bankers are doing to us is they "lent" us money that they created from thin air and then demand reapyment with interest. They had nothing of real value to start with, just the ability to create money.

My food storage represents real value that I have earned by the sweat of my brow and layed up against a rainy day. Equating one with the other is to blind yourself to the truth.

[Mini-Me]

When is hoarding supply and demand (ethically sound)and at what point does it pass into the realm of (ethically questionable) me-first hoarding?

I'd say that "hoarding" becomes ethically questionable when both of the following factors are true:
You are no longer doing it just to ensure your own survival (or even comfort) and that of your loved ones
You're specifically hoarding things you know you won't need, fully knowing that because of food shortages, more people will assuredly starve because of it...or especially if you're purposely doing it to exploit shortages or just watch people suffer.
If/when it gets to this point, it would really be up to the stores (the current owners of goods, such as food) to determine whether they want to set purchase limits to give everyone a fair shot. Personally, I would never "hoard" essential resources, by my own definition of the word, because I'm not an asshole. ;) (By the way, "hoarding" money is entirely different, economically speaking: Through supply and demand, it can actually temporarily increase the buying power of other people's dollars, so other consumers shouldn't complain. ;))

In our modern society, we've gotten very far through specialization and the division of labor. Technically speaking, Conagra and all of the big food producers own the food they produce and they have a right to do what they want with it, as it is their property. However, consider this scenario: If the major food producers purposely and maliciously decided that they were going to cause (or exacerbate) a shortage and hold an entire country's food supply at ransom without any warning, that would certainly be a pretty crappy and unethical thing to do. After all, everyone has relied on a kind of unspoken agreement that specialization and the division of labor will continue, and if this stopped with no warning, nobody would have time to become more self-sufficient before dying of hunger.

Situations like this are where the occasional difference between natural rights and ethical behavior becomes more readily apparent. To give a few more examples:
Consider the ethics of verbal abuse: Technically, verbal abusers are not physically hurting anybody or violating their right to life, liberty, or property. However, it's still a pretty crappy thing to do, and it can leave lasting emotional and mental scars on people.
Consider the following scenario: You're sitting by a pool reading a magazine. You notice a person drowning, and there's nobody else around. Is it right to just sit there and let them drown? After all, you're not actively violating their rights, and they're drowning of their own clumsiness/stupidity/etc. (even if it's a child, let's say!). If you fail to take the minimal effort it would take to save them, you're not technically violating their rights...but it still doesn't make you any less horrible of a person.

Reconciling this with my political views:
I have pretty much zero respect for any government activity that goes beyond protecting the rights of people and preventing coercion/aggression. This is because, as a rule, the non-aggression principle forms a pretty good basis for reciprocal morality. While there are exceptional situations in which non-aggressive actions or inaction can be entirely unethical/immoral, I don't trust the government (or a democratic public) to make such subjective value judgments or draw arbitrary lines, because that opens up a whole can of worms and allows them to grossly infringe upon natural rights by making arbitrary judgments about anything and everything. In other words, nobody else has the right to dictate to me whether I can perform some non-aggressive action (or inaction) based on their own idea of ethics and morality. In short, I recognize that exceptional situations exist in which non-aggression does not suffice for ethical behavior, but I feel I should be free to decide for myself what situations qualify.

[Mini-Me]

fit into this society?

They are the barons of our day. They have all amassed
great wealth.

Do they have an obligation to share with the rest now.

They are all charitable already I think, but do you think
their wealth should be divided amongst the masses.

I say no. They made what ever sacrifices they had to
to get it and now it's theirs.

But, then they can't take it with them, can they.

There are a lot of socialists here.

Actually, this all depends on who among the wealthy obtained their wealth honestly and who obtained it through the coercive hand of government. ;) Of course, practically speaking, I generally trust no one to make this judgment.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

A lot of my neighbor's make a lot more than I do and have enjoyed Big Screen TV's, big boats, all kinds of toys - while I have tried to prepare for the worst and hope for the best - have done without a LOT of toys I would have liked.

So hard times hit. All of my preparation might feed my neighborhood for a week. Am I oblilgated as a Christian to divvy up my preparations because they squandered their money instead of preparing for a rainy day? I don't think so!

Of course I will do my best to help others who will be in need, but supposing food becomes scarce in winter, am I going to risk my family not making it to feed people who had the means and the forewarning to prepare on their own?

Even if they didn't have the means, you can only fit so many people in your lifeboat. If you feed too many people, you'll all starve.

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[yongrel]

I have 300 cups of tapioca pudding in my closet. That is the limit to my hoarding.

[ghengis86]

Go ahead and redistribute your communism/socialism, I'll hoard my liberty and freedom.

[raiha]

Hoarding is neither "bad" nor "good". The same applies with anything in which you enable a situation to occur indirectly. There is nothing wrong with selling "lethal" fireworks or "life-destroying" pornography. There is nothing wrong with selling weapons either. It is the person takes direct action and lights the firework or shoots someone unnecessarily with a gun who is at fault.

I agree with most of what you say. Sometimes, however the cravings of the human heart are capable of rationalizing whatever activity one may engage in thus colouring ones judgement to the detriment of others.

Been thinking of Victor Frankl in his concentration camp and how he noted that in the worst possible situation ie Auschwitz, human nature expressed itself according to peoples' volitional tendencies. You had the man who would narc on his cellmate for a crust and the man who would give his last crust to someone less fortunate. Don't think the crust-giver was a communist (said in scathing tone of voice for Ghengis 86.)

[josephadel_3]

If this were a truly free society, you'd feel no need to hoard. With a landmass as bountiful as America's, the nation would be prosperous and contented. However, this is not a free country, and the shit is about to hit the fan. Thus, there is a greater desire to hoard supplies. You see, a society that steals your money and deflates the value of it only perpetuates greed. So I say, hoard away. It's one of the few freedoms you have left.

[angelatc]

I actually do wrestle with this. As much as I believe self-interest builds the best society, there's a bleeding heart deep inside me. OTOH, I'll be happy to trade my food or silver stores for items of value when necessary. In that respect, I'm sure my neighbors will thank me.

That's the core of the conservative philosophy, IMHO. It isn't that conservatives won't share, it's just they they choose who they share with.