My argument that price gouging is wrong

[Met Income]

Vertical demand for essential commodities forces regulation. That's why we have erected publicly regulated utilities. Secondly, our government has chosen to make available increased resources for those in poverty to purchase essentials. They have not attempted to regulate prices for the most part (milk being one exception). Our Constitution contains an eminent domain clause as well as a general welfare clause. The founders were not darwinian capitalists. They were socially conscious and well understood the notion of "common good." Finally, your hypothetical is severely flawed. In a crisis, the playing field is hardly level and therefore the free market theory collapses swiftly in the absence of regulation of supply. In above scenario, absent regulation, water seller raises his price on limited quantity to the highest price the richest purchasers can bear. This is a closed market in the moment. Rich guy buys up ALL the water at astronomical price (it doesn't preserve any distribution or efficiency at all) and goes on to hoard it in his compound. Everybody else looks for a cactus to drain. That would not be my idea of price directing resources to their most efficient and productive uses. It would be an example of the trenendous inequalities in wealth driving societal inequalities. Not a world I personally want to live in. Nor did the founders.

If you disagree, please explain why. Thanks!

[angelatc]

Price controls create shortages.

The end.

[danberkeley]

[QUOTE=Met Income;1796977]Vertical demand for essential commodities forces regulation. That's why we have erected publicly regulated utilities.

Prove it! The demand for "essential commodities" in not vertical. It's elastic. Look at the price of gasoline.

Secondly, our government has chosen to make available increased resources for those in poverty to purchase essentials. They have not attempted to regulate prices for the most part (milk being one exception). Our Constitution contains an eminent domain clause as well as a general welfare clause. The founders were not darwinian capitalists. They were socially conscious and well understood the notion of "common good."

The fouders were definately "darwinian" capitalist. You misunderstand "common good".

Finally, your hypothetical is severely flawed. In a crisis, the playing field is hardly level and therefore the free market theory collapses swiftly in the absence of regulation of supply.

Why/how is a playing field hardly level in a crisis? So free market theory is only supported by government regulation?

In above scenario, absent regulation, water seller raises his price on limited quantity to the highest price the richest purchasers can bear. This is a closed market in the moment. Rich guy buys up ALL the water at astronomical price (it doesn't preserve any distribution or efficiency at all) and goes on to hoard it in his compound. Everybody else looks for a cactus to drain. That would not be my idea of price directing resources to their most efficient and productive uses. It would be an example of the trenendous inequalities in wealth driving societal inequalities. Not a world I personally want to live in. Nor did the founders.

Why would a rich person buy a all gallons of water at "price gouging" prices for a temporary crisis? Higher prices ensure that water is brought into the market of the area that is in crisis.

If you disagree, please explain why. Thanks!

You make a weak argument, and your models are flawed, and your theories are impractical, and you don't give any real world examples. Therefore, you are fail.

[danberkeley]

Price controls create shortages.

The end.

That's the most concise response that anyone can think of. I can't believe I wasted my time analyzing the "argument" sentance by sentance. Grrr!

[Ozwest]

danberkeley,

Agree with much of your analysis...

But...

Whilst I am a supporter of free markets, I believe governments should play a heavy-handed role in essential services such as power and water.

Need I remind you of Enron...

[danberkeley]

danberkeley,

Agree with much of your analysis...

But...

Whilst I am a supporter of free markets, I believe governments should play a heavy-handed role in essential services such as power and water.

Need I remind you of Enron...

Tell that to the children of Africa! I suppose that, in theory, the government could take from the haves to give the have nots. But in pratice, like in Africa, the government takes from the haves, keeps it, and starves the have nots.

[heavenlyboy34]

danberkeley,

Agree with much of your analysis...

But...

Whilst I am a supporter of free markets, I believe governments should play a heavy-handed role in essential services such as power and water.

Need I remind you of Enron...

I partly agree, Oz. But not on principle-only because in the current reality, the "market" is so anti-capitalist in nature (due to gov'ment intervention) that it must be regulated somehow to keep TPTB in some kind of check (tenuous as it may be).

[Ozwest]

Tell that to the children of Africa! I suppose that, in theory, the government could take from the haves to give the have nots. But in pratice, like in Africa, the government takes from the haves, keeps it, and starves the have nots.

When supplying essential services, the supply of power and water cannot be purely market driven, in the same way, the U.S. mail delivers, and rural communities are entitled to phone services and inter-net connection.

[danberkeley]

When supplying essential services, the supply of power and water cannot be purely market driven, in the same way, the U.S. mail delivers, and rural communities are entitled to phone services and inter-net connection.

Why can't they be purely market driven? Give me an example of when the free market failed.

[Ozwest]

In Australia, a population of 20 million, with a land mass the size of America, we pay extra to provide all citizens with the same opportunities city-dwellers have.

[Ozwest]

Why can't they be purely market driven? Give me an example of when the free market failed.

California.

Ask them what went wrong with their power and water?

[danberkeley]

California.

Ask them what went wrong with their power and water?

ENRON took advantage of the system that the government itself set up to regulate energy. That would be a government failure. But it will suffice to say that California does not have a free market.

[Ozwest]

ENRON took advantage of the system that the government itself set up to regulate energy. That would be a government failure. But it will suffice to say that California does not have a free market.

Once again, I am for free markets, and having run a business, despise taxes, bureaucracies, lawyers, and government interference.

But...

Don't change the rules.

Publicly owned essential services were sold, accompanied by catastrophe.

[LibertyEagle]

In Australia, a population of 20 million, with a land mass the size of America, we pay extra to provide all citizens with the same opportunities city-dwellers have.

You've got a good socialistic-utopia in the making there, Oz. BTW, how's that spying thing coming?
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44527

How do you like that gun-grabbing down under?
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html

If Australians have no problem with those things, it makes perfect sense that they support wealth redistribution.

[Ozwest]

You've got a good socialistic-utopia in the making there, Oz. BTW, how's that spying thing coming?
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44527

How do you like that gun-grabbing down under?
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html

If Australians have no problem with those things, it makes perfect sense that they support wealth redistribution.

Haha.

I kinda of think that you guys would have a similar system if state rights were adhered to.

A small population enhances your say, and we look after our own.

Our dollar is taking a dive, because we have high interest rates, strong banks, and haven't had to bail out anyone.

Go figure?

[Ozwest]

You've got a good socialistic-utopia in the making there, Oz. BTW, how's that spying thing coming?
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44527

How do you like that gun-grabbing down under?
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html

If Australians have no problem with those things, it makes perfect sense that they support wealth redistribution.

What no internet porn?

[Ozwest]

You've got a good socialistic-utopia in the making there, Oz. BTW, how's that spying thing coming?
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44527

How do you like that gun-grabbing down under?
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html

If Australians have no problem with those things, it makes perfect sense that they support wealth redistribution.

Licensed rifles and shotty's are a go-er. Hand guns and semi- automatics require gun club membership.

I own weapons, and a large % of my fellow Aussies know how to use them.

[danberkeley]

Once again, I am for free markets, and having run a business, despise taxes, bureaucracies, lawyers, and government interference.

I know. But you said, "Whilst I am a supporter of free markets, I believe governments should play a heavy-handed role in essential services such as power and water." What your saying is that the free market fails at providing this. Then you gave California as an example of how the market (it was implied you meant "free market") failed. But there is NO free market in California. A free market cannot fail (if it ever can) when a free market does not exist.

Publicly owned essential services were sold, accompanied by catastrophe.

What do you mean?

[Ozwest]

I know. But you said, "Whilst I am a supporter of free markets, I believe governments should play a heavy-handed role in essential services such as power and water." What your saying is that the free market fails at providing this. Then you gave California as an example of how the market (it was implied you meant "free market") failed. But there is NO free market in California. A free market cannot fail (if it ever can) when a free market does not exist.



What do you mean?

Read post # 13, and stop playing semantics.

Monopolies are dangerous, especially when supported by crooks and liars.

When military - economic fascism empowers wealthy, intelligent, and influential members of the public, whilst removing potential opponents and resisters of the state and encouraging the weakening of civil society and exploitation of people outside the state...

Time for you to study Mussolini.

[Mini-Me]

Vertical demand for essential commodities forces regulation. That's why we have erected publicly regulated utilities. Secondly, our government has chosen to make available increased resources for those in poverty to purchase essentials. They have not attempted to regulate prices for the most part (milk being one exception). Our Constitution contains an eminent domain clause as well as a general welfare clause. The founders were not darwinian capitalists. They were socially conscious and well understood the notion of "common good." Finally, your hypothetical is severely flawed. In a crisis, the playing field is hardly level and therefore the free market theory collapses swiftly in the absence of regulation of supply. In above scenario, absent regulation, water seller raises his price on limited quantity to the highest price the richest purchasers can bear. This is a closed market in the moment. Rich guy buys up ALL the water at astronomical price (it doesn't preserve any distribution or efficiency at all) and goes on to hoard it in his compound. Everybody else looks for a cactus to drain. That would not be my idea of price directing resources to their most efficient and productive uses. It would be an example of the trenendous inequalities in wealth driving societal inequalities. Not a world I personally want to live in. Nor did the founders.

If you disagree, please explain why. Thanks!

I may decide to debate the economics of this at a later time (as well as the dangers of allowing the government to arbitrarily regulate at all and the economic consequences of it), but right now, I'm honestly too worn down to bother. Instead, I will briefly address your comment about the "general welfare" clause:

You're reading that clause incorrectly, and your false interpretation is the same dangerous interpretation that allowed politicians to grow the federal government into the all-powerful leviathan it is today. Allow me to quote Thomas Jefferson for a moment:

On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
- Letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

"Trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it" is a common past-time in Washington. If the Framers intended the "general welfare" clause to grant the government any additional power whatsoever, the clause would have to have granted government the power to do anything it decided was for the "general welfare." However, if that were the case, the Framers would not have bothered enumerating the federal government's powers at all, since the "general welfare" clause would obviously cover all enumerated powers and much, much more. The very fact that the Framers did enumerate powers means that this permissive interpretation of the general welfare clause is patently absurd. The Founders and Framers had no intentions of giving the government carte blanche. To understand what the clause truly means, take it in the context in which it was written:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

This is followed by a list of enumerated powers. The phrase "general welfare" in the above quote does not confer any additional power of legislation; rather, it merely gives a broad explanation/justification for what the preceding power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" - earlier in the same sentence - is meant to be used for, in addition to paying debts and providing for the common defense. The phrase "general welfare" is merely a statement of intent, nothing more, and it relates to the subsequent enumerated powers that elaborate on exactly what powers Congress is granted in order to provide for the general welfare.

As a rebuttal, you may specifically cite the following "Interstate Commerce Clause," one of Congress's enumerated powers:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

At the time this clause was written, the authors of that clause and the states that agreed to it very clearly did not consider it authorization to arbitrarily regulate any and all industry that might do business across state lines; instead, this power merely authorized Congress to prevent trade wars and tariffs between member states, etc.

Bottom line: The Constitution does not authorize arbitrary business regulation, nor should it. Some of the individual states may have the power to regulate prices within their borders if they so choose...though it would be unwise for many economic reasons that I may bother to elaborate on later.

[Ozwest]

Excuse me for stating the obvious.

But why is it America sends people broke when they get sick? Why is it you pay outrageous prices for drugs?

Is it socialism to to not expect health care along with roads and bridges?

What a burden!

You guys have been suckered.

[Mini-Me]

Excuse me for stating the obvious.

But why is it America sends people broke when they get sick?

Mandated HMO's and other such crap that makes the price of healthcare skyrocket.

Why is it you pay outrageous prices for drugs?

Collusion between the FDA, regulators, politicians, and big pharma (you know, the inevitable end result of any government with the arbitrary power to regulate )...as well as our out-of-control patent system.

Is it socialism to to not expect health care along with roads and bridges?

Is it socialism to not expect health care for free? No.
Is it socialism to expect others to pay for your health care? It may not make the entire economy socialist, but it's a socialist policy, yes.

What a burden!

You guys have been suckered.

Yup.

[Ozwest]

It is not socialism to expect the best of health care for yourself and family. I feel happy to contribute some of my hard - earned towards my fellow citizens in their time of sickness.

I also do not want to watch my fellow citizens die due to over priced drugs, as the same might happen to me.

This is not socialism, it's being a good neighbor.

[LibertyEagle]

Excuse me for stating the obvious.

But why is it America sends people broke when they get sick? Why is it you pay outrageous prices for drugs?

Corporatism.

Is it socialism to to not expect health care along with roads and bridges?

Expect????

If you are condoning wealth redistribution to pay for these things, then yes, it is socialism.

What a burden!

You guys have been suckered.

If you believe stealing from some to give to others is ok Oz, then you have a strange idea of Liberty.

[LibertyEagle]

It is not socialism to expect the best of health care for yourself and family. I feel happy to contribute some of my hard - earned towards my fellow citizens in their time of sickness.

That of course is your choice. That is what charity is for. Forced wealth redistribution though, is nothing but socialism.

I also do not want to watch my fellow citizens die due to over priced drugs, as the same might happen to me.

This is not socialism, it's being a good neighbor.

It's being a good neighbor if you freely give of your own time or money. It is socialism, if you advocate using government force to steal money from others to support your utopian ideal.

[Mini-Me]

It is not socialism to expect the best of health care for yourself and family. I feel happy to contribute some of my hard - earned towards my fellow citizens in their time of sickness.

I also do not want to watch my fellow citizens die due to over priced drugs, as the same might happen to me.

This is not socialism, it's being a good neighbor.

Voluntarily donating your own money to help people in need is genuine charity, and it is indeed being a good neighbor. Voting for the government to steal from others to pay for people in need - that's not charity, nor is it being a good neighbor.

EDIT: Dammit LibertyEagle...you got there first.

[Ozwest]

LibertyEagle,

I understand your fortitude, and respect it.

Our health services may not be perfect, but they are world class.

And... They may be a burden on the taxpayer, and we may argue, but no-one in Australia would advocate the abolition of Health Care.

One thing you guys should do...

Drive down the prices of your drugs through negotiation. Our government does it well.

Put the drug companies under the whipping post.

[Mini-Me]

LibertyEagle,

I understand your fortitude, and respect it.

Our health services may not be perfect, but they are world class.

And... They may be a burden on the taxpayer, and we may argue, but no-one in Australia would advocate the abolition of Health Care.

One thing you guys should do...

Drive down the prices of your drugs through negotiation. Our government does it well.

Put the drug companies under the whipping post.

It's nice to hear the Australian government is still working for the people in general (even with socialized health care), but such negotiation cannot work to our benefit here in America...after all, the whole reason drug prices are so high in the first place is because the pharma companies are already in bed with the government itself, the FDA quite literally blocks competition, etc. The same is likely to happen in Australia in time, as well. (BTW, I know at least one Australian who would advocate the abolition of socialized health care - Conza88. )

[Ozwest]

Voluntarily donating your own money to help people in need is genuine charity, and it is indeed being a good neighbor. Voting for the government to steal from others to pay for people in need - that's not charity, nor is it being a good neighbor.

EDIT: Dammit LibertyEagle...you got there first.

I don't steal from others. As taxpayers, we agree to reduce our health care costs, by pooling our resources for the better good of our fellow citizens.

Socialist?

My Ass!

[Mini-Me]

I don't steal from others. As taxpayers, we agree to reduce our health care costs, by pooling our resources for the better good of our fellow citizens.

Socialist?

My Ass!

You say, "As taxpayers, we agree..." Who's we? Obviously some don't agree. Otherwise, insurance companies would be enough - after all, the whole premise behind health insurance is to amortize risk and distribute costs among a group of people who voluntarily agree to pool their risk and resources. Socialized health care is basically just one huge insurance agency run by the government, which everyone can join, but which everyone must join, and there's no competition when it comes to premiums or just how much of the cost is borne by the insurance agency vs. individual payers. In addition, since there's no competition going on between insurance agencies, the government alone decides which healthcare providers and drug companies are setting "acceptable" costs. If the government sets the bar too low for coverage and covers basically everything, no matter what the providers are charging, the people as a whole must pay through the nose for levels of healthcare that have surpassed the point of diminishing returns (and for people who may be gaming the system and obviously will not be "kicked out" for abusing it). On the other hand, if the government sets the bar too low and refuses to pay for enough health services and/or drugs, then people simply won't have their expenses covered for certain treatments, drugs, services, etc. - when they otherwise might be able to if insurance companies were competing for customers. All in all, national healthcare is a pretty horrible system. It's debatable whether its implementation in America would be better than our current corporate-fascist system, but it pales in comparison to actual free market health care.

Regardless of whether you like most forms of socialism or not, national health care is indeed a socialist policy. If you agree with it, then at least be honest with yourself and say you support some socialism.