Posted on 09/01/2005 4:22:37 AM PDT by chronic_loser
This statement alone pretty well ruined any "Logical" statement he/she/it was trying to make. How about the poor slob who, since this is close to the end of the week, has maybe $5-$10.00 in their pockets?
Guess it's really sad now that the "Elite" folks can't buy gas because they loaded up, but poo-poo to the poor slob who can't buy the gas needed to to go work because some friggin shyster raised "it's" prices to $5.00+ per gallon.
We can only hope Top.
There is no DOUBT profiteering and Gouging is going on... watch my local gas stations go from 245 to 2.69 to 2.99 same gas station over just a few hours.... No way they were taking new higher priced shipments in between the increases....
I feel for folks actually trying to survive down in the actual devestated zone, if they are willing to gouge wantonly thousands of miles away, lord knows how bad its got to be in the gulf coast area.
I want to know the name of EVERY company, franchise etc that gouges these people... So I can make it a point NEVER EVER EVER to spend a dime at those companies or subsidiaries again.
There's more than one way of controlling prices. Nixon's way was stupid-- anyone who raises the asked-for price goes to jail. The better way is to get the word out on who's selling what and where. The definition of 'pure capitalism' is a situation where sales are made where no one seller and no one buyer can affect the price. We need that restored before we need electricity.
"This same market that these companies paid lobbyists on Capitol Hill to shut out all competetors."
Politics distorts free markets. That lobbyists are paid at all is proof of this.
"Go to hell you bum."
Anger is often the first step to learning. Welcome to economics 101.
No argument from me.
The subject, however, is whether or not gouging is something which should be defended as a good and natural thing.
I doubt even Adam Smith would defend pirates.
Politicians can either leave it alone, or create shortages. That's it. Most of them will opt for the former, while pretending to take action to magically reduce prices and increase availability.
Again, no argument from me.
Even during World War II, when the need for intervention was obvious to most people, wage, price controls and an extensive rationing system gave birth to black markets and profiteering. But the controls were required to distribute goods where they needed to go and still provide the folks at home with some sense of fairness.
There's a reason Adam Smith is known as the first political economist. Economics is not a science and neither is the operation of markets.
But again the problem is self limiting. Once all the empty tanks are filled, nothing else remains to fill.
They are training the public not to be like foolish children. Not to panic like ninnies on rumours.
Hugo Chavez comes to mind, sad to say. :-)
Prove it.
In fact, the ancient Hebrews didn't do so to one another, and somehow they got along.
Lott should stick to writing about guns.
For those who are railing against "price gouging" ask them this simple question: "Would you rather be able to buy all the gasoline you want (need) at $6 a gallon or NOT be able to buy any gasoline at $3 a gallon?"
And those that ignore the laws of economics in the name of populism are doomed to reap the disasters of their misguided policies.
What's better: Buying gas at $3.50 a gallon, or no gas at $2.50 a gallon?
The free market is the ultimate rationing system. In times of crisis, it forces people to make the hard choices between 'needs' and 'wants', conserving scarce resources for the people who actually need them.
The sheeple learn nothing.
There are other laws, such as the law of memory.
Another economist, Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell has also written about why "price gouging" is good:
The increase in price caused by demand exceeding supply results in an increase in the rate at which additional supplies of the commodity in question will arrive in the area with the shortage.
The increase in price also helps to discourage hoarding.
How about articles by a doctor of economics that conclude the same thing?
Or maybe the economist should stick to talking about economics...or something.
nice platitude.
It, however, is useless when there is an actual event that constricts the available supply of a commodity.
But, by all means, keep coming up with them. Maybe you can fill up your gas tank with them.
John Lott is the author. I checked, wondering if it might be Walter E. Williams.It takes courage and principle to resist the left-wing pressure of "objective" journalists and the politicians like Hillary who sail down the resulting propaganda wind. Anyone with that sort of courage and conviction will be called a right wing extremist by Hillary and the "objective" journalists who promoted the fraudulent 60 Minutes hit piece on Bush which was designed as the Democrats' 2004 October Surprise. Same people who tried to spike the SBVT at the same time.
Claiming objectivity only proves that you are not objective.
"O’Sullivan’s First Law" states that"All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.