Posted on 09/02/2005 10:05:18 PM PDT by NonZeroSum
The lurid stories that hit the news of course characterize what is going on quietly day after day in the courthouses of America. Thanks for showing us your wonderful credibility.
Price spikes can also encourage people to hoard goods.
"Pseudo socialism" ??
We are a full blown socialist democracy.
Look up "Plaza Accord" and Harley Davidson and tariff for starters.
But the only meaningful definition of an "unconscionable price" is "a price people are unwilling to pay". If the true market price is $3.50 per gallon, and the gas station down the street charges an unconscionable $15.00 per gallon, nobody's going to buy that station's product. So what's the point in regulating against it? And who is harmed if somebody charges that much? If somebody charges $200.00 per gallon, is that worse? How about a "closed" sign instead, or a "no gas" sign...better, or worse for the consumer?
Motorcycles are very fuel economical compared to most cars, and a lot more fun too. More likely the motorcycle than the car will get filled if prices are very high.
Can you offer an example of what you mean?
No there isn't. The law is limited and it still allows the markets to work while still allowing room to catch the scumbags.
Thanks.
L
Note that the gas lines don't disperse in these panic situations where the station raises the prices to $6 or more.
Of course, but you're missing the point.
Economics is best analyzed by viewing things from an extreme perspective and then working back towards a more realistic scenario.
Would more people take a joyride if it cost them $1 or $100?
$2 or $50?
$3 or $20?
See where I'm going...?
I think people would want more joy out of their ride.
Go back and read my first reply to you. The increase in the price of gas isn't gouging because there is a looming shortage. That wouldn't be gouging under Florida law. However, before Andrew, human dirt would show up and corner the market in something like power generators and then sell them after the storm for a 1000% markup. That doesn't happen anymore.
One can have a "doctorate of economics" and still be a loon.
---" The lurid stories that hit the news of course characterize what is going on quietly day after day in the courthouses of America. Thanks for showing us your wonderful credibility."---
Did you have a point with that?
Did you bother to read my orginal post, or did you just feel like making a smart comment to make yourself feel better?
I called the law defining gouging by saying it was charging an 'unconscionable price' "pretty moronic, since it leaves "unconscionable" up to the AG and whatever jury they can rip into a frenzy."
That's the problem. The government gives a vague defintion in the law. A politically motivated AG, say an elliot spitzer type, wants to make political points. So the the next time prices spike, he/she drags a few dealers into court.
All they have to do is play up the big oil angle, find a few 'working stiffs' who are angry at paying $3.50 a gallon, and VOILA- instant criminals! Oh, plus, even if they win, they've just paid thousands of dollars to defend themselves! Woohoo!!
Don't you just love how the state can add more laws to make more and more citizens criminals? Ain't it amazing that I'm asking that question of a member of a web site called "free republic"? Don't you think a web site devoted to limited government might have members that understand that you only give power to government sparingly?
Nah, I guess that's too much to ask. Instead I'll settle for snarky comments and the opinions of angry, irrational people who don't understand jack squat about economics or history.
Read my example with power generators in post #35.
---One can have a "doctorate of economics" and still be a loon.---
and one can be just a plain loon and expect to be taken as seriously as a respected author an economist, merely because he has a computer and an internet connection.
For an example, please check the mirror. Thank you.
"However, before Andrew, human dirt would show up and corner the market in something like power generators and then sell them after the storm for a 1000% markup. That doesn't happen anymore"
And were these people forced at gunpoint to buy these generators?
Are the people who had money to pay a %1000 percent markup for a generator, but can't now because of this law, better off without the generators?
You only want to feel good about the policy itself. You don't give a rats ass about the negative impact it has on people who are in desperate need. But hey, as long as somebody who REALLY needs a generator is protected from himself paying too much for it, you should feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
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.