This BS Talk About Gouging Has Finally Gotten On My Nerves
I just can’t freaking take it anymore. I swear, at least 98% of all people in this country have absolutely no understanding of basic economics. NONE! No wonder Democrats, with their class warfare and anti-capitalist rhetoric, are so successful.
I could link to any number of bloggers, but this post by Michael Silence gives you a good idea. He lists four bloggers with snippets. The last one he lists is Aunt Bee, and this is the excerpt that he took from her place.”Y’all, I had to go to two different gas stations on my way home to find a gas station with, you know, actual gas. I have never, ever, ever in my entire life been to a gas station with no gas to sell me. I found it very unsettling.”
Now before I get started, I am not specifically picking on Aunt Bee. I know that she is a rabid, left wing feminazi, but on this issue she could very well agree with me. She could very well have a basic understanding of Economics. I am just using her post as an example of WHY GAS IS HIGH.
Okay, now that I have gotten that out of the way, here is my rant. PRICES ARE SET BY SUPPLY AND DEMAND. RIGHT NOW THERE IS AN INTERRPUTION IN SUPPLY, DUE TO A LITTLE THING CALLED A HURRICANE. THE INTERRUPTION WILL BE SHORT LIVED, AND PRICES WILL SOON GO DOWN.
Obviously this lack of supply is real, because several stations do not have gasoline. As for gouging, I think laws against it, which by the way are vague and open to interpretation, are horrible and wrong. Every single transaction in the capitalist system is a win-win transaction. If that is not true, then the transaction would not have ever taken place. If you only have ten bananas and 100 people really want some bananas, you would be a damn fool not to raise the price of those bananas until you only had ten buyers. Those ten people that finally ended up with a banana might find cause to whine about the price they just paid, but the reality is, they were willing to pay that price, and if the price had not risen, one son of a bitch would have probably bought all ten. The same is true for every product or service being sold. It’s called supply and demand. Am I condescending? Gosh I hope so.
Please read this classic article by John Stossel titled “Myth: Price Gouging Is Bad”.
Every single transaction in the capitalist system is a win-win transaction. If that is not true, then the transaction would not have ever taken place.
I mostly agree with your post, but this sentence goes way too far. Basically, what it says is: “It’s impossible to take unfair advantage of someone who is in unfortunate circumstances.” And that doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
How about we compromise then and insert “the vast majority”, leaving open the ones where guns are held to people’s heads, but even then…….?
Prices are not only set by supply and demand. Perception of shortage (which might be completely incorrect) can drives prices up, for example, though supply is in reality not affected. Likewise, consumer expectation of a price hike can drive prices up though there is no empirical change in either supply or demand. To use a final example, the price or availability of a related good (car/gasoline is the textbook example) would also have a measurable price-driving effect. This is pretty basic stuff — I won’t even go into quality-price relationship, the effect of snob appeal in price placement, value-marketing or other concepts that drive price quite independently of “what is available to be bought.”
Glass houses, Glen.
The problem with “a basic understanding of Economics” is that economics in the real world is not basic. In a modern economy (hell, even in a primitive real world economy), supply and demand are only two of a nearly infinite number of variables.
For the record, I oppose price gouging legislation on the basis that the term itself is so vague as to be meaningless.
Glen:
I think you underestimate both the ease and the frequency with which people can be taken advantage of, even in far-less-than-dire circumstances. Do you honestly believe that everyone who actually buys whatever crap that late night computer-generated “Crazy Fox” is selling is a participant in a win-win transaction? Or people who buy any number of weight loss du jour fad products, or crappy exercise machines, or whatever?
To say that non-win-win transactions are anything other than commonplace is either incredibly naive, or at best, uses a definition of “win” that I couldn’t come close to recognizing.
Tgirsch, I am not talking about being ripped off. That’s different.
Dolphin, I agree. Any legislation that is vague and open to interpretation is bad legislation, unless you are an attorney.
Bridgett, I understand what you are saying. I don’t get the glass houses thing though.
bridgett,
What you’ve described is merely “an increase in demand” . . . people THINK that they will not be able to get gas if they don’t act quickly so they rush to fill up their 3/4 full tank and the people with no gas end up with none (if you don’t allow the price to increase).
Glen:
So apparently you’re using a definition of “every single transaction” that I can’t come close to recognizing.
nedwilliams:
That’s not possible. Just ask Glen. Because if it were possible, that would mean that companies can manipulate demand by manipulating people’s perceptions, and Glen has argued with me at great length that demand cannot be created in that fashion.
Tgirsch, I argue different things on different days. Isn’t that how we are supposed to do this?
Just kidding, of course. I swear.