The (new) Official Political Compass Thread - All Users of VGC join in!

[sapphi_snake]

@Kasz216:

It would continue up till after the disaster and would financially ruin people?  Again, why would this be?   It doesn't make financial sense for a company to bankrupt it's consumers... they need people to buy from them in the future as well.  Most stores afterall are run by small buisness owners who need to continue making a living.

It makes no financial sense for a company to bankrupt it's consumers you say? What makes you think that companies have any financial sense? It's been proven time and time again that companies rarely think of the long term and preffer large short term gains. Honestly, and people say Marx had uptopian ideeas.

Though even if your completely baseless statement was true...  which is worse?

A) A decent amount of people dieng and some being bankrupt

or

B) A lot more people dieing.

I still find the argument that more people would die to be exaggerated and weak.

By greatly raising prices, it's far more likely that items will go to those who need it most... because only those who need them will pay the absorbant prices.  In areas with non-pricegouging needs.  Most goods end up wasted being bought up by people who's demand is minor, but who just happen to live closest to the stores. 

What if those who need them most are not able to pay? And why should those who need it most have to bankrupt themselves for basic supplies that normally affordabl? What about after the disaster, huh? Not only will they have possibly lost their homes and belongings, but also their savings (whoich they would desperately need AFTER the disaster to rebuild their homes) because they had to buy basic supplies for astronomical prices. In that situation they might as well be dead. Just shows you don't think long-term.

You also go by the assumption that businesses do this for the reasons given in that silly article. Businesses are profit-driven. They only care about selling their products, and in the situation we're talking about, as long as someone buys their product for that exorbitant price, it won't matter who it is. So a wealthier person could still come and clean out the store, and it will really be the wealthier people who will have the advantage whether they need those products more or not. People get paranoid in these situations, and every person will consider themselves then most in need.

You know what would be a better solution to this problem? Instead of raising the prices, keep them the same, but only sell a limited amount to each person, based on their situation (family members etc., eventually take into account  the toll the disaster had on them). Yeah, sounds like a communist ideea (gasp), but it will both make sure that products aren't maldistributed AND that people aren't prayed upon and go bankrupt.

Honestly, you libertarians criticise socialists for turning the Government into "Big Brother", but you do exactly the same thing to corporations (which is much worse, considering that the Government is at least theoretically suppose to serve the people, while corporations only exist to make money for their stakeholders).