| sapphi_snake said: @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? 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). |
It's not libretarianism. It's economics 101 and supply and demand. Supply prices will only ever go as high as demand. What a company sets a products value at is what the consumer values the product at.
If those people couldn't afford to pay for it. The prices would of never got that high... and those people were probably going to not be able to get those products anyway.
For an easy to understand thesis with numbers and data of price controls causing problems to help educate you on the economics. Though some of the economic equasions may be over your head. You haven't been to college yet right?
http://etd.lib.montana.edu/etd/2008/davis/DavisC0508.pdf
if it is... just to put the nail in the coffin... actual cases of it happening note the shortages to disaster area due to price controls, but no shortages before price controls were implemented the hurricane before.
http://www.johnlocke.org/press_releases/show/413
If you read the first you'd note it's not libretarians, people who are right wing tend to inact price gouging laws as much as leftwingers. The people who disagree with you are Economists and Data!
Aside from which the "wealthiest people" don't stick around disaster areas! They have money, they can afford to leave. The only people who do stick around disaster areas are those without options.
And no... price rationining does not work. Because again, you get a large number of people who don't need the product still waiting to get it. Furthermore, people who need more then the specified quantity can't get it or who need it in a short time. Additionally you create long lines that waste peoples time and can't get more items they need and can't spend time rebuilding/prepairing for the stores. So the end result? Maybe NOBODY gets everything they need cause it takes way to long in each line to get it before places just closes. Oh... and who is at the front of the lines? Those who have transportation to get their first, like cars and scooters and bikes.
Who's at the back of the lines? Those who have to walk... aka the poor.
God forbid you spent your entire day in a bread line only for them to run out of bread before they get to you.
Your family may be screwed and be unable to recover. Too bad they aren't still allowing price gouging causing an increase in supply. Which again, is an issue you keep skirting around, because you know your wrong and just don't want to fess up to it.
You still have no response for the fact that even if you were right (which you've shown no proof or economic backing)... more people overall die. Period. What's worse, one person dieing because they're poorer then a slightly richer poor person,(since the middle class and rich widely flee disaster areas) or two people dieing because there was no supply? I'd go with the no supply issue myself. Heck, i'd say the one person dieing because they were poor is never worse, because in situation 2... more people die.
Also It's not like quantity controls have never been tried. They have been... and they were huge failures. The reason is. Instead of money, instead you are still causing a kind of price gouging, this time... it's time which tends to be undervalued, and in general greatly hampers the recovery effort because those who would be working for recovery are instead waiting in line.
ADDITIONALLY, there is no motivation to bring in or have extra product available in the area.
Buisnesses are profit driven. Profit Driven over the long term. There are few buisnesses that would sacrifice a long term consumer base for a short term gain.
Also Pro buisness price controls are also bad. See Sugar Price controls, Ethanol subsisides, Farm subsidies... etc. Those are actually must more widespread. Libretarians aren't "Pro buisness" libretarians are "Lets make things work as efficently and as well as possible."
