| sapphi_snake said: @Kasz216: So your best argument against price rationing is that it takes up time? Really? It requires time and planning, therefore it's bad. Expected response. I'm curious, if you're financially ruined after having spent a fortune on normal everyday products like water and bread what good is all that time you saved not standing in line gonna do now that you're broke and can't buy materials to fix your house? And what if the prices of the materials are inflated also? Then even if buying basic supplies doesn't bankrupt you, you're still not gonna be able to rebuilt your house. But you do have time of course. Time to stare at the ruins of your former house. Let's celebrate! ADDITIONALLY, there is no motivation to bring in or have extra product available in the area. Here's an ideea: people need the products and are willing to buy them. Since you make products and you make money that way, and it's pretty much guaranteed that people will buy your products, shouldn't this be motivational enough? Or are companies just upset that they can't take advantage of people's misfortune and screw them over by charging 10x as much? 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. Yet businesses do this all the time. Price gauging is seen very negatively, and could very well be damaging to a company's reputation. In this day and age, when consumers care about their rights so much, and when activism is rampant, it wouldn't be that unusual for some people to get upset with a company that practices price gauging during a disaster, and subsequently leading to a massive boycott of the company's products (and I assume no company wats this). I understand that when demand rises, so do prices, however the real world isn't like the abstract economical model you envision. Such speculation is viewed negatively by most people. You're making the same mistakes you accuse communists of making: not understanding human nature. Disasters are a time where companies should take advantage of the situation and try to improve their reputation, which will have long-lasting benefits for the company (customers will like the company, become more loyal to it, which are very important today when emotional elements are the prime factors which differentiate companies). Of course, lots of companies don't take this into considerations, and I'm not surprised liberterians don't either, especially since you like to look back with awe at the capitalism of the beggining of the century, where you could screw the consumer over however you wanted, and no one said a thing. |
A) Actually my best arguement is... it doesn't work. Hence why it was abandoned. It's been tried everywhere, and never worked out. Though yeah, time kinda is a big factor. That and the supply issue.
B) People are willing to buy those products EVERYWHERE. Not just the disaster area. So why not put stuff there? Well because you have a much higher risk of losing product.
C) Except... they don't. Not to a level that people find unfair. You say this is the case yet offer no proof.
D) You STILL have yet to argue against the fact that more people die under price gouging and quantity fixing. Supply is wasted and people die under your system. That's a fact you've yet to even attempt to refute. If your willing to let more people die for your definition of "fairness", just say so, and we can end this here.
Again, i'm seeing no economic arguements, only untrue statements that have been disproven by the already provided economic studies.
In otherwords, put up or shut up.
I've provided plenty of economists papers, including a case study and a formula model and economic consensus.
You've provided.... nothing outside of opinions which are disproven by the very data and expert opinions presented... and just a logical breakdown of the situation and causes, which you haven't even refuted being the case.
All you've done is say "This way has negatives too!"
However, every system has negatives. The positive of "more people living" outweighs any of those negatives.
Since this is off topic and gone on for a while, if you wish to continue I suggest you start a new thread titled "This is why more people won't die under price controls and quantity fixing and link to it here. I'd suggest actually having a supply and demand formula or some economic reasoning behind your arguement that goes against the presented models and real world case studies. Versus your current "This is true because I say it is, despite the presented evidence" approach. You are boardering on the whole creationism style of arguement.
You are making the same mistake. As an Walter Williams once set "Passionate issues require dispassionate analysis."
In general the experts have spoken. Experts CAN be wrong... but to prove experts wrong... you need well evidence if not to the contrary at least to destroy their own models.
