Top prosecuters decide to go after 'price gougers'

[Dissipate]

Top prosecutors agree national price gouging law needed
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Top state prosecutors from across the nation are finalizing recommendations for a federal price gouging law they say is needed to protect consumers.
Meeting in Phoenix this week, attorneys general from across the nation spent part of Wednesday putting the final touches to recommendations they'll send to senators considering crafting such a law.
Defining "price gouging" and debating which circumstances should trigger it consumed much of the morning, but "all of us agreed this is a necessary piece of legislation," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard said.
Price gouging laws are on the books in 28 states, but attempts to pass one in Arizona have failed. Goddard promised to try again this year.
New Jersey Attorney General Peter Harvey said Hurricane Katrina showed why a national law is needed.
Gasoline price spikes happened in many areas outside hurricane-ravaged regions, but many prosecutors were unable to pursue price-gouging complaints because of rules requiring a state of emergency declaration before the laws kick in.
"We found retailers raising their prices five or six times a day," Harvey said. "This had nothing to do with supply. This was New Jersey."

Text

The economic ignorance of these fool politicians is baffling. I'm not sure if they actually believe this nonesense, or if they are just striving for more power.

This quote from this guy Harvey is a real jewel. :thumbsup:

I wonder if I will ever be able to prosecute the state for its price gouging for government 'services?' I'd start with the postal service...

 

[sandorski]

So raising prices dramatically on Product when it's most needed is acceptable? It's not just Oil/Fuel where gouging occurs, but also plywood and other materials/products. It is taking advantage of peoples fears in the most unacceptable ways. Raking in excessive Profits from the desparate when the good citizen should be doing the opposite.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski
So raising prices dramatically on Product when it's most needed is acceptable? It's not just Oil/Fuel where gouging occurs, but also plywood and other materials/products. It is taking advantage of peoples fears in the most unacceptable ways. Raking in excessive Profits from the desparate when the good citizen should be doing the opposite.

At the same time high prices encourage effecient distribution and conservation of a product. High prices also enourage more supplies to be brought in quicker.

Say after a hurricane a guy trucks in generators they he purchased for $500 and sold them for $5000. Many would call this gouging, but it in effect it would ensure the generators go to who needs them most. If those generators we sold for $600 they would rapidly be sold and would end up powering homes rather than powering medical supplies in a nursing home or being used to get needed infrastructure repair done.


Keeping prices low during a shortage will only worse the supply conditions.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
So raising prices dramatically on Product when it's most needed is acceptable? It's not just Oil/Fuel where gouging occurs, but also plywood and other materials/products. It is taking advantage of peoples fears in the most unacceptable ways. Raking in excessive Profits from the desparate when the good citizen should be doing the opposite.

At the same time high prices encourage effecient distribution and conservation of a product. High prices also enourage more supplies to be brought in quicker.

Say after a hurricane a guy trucks in generators they he purchased for $500 and sold them for $5000. Many would call this gouging, but it in effect it would ensure the generators go to who needs them most. If those generators we sold for $600 they would rapidly be sold and would end up powering homes rather than powering medical supplies in a nursing home or being used to get needed infrastructure repair done.


Keeping prices low during a shortage will only worse the supply conditions.

The generatedors would go to how can pay the most and not the opnes who need them the most.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
So raising prices dramatically on Product when it's most needed is acceptable? It's not just Oil/Fuel where gouging occurs, but also plywood and other materials/products. It is taking advantage of peoples fears in the most unacceptable ways. Raking in excessive Profits from the desparate when the good citizen should be doing the opposite.

At the same time high prices encourage effecient distribution and conservation of a product. High prices also enourage more supplies to be brought in quicker.

Say after a hurricane a guy trucks in generators they he purchased for $500 and sold them for $5000. Many would call this gouging, but it in effect it would ensure the generators go to who needs them most. If those generators we sold for $600 they would rapidly be sold and would end up powering homes rather than powering medical supplies in a nursing home or being used to get needed infrastructure repair done.


Keeping prices low during a shortage will only worse the supply conditions.

The generatedors would go to how can pay the most and not the opnes who need them the most.

Which in effect is exactly what I am saying. A grocery store with $500,000 worth of food/medicine in a fridge without electricity will not bat an eye at paying $5k for generator, but your average homeowner will choose not to buy one. However if generators went for $600 instead of $5000, homeowners would snap them up, very possibly leaving the grocery store with significant spoilage. Sure the homeowner got a cheap generator, but now there is a food/medicine shortage.

 

[her209]

Reminds me of the price gouging taking place after a natural disaster strikes.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: her209
Reminds me of the price gouging taking place after a natural disaster strikes.

So how would you effectivily distribute needed resources to those that needed it most after a disaster?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: her209
Reminds me of the price gouging taking place after a natural disaster strikes.

It isn't price gouging.. it is distribution based on who needs it most and if you are rich then you are more important and that means you need it most 😉

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
So raising prices dramatically on Product when it's most needed is acceptable? It's not just Oil/Fuel where gouging occurs, but also plywood and other materials/products. It is taking advantage of peoples fears in the most unacceptable ways. Raking in excessive Profits from the desparate when the good citizen should be doing the opposite.

At the same time high prices encourage effecient distribution and conservation of a product. High prices also enourage more supplies to be brought in quicker.

Say after a hurricane a guy trucks in generators they he purchased for $500 and sold them for $5000. Many would call this gouging, but it in effect it would ensure the generators go to who needs them most. If those generators we sold for $600 they would rapidly be sold and would end up powering homes rather than powering medical supplies in a nursing home or being used to get needed infrastructure repair done.


Keeping prices low during a shortage will only worse the supply conditions.

I don't buy it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
So raising prices dramatically on Product when it's most needed is acceptable? It's not just Oil/Fuel where gouging occurs, but also plywood and other materials/products. It is taking advantage of peoples fears in the most unacceptable ways. Raking in excessive Profits from the desparate when the good citizen should be doing the opposite.

At the same time high prices encourage effecient distribution and conservation of a product. High prices also enourage more supplies to be brought in quicker.

Say after a hurricane a guy trucks in generators they he purchased for $500 and sold them for $5000. Many would call this gouging, but it in effect it would ensure the generators go to who needs them most. If those generators we sold for $600 they would rapidly be sold and would end up powering homes rather than powering medical supplies in a nursing home or being used to get needed infrastructure repair done.


Keeping prices low during a shortage will only worse the supply conditions.

I don't buy it.

You may not buy it, but it is far closer to reality than the insane desire to freeze prices.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
So raising prices dramatically on Product when it's most needed is acceptable? It's not just Oil/Fuel where gouging occurs, but also plywood and other materials/products. It is taking advantage of peoples fears in the most unacceptable ways. Raking in excessive Profits from the desparate when the good citizen should be doing the opposite.

At the same time high prices encourage effecient distribution and conservation of a product. High prices also enourage more supplies to be brought in quicker.

Say after a hurricane a guy trucks in generators they he purchased for $500 and sold them for $5000. Many would call this gouging, but it in effect it would ensure the generators go to who needs them most. If those generators we sold for $600 they would rapidly be sold and would end up powering homes rather than powering medical supplies in a nursing home or being used to get needed infrastructure repair done.


Keeping prices low during a shortage will only worse the supply conditions.

The generatedors would go to how can pay the most and not the opnes who need them the most.

You obviously misunderstood the argument entirely. Those who need them the most are going to have to wait a lot longer to get what they need under a communist government distribution scheme. High prices are a signal to the market to bring in more goods. The market is constantly tending (but never achieving) equilibrium. If it is enormously profitable to sell generators somewhere after there has been a disaster, a lot more people are going to start selling generators there. Remove this incentive (i.e. impose a price ceiling) and what incentive do people have to sell generators to needy people in disaster areas? They might as well be selling them in Timbuktu, if they can't charge anymore in the disaster area than they can there.

Another reductio ad absurdum to the 'price gouging' doctrine is just what the heck is it? I challenge anyone to come up with a definition that isn't totally absurd. Just about every firm charges the maximum price it can for its goods. Some firms in some areas have higher prices than other firms in other areas. A disaster is just an extreme example of this. When I go to a movie theater and pay $5.00 for a bag of popcorn when they sell it at the local food court for $2.00, is that 'price gouging?' Of course not, the movie theater is in a completely different context. The 'price gouging' doctrine implies that there is some objective measure of what the price of a good 'ought' to be. This is pure nonesense.

And yet there is a third philosophical argument against price gouging. 'Price gouging' implies that you can 'exploit' people just by selling a good. How is this possible though? Merely putting something on the market cannot possibly constitute 'exploitation' of any kind. It is an entirely passive and non-aggressive arrangement between seller and buyer. In order for the 'exploitation' argument to make any sense one would have to say that the point at which the 'exploitation' took place was the time at which the seller put the good on the market. Otherwise, anyone could be called an 'exploiter.' Hence, it is precisely the seller's act of selling that causes believers of the price gouging doctrine to believe that they are an 'exploiter.' How has the seller made anyone worse off though? The only way we can answer this question is to compare the seller's status prior to putting his goods on the market (before he became an 'exploiter.') Prior to putting his goods on the market and becoming an 'exploiter' the seller was not harming anyone, but at the same time he was not offering anyone anything to buy. In fact, by the 'price gouging' doctrine, if a seller were to withdraw their wares from the market entirely during a crisis, they could be called inhumane as well, by not allowing people the option of getting the goods they need. It would cause the situation to be even worse if instead you did not offer your goods for sale at all rather than charge a 'high' price. Under this doctrine it is considered to be 'exploitation' by increasing people's purchasing options but not 'exploitation' for refusing to sell needed goods? This is nonsense on crack! You simply cannot hurt someone by simply putting something out for someone to purchase. On the contrary, you are producing an opportunity and increasing people's options as to how to dispose of their resources.

 

[Lemon law]

You people just don't understand modern price gouging----Enron showed us the way.
Why wait for natural diasters and real supply problems when you can create then with a liitle
effort. Suggest a power plant shut down for maintaince--terrify everyone with a few rolling blackouts and no one will notice the ripoffs as the price increases.

Make sure the distriution grids have gaps so that you can plenty of different areas to run the scam.
Run a number of shell companies so regulators can't penetrate the maze. Meanwhile distruite the profits among the top execs so the company can never be fined. Then blame the governmnet for poor planning.---and if the company ever goes belly up the management just says what me--I was just doing my job.

Well, Enron has come and gone but is an inspiration to many. Its our free enterprise system at work and we surely wouldn't want government regulations standing in the way of these companies. -----surely not?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
So raising prices dramatically on Product when it's most needed is acceptable? It's not just Oil/Fuel where gouging occurs, but also plywood and other materials/products. It is taking advantage of peoples fears in the most unacceptable ways. Raking in excessive Profits from the desparate when the good citizen should be doing the opposite.

At the same time high prices encourage effecient distribution and conservation of a product. High prices also enourage more supplies to be brought in quicker.

Say after a hurricane a guy trucks in generators they he purchased for $500 and sold them for $5000. Many would call this gouging, but it in effect it would ensure the generators go to who needs them most. If those generators we sold for $600 they would rapidly be sold and would end up powering homes rather than powering medical supplies in a nursing home or being used to get needed infrastructure repair done.


Keeping prices low during a shortage will only worse the supply conditions.

I don't buy it.

You may not buy it, but it is far closer to reality than the insane desire to freeze prices.

How do you figure? Does The Market inspire Capitalists to act for the greater good in a Crises, whispering the proper price into their ears? You'd have an arguement if the government or some authority told these people to raise prices for this reason, but from where I stand no such strategy or strategizers exist. Sounds like a good excuse for Greed and little else.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
You people just don't understand modern price gouging----Enron showed us the way.
Why wait for natural diasters and real supply problems when you can create then with a liitle
effort. Suggest a power plant shut down for maintaince--terrify everyone with a few rolling blackouts and no one will notice the ripoffs as the price increases.

Make sure the distriution grids have gaps so that you can plenty of different areas to run the scam.
Run a number of shell companies so regulators can't penetrate the maze. Meanwhile distruite the profits among the top execs so the company can never be fined. Then blame the governmnet for poor planning.---and if the company ever goes belly up the management just says what me--I was just doing my job.

Well, Enron has come and gone but is an inspiration to many. Its our free enterprise system at work and we surely wouldn't want government regulations standing in the way of these companies. -----surely not?

Enron is an example of fraud not gouging. Californias 1/2 baked energy regulation did not help matters either.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Price setting by the government does not work properly in a decent economic model.

Look at the East European and Soviet models of price controls.

Control prices and you will see less supply available.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Price setting by the government does not work properly in a decent economic model.

Look at the East European and Soviet models of price controls.

Control prices and you will see less supply available.

Has nothing to do with Price Controls.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Price setting by the government does not work properly in a decent economic model.

Look at the East European and Soviet models of price controls.

Control prices and you will see less supply available.

Has nothing to do with Price Controls.

Sure it does. Going back to the generator example. If generators are selling for $5000 there will be a big rush to move any and every generator to that area from hundreds if not thousands of miles away. If the price remains capped at the original $500, those generators will not make it othe diaster area. It is that simple.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
So raising prices dramatically on Product when it's most needed is acceptable? It's not just Oil/Fuel where gouging occurs, but also plywood and other materials/products. It is taking advantage of peoples fears in the most unacceptable ways. Raking in excessive Profits from the desparate when the good citizen should be doing the opposite.

At the same time high prices encourage effecient distribution and conservation of a product. High prices also enourage more supplies to be brought in quicker.

Say after a hurricane a guy trucks in generators they he purchased for $500 and sold them for $5000. Many would call this gouging, but it in effect it would ensure the generators go to who needs them most. If those generators we sold for $600 they would rapidly be sold and would end up powering homes rather than powering medical supplies in a nursing home or being used to get needed infrastructure repair done.


Keeping prices low during a shortage will only worse the supply conditions.

I don't buy it.

You may not buy it, but it is far closer to reality than the insane desire to freeze prices.

How do you figure? Does The Market inspire Capitalists to act for the greater good in a Crises, whispering the proper price into their ears? You'd have an arguement if the government or some authority told these people to raise prices for this reason, but from where I stand no such strategy or strategizers exist. Sounds like a good excuse for Greed and little else.

So, let's see here. A potential buyer in need of a certain good is better off in which situation and a potential seller someone is making other people worse off in which situation:

A. The seller sells his goods at a 'high' price.

B. The seller refuses to sell his goods at any price, thereby completely removing his goods from the market entirely.

A person goes from being good natured to an 'exploiter:'

A. By selling something during a crisis at a 'high' price

B. By witholding all needed goods in possession from the market entirely


Slap me silly and call me a fool, but I believe the correct answer to the first scenario is the buyer is better off in situation A and worse off in situation B.

The correct answer to the second scenario is neither. But by witholding needed goods in possession from the market entirely, a potential seller is making people worse off than selling at a 'high' price. Hence, the 'price gouging' doctrine if it makes any sense at all would apply to sellers comitting act B more than it would apply to sellers comitting act A.

Given all this, we have to conclude that believers of the price gouging doctrine have fallen prey to pure emotivism. Their beliefs do not coincide with that which optimizes the outcomes for buyers in crisis zones. The conclusion of their beliefs is that someone who witholds goods from the market is a non-exploiter while those who do not can potentially exploit. But the witholder is clearly making the buyer worse off than the non-witholder.

The emotivism of price gouging really revolves around the entire idea of people profiting from other's misery. They have disregarded the actual welfare of the buyer due to their emotional feelings regarding profiteering. The actual goal, which is to increase the buyer's welfare has been tossed aside in order to avert anyone getting a 'windfall of profits' at the 'expense' of needy people.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Price setting by the government does not work properly in a decent economic model.

Look at the East European and Soviet models of price controls.

Control prices and you will see less supply available.

Has nothing to do with Price Controls.

Sure it does. Going back to the generator example. If generators are selling for $5000 there will be a big rush to move any and every generator to that area from hundreds if not thousands of miles away. If the price remains capped at the original $500, those generators will not make it othe diaster area. It is that simple.

The mere fact that Generators are selling will bring more in. There is no need for a ridiculous monetary enticement.

The fundamental difference between Anti-Gouging and Price Controls, is that Price Controls always dictate Price, Anti-Gouging merely prevents excessive increases from normal Market Prices. Huge difference.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Price setting by the government does not work properly in a decent economic model.

Look at the East European and Soviet models of price controls.

Control prices and you will see less supply available.

Has nothing to do with Price Controls.

Sure it does. Going back to the generator example. If generators are selling for $5000 there will be a big rush to move any and every generator to that area from hundreds if not thousands of miles away. If the price remains capped at the original $500, those generators will not make it othe diaster area. It is that simple.

The mere fact that Generators are selling will bring more in. There is no need for a ridiculous monetary enticement.

The fundamental difference between Anti-Gouging and Price Controls, is that Price Controls always dictate Price, Anti-Gouging merely prevents excessive increases from normal Market Prices. Huge difference.

What is an 'excessive' increase? And what in the world, pray tell, is a 'normal' market price?

Oh, and please do give your answers to my scenario query above.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Price setting by the government does not work properly in a decent economic model.

Look at the East European and Soviet models of price controls.

Control prices and you will see less supply available.

Has nothing to do with Price Controls.

Sure it does. Going back to the generator example. If generators are selling for $5000 there will be a big rush to move any and every generator to that area from hundreds if not thousands of miles away. If the price remains capped at the original $500, those generators will not make it othe diaster area. It is that simple.

The mere fact that Generators are selling will bring more in. There is no need for a ridiculous monetary enticement.

The fundamental difference between Anti-Gouging and Price Controls, is that Price Controls always dictate Price, Anti-Gouging merely prevents excessive increases from normal Market Prices. Huge difference.

They will sell and they will sell out if they are in great demand and the profit motive is removed. How much motive is there to haul a generator 500 miles if there no increased profit motive(why move it, if the profit is the same). And on top that, a more expensive resource will be conserved, where a scarce resource wth a price cap will make the shortages worse.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Price setting by the government does not work properly in a decent economic model.

Look at the East European and Soviet models of price controls.

Control prices and you will see less supply available.

Has nothing to do with Price Controls.

Sure it does. Going back to the generator example. If generators are selling for $5000 there will be a big rush to move any and every generator to that area from hundreds if not thousands of miles away. If the price remains capped at the original $500, those generators will not make it othe diaster area. It is that simple.

The mere fact that Generators are selling will bring more in. There is no need for a ridiculous monetary enticement.

The fundamental difference between Anti-Gouging and Price Controls, is that Price Controls always dictate Price, Anti-Gouging merely prevents excessive increases from normal Market Prices. Huge difference.

They will sell and they will sell out if they are in great demand and the profit motive is removed. How much motive is there to haul a generator 500 miles if there no increased profit motive(why move it, if the profit is the same). And on top that, a more expensive resource will be conserved, where a scarce resource wth a price cap will make the shortages worse.

Don't placate him. His post is full of nonsense from the get-go and doesn't even warrent an intelligent response. 'Excessive increases' and 'normal market prices' are phrases he cannot define without sounding absurd. Not to mention the fact that he wants 'normal market prices' to be upheld in extremely abnormal circumstances.

A better reply to his post would be: 'goo goo ga ga?' or 'mew hee haw fi fo mee no.'

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Price setting by the government does not work properly in a decent economic model.

Look at the East European and Soviet models of price controls.

Control prices and you will see less supply available.

Has nothing to do with Price Controls.

Sure it does. Going back to the generator example. If generators are selling for $5000 there will be a big rush to move any and every generator to that area from hundreds if not thousands of miles away. If the price remains capped at the original $500, those generators will not make it othe diaster area. It is that simple.

The mere fact that Generators are selling will bring more in. There is no need for a ridiculous monetary enticement.

The fundamental difference between Anti-Gouging and Price Controls, is that Price Controls always dictate Price, Anti-Gouging merely prevents excessive increases from normal Market Prices. Huge difference.

They will sell and they will sell out if they are in great demand and the profit motive is removed. How much motive is there to haul a generator 500 miles if there no increased profit motive(why move it, if the profit is the same). And on top that, a more expensive resource will be conserved, where a scarce resource wth a price cap will make the shortages worse.

How did it make it there in the first place? There must be sufficient monetary enticement to get the generator there, this enticement doesn't end when the local supply runs out. Add in that these types of products generally move slowly and take up space and the existance of sudden Sales in a particular location will draw them in on its' own.

No one has/is suggesting removing Profits. Just removing excessive Profits. Profit motive exists prior to the disaster, excessive increases in Price are merely ways to force local consumers to pay outrageous amounts of money that was previously already Profitable for the Seller. That is Price Gouging, not Price Controls.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Price setting by the government does not work properly in a decent economic model.

Look at the East European and Soviet models of price controls.

Control prices and you will see less supply available.

Has nothing to do with Price Controls.

Sure it does. Going back to the generator example. If generators are selling for $5000 there will be a big rush to move any and every generator to that area from hundreds if not thousands of miles away. If the price remains capped at the original $500, those generators will not make it othe diaster area. It is that simple.

The mere fact that Generators are selling will bring more in. There is no need for a ridiculous monetary enticement.

The fundamental difference between Anti-Gouging and Price Controls, is that Price Controls always dictate Price, Anti-Gouging merely prevents excessive increases from normal Market Prices. Huge difference.

What is an 'excessive' increase? And what in the world, pray tell, is a 'normal' market price?

Oh, and please do give your answers to my scenario query above.

Charrisons example of 10x increase is definitely excessive.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: sandorski

No one has/is suggesting removing Profits. Just removing excessive Profits. Profit motive exists prior to the disaster, excessive increases in Price are merely ways to force local consumers to pay outrageous amounts of money that was previously already Profitable for the Seller. That is Price Gouging, not Price Controls.

This, my friends, is a fine example of the emotive gobblety ****** that I pointed out earlier.

Notice the phrases 'outrageous amounts of money' and 'excessive profits.' Notice the completely nonsensical economic analysis of the situation. And most of all notice the lack of any kind of sound definition of the above phrases such as 'excessive profits' and 'outrageous amounts of money.'