Posted on 09/01/2005 4:22:37 AM PDT by chronic_loser
I try to be first in line to apologize if I say something that is incorrect. However, the arguments for government intervention are, in fact, Satanic. That doesn't mean that I expect to have to dodge your projectile vomiting or watch your head spin around. It just means that good people buy into BAD arguments and BAD prescriptions on the basis of emotional arguments, or misplaced emphases about personal priorities and wanting "government" to legislate away basic principles of human behavior. If I am wrong, I will try to be the first to say so.
Therefore, if you were here personally, I would tell you with a big smile and a great deal of personal warmth that your argument is Satanic. By that I mean that it is bad, it won't work, and it brings misery in the name of justice. Nothing personal, just a damn bad argument.
You have a lot more than that statement to take back.
But anyway, enough with you. I've had my fill of holier-than-thou 'pretend' christians for the day.
That is a rather ignorant statement, as is your statement making looting and "price gouging" moral equivalents. You obviously object to the fact that circumstances that lead to a disruption in supply and a simultaneous spike in demand result in increased profits for some sellers. There is an imbalance that will cause prices to shift. Would you prefer that some people benefit by buying all they want at yesterday's prices until all the supply is gone, so others have to do without unless they pay the higher price to the new middleman that bought up all the supply at yesterday's price and can now earn those excess profits himself. Is that better because at least the evil oil company that you hate so much didn't get the excess profits?
There has NEVER been an utterly non-socialist society. Somehow people are painting Capitalism as Jehovah and Socialism as Satan, and never can we see elements of both in service to a society.
He has his detractors on FR, but this disaster has made a very important point.
Even if Landrieu and the assorted idiots in LA were pro life, the fate of the people would have been the same.
The second oldest profession. Are we wrong to outlaw it?
I apologize for my knee jerk reaction. For some people in country its a lousy time to defend 75$ per barrell oil prices.
If I could give gold stars, you'd get one for your most excellenet example.
Also, if you're selling at $15, your cousin is gonna be real happy to load his pickup truck full of $1.50 bottled water from two states over and bring it to you at $7.50 per.
In other words, the net effect of the increase in price will be to increase the supply of bottled water that comes in from elsewhere.
Which will, in and of itself, cause prices to go back down because of an increase in the supply.
That's what we've been trying to say on this thread.
Show us that you believe the whole bible, not just use a snippet out of context, and we will give credence to your aspersions.
A little sacrifice is sometimes in order. Or is that just something "little guy" is suppose to do? What about rationing in WW2? Was that wrong?
Yes, and of course including the freedom to undermine national security.
Oh man, they will tell you 10 ways from Sunday that was wrong. Get ready for the onslaught.
And we're not trying to defend what's going on, just explain it rationally in terms of markets.
If you read the thread, you can see which posters are coming from a rational basis and which ones are coming from an emotional one.
And remember-- this, too shall pass.
Ditto on that. A great introduction to free market theory. Extremely well-written.
Socialism is not capable of standing alone. It is a parasite that can only exist as long as there is saved capital to parasitize or entrepeneurs upon which to prey. Socialism is Satan. And whenever people want to use the power of the state to live at the expense of others, there is eventually going to be blood in the streets.
For the last time, I'm done with you. Have a nice day.
I'd rather take my chances with higher prices. That way the true coffee addicts can have as much as they want, while I switch to Postum. (I actually like Postum. I was a nurses' aide, and my WWII-era patients learned to drink it because of coffee rationing. When they die, I expect it will disappear from the shelves.)
1. Price is not based on fairness. Price is based on what the market will bear.
2. Price is the mechanism that determines distribution; i.e., those who can pay the price receive the good being distributed.
However, someone someplace debates "what the market will bear." They must take many things into account. There are actual costs of purchase, transportation, refining, and distribution of oil/gas. Actual costs would include maintaining the entire infrastructure of a company.
In a crisis it is possible not to have actual costs change at all. Due to the crisis, however, one can run up the price 2,3,4,10 fold over what it previously had been. This might be necessary because of a lower quantity being sold. To maintain the entire company infrastructure, a higher price would have to be charged on the lower quantity sold.
However, there are other issues involved in what the market will bear. There are social and political issues that a wise company would bear in mind. In other words, if it is possible to cover total company expenses and bring in a profit acceptable to the company's accountants by selling at $3 a gallon, yet it is known that one could probably charge as high as $7 a gallon and actually get it because of the anxiety that generally accompanies a crisis, then the company would have to pay attention to the social and political repercussions of that action.
Price-gouging is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure that's true. But, if the beholder has political power, then the pricer should beware.
Then the society that Jesus spoke of bringing is Satanic. ***DISCONNECTED***
Although I think your question is a red herring, I will answer the "real" question, if you don't mind, which is "are there morally prohibited/proscribed areas of commerce." That answer is "yes." I am not Ayn Rand and not a logical positivist. I believe that the empirical capitalist stands on the platform of morality provided him by historical Christianity, while hacking away at the ground under his feet. I really don't feel like going there, as you already knew my answer, and I would prefer you to argue the point at issue, which is the morality of government intervention in legal markets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.