Posted on 09/01/2005 9:12:07 AM PDT by blueberry12
Crassus was not a "fireman" as we understand it: he wasn't working for the government, and he was under no obligation to put out fires. There was no such thing as a "fire department" in his day. His fire brigade was a strictly private venture that he organized at his own expense. If instead of starting a fire brigade he stayed home drinking, the burning houses would have burned down and been worth nothing. Instead he compensated the owner for the house. The owner lost a house that he would have lost anyway, and gained money he would not have had otherwise. Is the homeowner better off with money and no house, or no house and no money? Apparently, the homeowner decided that the former was the better deal.
Note that nothing prevented rival real-estate tycoons from starting rival fire brigades, in which case two "firemen" would arrive at the fire and start a bidding war over the burning house. Or, alternately, nothing stopped the people from forming a volunteer fire brigade that put out fires for free, or for a negotiated fee, or for a set fee.
So from his unique business idea he doesn't sound very likable, but what exactly was the immoral part of what he did? Would it have been better if he'd simply stayed home? Would it have been moral to force him to start a fire brigade that doesn't charge, against his will? If so, what other instances of slavery are you in favor of?
Similarly, suppose I decide to buy burned houses in cases that the homeowner lacked fire insurance. I would not offer much money, but for someone who can't afford to rebuild, some money and no house is better than no money and no house. But for that service, I would probably be called a "vulture" or some such mean name. People would condemn it as "crass". If the homeowner preferred having his burned-out house and no money, he'd be free to say "no".
I am amazed at how much you have to fight with conservatives, not democrats but CONSERVATIVES! I thought conservatives were supposed to be capitalists. I am shocked... :-(
You want to tell companies how much profits they can make? People should not try to force others to receive less profits than what they desire. For example, what you are saying is this: When the NASDAQ went up to 5000, people should not have sold at the top. They should have taken lower prices and sold lower simply because "it's the moral thing to do." Listen, in the business world, there are no free gifts. If you own a stock that is 102 dollars right now, you would be an idiot to sell it at 94 dollars per share. Right? Let me put it this way: Gas companies are not idiots.
So, if customers are willing to pay $10/gallon, then the real price of gas IS $10/gallon regardless of what the government or state law says.
First, I was just giving an interseting (I thought) example of quazi-extortion/capitalism.
And, second, what's wrong with gas companies raising prices? Gas is not a right. If they want to charge 10 dollars they should be able to. We are capitalist. It's not moral, but still I don't see why we should regulate the private sector.
But it might just be that we have a different view. Each to his own.
"Price gouging not a dirty business? I see it as dirty as the looters."
There isn't any such thing as price gouging, any business is entitled to whatever they can extract from you for a product. If you don't like the price, don't buy it or go to another source that is cheaper if you can find one.
The only reason anyone is in business is to make money, they aren't charities and don't owe you a thing.
I agree: what's wrong with it? But I disagree also: what exactly is so immoral about it?
Sorry. My apologies. Geuss I misunderstood your message.
I geuss they're not being immoral; just taking advantage of a bad situation. Not that that's bad. That's what capitalism is. They're just not being overly kind which is expected in business.
Yes his example was to the extreme, but I have seen many people use absurdity to prove a valid point. I'm still waiting for you to provide examples of businesses that have been opened in NO the last couple of days.
"I am amazed at how much you have to fight with conservatives, not democrats but CONSERVATIVES! I thought conservatives were supposed to be capitalists. I am shocked... :-("
I was discussing this last night with some folks and amazingly the democrats in the group were much more open to learning about economics and market forces than the republicans. After just a few minutes the dems were trying to explain it to the repubs. I was quite taken aback by this situation. Finally I just chalked it up to Repubs no longer being conservative!
I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think I need to provide examples when I've never referenced any business in NO.....
NeverGore :^)
I am asking that question of you because you mocked Wide's example. By mocking that example, you are stating that the difficulties he described were not valid. As a result, then there should be some examples of new businesses opening up in NO.
I'm asking you to provide the examples, or to admit that the situation makes it to prohibitive to opening any business, including an ice delivery business.
As stated before....
Trucking ice to NO is not a business, it's an opportunity...there is a difference....
Opening a business in NO has absolutely no relevance to trucking in a container of ice....
Even you admitted his BP was absurd....If you are trying to make a point, you're not doing a very good job...
NeverGore :^)
If the ice is sold, the opportunity becomes a business. You challenged him to sell ice in NO.
Due to the semantics issues you have with the question, I'll be more specific. How many other people are taking the "opportunity" to sell ice in NO?
The point is that you are implying that it would be easy for anyone to truck ice to NO and sell it. If it is so easy, can you cite an example? Or could it not be so easy after all?
I never implied it would be easy to transport it there....you're making assumption...
I did state that you could make good money selling it at $100/bag....even with logistics issues....
I also pointed out that he would be arrested at best or at worst, hijacked....
It's obvious you are trying to articulate a point but for whatever reason are unwilling or unable.....
Until you are clear on exactly what that is I will no longer respond....
NeverGore :^)
Alright Shalom Isreal....you're last post was basically an argument with yourself and hypothetical (albeit non-existent) positions that I would take.....
You're doing such a good job of arguing with yourself are you sure you want me to interject?
NeverGore :^)
I've already stated what I believe would be a moral (and voluntary) guideline for oil companies or any commodity producer during a national crisis....
Review my earlier posts and get back to me.....
NeverGore :^)
Feel free to explain how the correct price of gas is computed, and exactly what the "ethical" distribution method is for scarce resources.
I already did in earlier post....
Ya' just too lazy to read?
Cause I know I'm too lazy to re-type...
NeverGore :
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.