Posted on 08/30/2017 11:22:12 AM PDT by Snickering Hound
I’m trying to imagine some greedy screw worm peddling water he can carrying under his arm, for $30.00 to family who’s just been through traumatic living hell, with no where to go.
From my perspective, that’s real ugly picture no matter how it’s presented.
Yes, it is a media thing. Best Buy was sabotaged by their own and the media ran with it.
Not to Hijack, well maybe. What would we think of Kapernick if a camera never trained on him at all during the opening ceremonies?
Who decided that was were to go with the cameras?
Which of course is not what happened in this case.
But this kind of pricing is, at best, shady.
Sure it did. Are they not in a disaster area selling water for $30?
I was able to help most that needed it. I could take the gas-line road in my truck and figure out how to get across the Gila River.
I just hated that guy for doing what he did to a very poor population that was trapped for some time. The Indians had to go out and save the graves near the river as they were coming up. It was a 24/7 operation.
This Best Buy thing is a media event that I think was an internal issue from the start. When somebody says it just a free-market thing, I don’t agree. That is not America. We make our money on honest trade, not the pain or suffering.
A case of 24 waters for $30 is not all that exorbitant.
Now of course from a pure business standpoint, only selling by the case is a dumb move, as opposed to selling individual units at $2.50 a pop.
Ya just told me they’re not doing that, and now you imply selling water that you can carry under your arm for $30.00 to people who’ve just been through living hell, is reasonable or not exorbitant.
Which is it?
Tell me, why does the U.S. have no issues at all giving away hundreds of billions in food, material, treasure, etc to other non-American countries who are allegedly in need, but during a disaster here in the U.S., it’s all about market forces and how much money ya got?
Hows that work?
I am assuming that the individual would be selling the bottles of water individually rather than requiring the person to buy a case.
Again, in the case of the store, they may not have been setup to be able to sell the bottles individually, I don’t know if that’s the case or not.
Or would you consider even making the person pay for the water, period, to be “gouging”?
Are you suggesting the government seize the water and distribute it? Which actually would have been perfectly in their right to do so.
Photoshopped.
We're a rich country with lots of resources. A country who has no issues giving away billions every year to other countries with their hands out.
It's common sense, those that didn't have money, would get free water, food etc. Those with money would get it a significantly reduced prices. That's how ya take care of your OWN people in disasters such as this.
Utter b*******.
Spare me your sanctimony. Economic principles still apply.
Think about all the reasons why “one per customer” might not work.
Welcome to the house of hypocrites............
Another looter mindset. It’s a hard concept to get that profit motive yields plenty.
I don’t think you’ll ever understand.
I have a looter mind set? Good grief!
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.