[Yomin Postelnik]

Am I seriously supposed to answer this far fetched stretch of an argument? How about a poll. Since almost every Romneybot and other pseudo-conservative on this thread agrees with you on the main issue, as do the many real conservatives who don't have the facts on this case, let's see if they agree with you on this. Does anyone else here see a difference between preventing store owners from artificially jacking up prices, often by double/triple factors, in middle of a natural disaster and imposing wage caps across the board? Regardless of whether you stand on price gouging measures, do you not see a difference? I'll let the results speak for themselves. And yes, opposing decades long sentences for teen burglars is "social engineering...." You epitomize logic and are a shinning light in an otherwise dim world. Yawn.

[MortMan]

You say the store owner is “artificially jacking up prices”.

What makes it artificial? The fact that the store owner has the commodity, and no one else does? That’s supply and demand.

Your refusal to think is the reason why you cannot see the parallel. I’m sorry you have chosen to be closed-minded.

You believe, clearly, that the government should be setting the price for commodities in “emergency” situations. A man’s labor is a commodity. Special skills make the man more valuable to an employer who needs those skills.

The same as the “emergency” makes the commodity owned by the store keeper more valuable.

But not in your world, where government sets the price.

Oh - and “imposing wage caps across the board” is a straw man fallacy. You see, I simply stated that price controls is analogous to wage controls - but I spoke not a whit about universality. By injecting universality, you have attempted to argue against a position I have not espoused.

It’s also funny that you had to inject the “romneybot” ad hominem fallacy, although I have not said a single thing about any politician but Huckabee. I have no affinity for Romney, just the same as I have none for Huckabee.