You know how people and politicians get all worked up when merchants charge market value during a crisis (that is, "price gouge")? Suddenly there are threats of legal action, etc.
Well, if you think about it, the only moral merchant in a crisis is the one who price gouges. Those who don't charge market value are quite possibly killing people. Read the article and see what you think.
Right, but gov't provided supplies usually take time to get to the people who need them most. The first supplies that are distributed are those that are looted or those from the shopkeepers who are discussed in the article. <_<
| |
Shouldn't the government be ready for any crisis? Oh and I had a silly theory when I was back in about 7th grade. If everything was free, food, oil whatever that would solve most problems with people not getting anything to eat. There are many problems with that theory but it sure did make me sleep good at night.
| |
Oh, I didn't read the article. =P What do you think I am, some kind of considerate, thoughtful poster who reads a post before replying with some intelligent remark? You don't know me at all...
| |
I skimmed the article enough to know about it but my eyes can not focus so good in the dark so yeah I am just going by what I know so far. I will read it later and correct any errors. Hmp, if these walls could talk they would say "Blue, how do you do it".
| |
BlueFireX wrote:
Shouldn't the government be ready for any crisis? Oh and I had a silly theory when I was back in about 7th grade. If everything was free, food, oil whatever that would solve most problems with people not getting anything to eat. There are many problems with that theory but it sure did make me sleep good at night. That sounds like COMMUNISM. You're not a COMMUNIST, are you? | |
No I am not Jp.
| |
Damn, I thought I'd found a friend. :(
| |
This is basic first year economics although it seems like no one realizes it, if only Bush remembered anything from that course. The sad thing is most things that are good for society economically are usually not liked. Example: Free Trade, No price limits on anything (housing, food, gas). This is why economics is called the dismal science. They can figure out what we are doing fiscally wrong, but no one is going to vote for the policies to fix it.
Would you support totally free trade if it put your thousands of auto workers out of work? Although it may hurt people initially free trade and the such is the best option in the long run. Specialization of labor makes everyone better off. The US has been making bad cars lately and Ford is close to going out of business. Makes you think maybe we should focus our efforts on things we do better and not waste time supporting something we are not good at. Another issue is price caps on housing. Sure you can force land lords to charge very little for their apartments but then you just end up with a crappy and upset landlord, who may end up turning the building into condos so he can charge market prices. It is sad that water and other goods become more expensive, but like the [basically] article said, if they don't charge more the water will be wasted, if they do charge market prices, then it will be better rationed. The price you charge for the water will not affect the amount of water available. It will just affect its usage. This is why Communism does not work, (light forms of socialism can work though), if one person sets the price then the whole economy suffers, whether it be too high or too low. That and the fact that all governments are inefficient, this does not mean we don't need government, government just shouldn't touch the economy except in cases where it helps the future on a global scale. Eg. Environmental issues. | |
All economies need some form of control, or people will get screwed. A free market allows for, for example, price fixing - nobody gets 'market value' then, they get what the companies decide is profitable.
Or, see Microsoft - a crappy product is in an undeniably dominant position in the market. Result? They oppose all computer standardisation in order to lock down their monopoly, and this results in a monoculture of badly-secured computers - and so a quarter of the internet is part of a botnet, and 90% of email is spam. Free trade inherently encourages monopolies, because once you have an advantage over your competitors, you can leverage it to get an even bigger advantage. Basically, having a large slice of the pie makes it easier to grab the rest of the pie. And monopolies are good for nobody. | |
It's too bad the Invisible Hand is invisible because I'd like to shake it.
| |
Get that invisible hand near me and it's lawsuit time, buddy!
| |
The invisible hand only works when there are many sellers and many buyers. Situations like Microsoft where there are a couple of buyers and millions of buyers tips the advantage on the side of the company. So yes, there should be some way to prevent monopolies. But on items where there is a large selection of companies to choose from interference can drive companies out of business and create monopolies.
| |
Oh, I'm not saying any sort of economic control shouldn't be thought through carefully. I'm just saying that a perfectly free market leads to gigantic corporations monopolising various items.
And then - we get Shadowrun. | |
—namely, it’s simply unfair for
merchants to profit from disasters. Well, isnt that what doctors do? | |
As long as those who are needy get the stuff they need to live, everyone else can probably afford to pay higher prices for things for a while.