Capitalism?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
The laws of supply and demand do not get suspended during natural disasters.

True. But the laws of supply and demand are not ethical in nature. [EDIT: And this seems to be the problem with some "capitalism versus socialism" arguments, from both sides.]

Economic efficiency matters if one wants a society that best delivers ethical outcomes; but efficiency does not equal ethics. Economic analysis might be able to tell you how best to achieve certain outcomes—it cannot tell you what those outcomes ought to be. It seems to be a common error, even among some economists, to assume that economic efficiency is itself somehow a normative trump card.

I am being as neutral as possible here. Without details (those nasty things people seem so often to prefer to ignore in making value judgments), I cannot answer Sh76’s ethically fraught questions about this guy; nor would I think that this story, as told, can be taken to reflect on capitalism, per se, (whatever that means) versus—what? Various forms of socialism? A mixed economy?

Originally posted by vistesd
True. But the laws of supply and demand are not ethical in nature. [EDIT: And this seems to be the problem with some "capitalism versus socialism" arguments, from both sides.]

Economic efficiency matters if one wants a society that best delivers ethical outcomes; but efficiency does not equal ethics. Economic analysis might be able to tell you how be ...[text shortened]... lism, per se, (whatever that means) versus—what? Various forms of socialism? A mixed economy

I agree that the laws are not ethical, or moral. Supply and demand is as amoral as 2+2=4. It's true, but there is no virtue.

We can switch to the question of charitable works; in this case, I think the argument being made is that the supplier of the generators skewed supply and demand in his favor by taking advantage of people who were under duress. And he may have, and that's not behavior we usually think of as reflecting a sense of community, giving, or even humanity.

The trouble is this: you cannot legislate morality. It's detrimental to have one grouper of people deciding what is acceptable behavior for another group of people. I do admire Europeans for their relative ability to stay out of one another's lives, but I suspect that this is behavior learned from two wars on the continent.

So it's not appropriate for Liberals to seek to tax the rich; noe is it appropriate for so-called conservatives to impose their social values on gays. American government exists to preserve, not take away individual rights. Shrieking hordes on either fringe are seeking to turn the purpose of government on its head.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
The trouble is this: you cannot legislate morality.

Name a law or regulation that does not reflect a moral stance.

The government I heard passed about 40.000 last year.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I agree that the laws are not ethical, or moral. Supply and demand is as amoral as 2+2=4. It's true, but there is no virtue.

We can switch to the question of charitable works; in this case, I think the argument being made is that the supplier of the generators skewed supply and demand in his favor by taking advantage of people who were under dure hrieking hordes on either fringe are seeking to turn the purpose of government on its head.

Good God! I’m going to agree with whodey!

Anti-slavery legislation was about ethics. Civil rights legislation was about ethics. The very examples you have used here are about ethics. No.1’s theory of Natural Rights (as embraced by the Framers) is about ethics. Life, liberty and property (or the pursuit of happiness) might not always come down neatly on the same side (my liberty or my beloved’s life? Or your beloved’s life? How many lives for the effective liberty of how many? Etc., etc.). Whether to regulate abortion or not to regulate abortion or how to regulate abortion are all about ethics.

I think there are arguable ethical positions (I tend, in my patchwork way, toward something called “virtue ethics” ), but I don’t think there are clear ways out of the arguments—certainly not simply on the basis of one’s ability to arbitrage economic inefficiencies (which the OP’s entrepreneur did accomplish).

EDIT: OK, No.1 or Sh76 are likely to insert "compelling interest" on the part of the state (society, community) here, so I'll just acknowledge that.

Originally posted by Eladar
What percentage mark up is considered gouging? Surely there is a legal marker here.

The point where the consumer says keep your generators.

Originally posted by Soothfast
How are people going to get gas to power the generators?

Another entrepreneur.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The enterprising generator salesman is a worker not a capitalist.

This guy is a capitalist if he charged interest on the loan:

The businessman was also able to arrange to get a short term loan for the capital from a friend of about $60 grand

Wrong. Right.

Originally posted by no1marauder
He's probably a criminal if he's in New York: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/GBS/26/396-r

New York's price gouging law doesn't specifically define what constitutes an "unconscionably excessive" price. While some disparity in prices before and after a market disruption is allowed, "gross" disparities are illegal [b]"when it is clear th ...[text shortened]... general's office said.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/05/pf/sandy-price-gouging/[/b]

Just illustrates how utterly stupid NY law is, if you are right.

People need power. Guy goes to considerable effort and risk to supply it. People willingly pay what he is asking. They are happy. He is happy. That's the way capitalism works, minus the Statist influence of crony capitalism.

A lot of people benefit. The original seller, the loaner, the seller in NY, the truck renter, and the consumer.

And No1 says NY law makes the guy a criminal, not a hero.

The same screwball thinking that sent 1000 Alabama electrical workers home as "scabs" and "scumbags".

Originally posted by normbenign
Just illustrates how utterly stupid NY law is, if you are right.

People need power. Guy goes to considerable effort and risk to supply it. People willingly pay what he is asking. They are happy. He is happy. That's the way capitalism works, minus the Statist influence of crony capitalism.

A lot of people benefit. The original seller, the loa ...[text shortened]... crewball thinking that sent 1000 Alabama electrical workers home as "scabs" and "scumbags".

I feel bad for the guy who can't sell any generators and loses his home because its collateral. For the loan.

Originally posted by vistesd
True. But the laws of supply and demand are not ethical in nature. [EDIT: And this seems to be the problem with some "capitalism versus socialism" arguments, from both sides.]

Economic efficiency matters if one wants a society that best delivers ethical outcomes; but efficiency does not equal ethics. Economic analysis might be able to tell you how be ...[text shortened]... ism, per se, (whatever that means) versus—what? Various forms of socialism? A mixed economy?

You are over complicating matters as is the tendency of those desiring to argue against the fundamental ethical nature of capitalism.

Capitalism is based on private property, and the division of labor, classical liberal principles, along with the freedom of individual consumers to make buying decisions. It is based on voluntary agreement, not on artificial coercive decisions by the State. Both full socialism, and interventionism fail to quickly and efficiently go into action when need is discovered. Capital and labor automatically move where demand is, and prices adjust accordingly without force.

Ethics are of little use if human needs are ignored, and fewer people step up to fill needs and wants, minus personal motivation, that is profit.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I feel bad for the guy who can't sell any generators and loses his home because its collateral. For the loan.

That's the risk he willingly takes. He is then entitled to the profit when the generators sell.

Originally posted by normbenign
That's the risk he willingly takes. He is then entitled to the profit when the generators sell.

But what does the capitalist risk? Nothing. The government will take the guys house to pay him back. This is how capitalists screw the rest of us using the government men with guns.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I agree that the laws are not ethical, or moral. Supply and demand is as amoral as 2+2=4. It's true, but there is no virtue.

We can switch to the question of charitable works; in this case, I think the argument being made is that the supplier of the generators skewed supply and demand in his favor by taking advantage of people who were under dure ...[text shortened]... hrieking hordes on either fringe are seeking to turn the purpose of government on its head.

"I think the argument being made is that the supplier of the generators skewed supply and demand in his favor by taking advantage of people who were under duress."

If the supplier had caused the duress, or somehow constricted the supply of generators, that argument would hold water. He did neither. He saw a need, identified a solution, took some risks to craft a solution and make a profit. No force or fraud was involved.

He may have even saved lives.

I took my portable generator to a friend in need who was going to check into a motel due to loss of power. I was not obliged to do so, nor would it have been unethical for me to sell it instead of loaning it free of charge.

What is unethical and immoral is demanding that people give what is theirs without their permission. A sense of compassion, humanity, of giving, of community can't be forced, and the one forcing or coercing is not showing any of the above but only violence.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
But what does the capitalist risk? Nothing. The government will take the guys house to pay him back. This is how capitalists screw the rest of us using the government men with guns.

The capitalist, the loaner of the money for the generators, gets a specified interest for the expected repayment of the loan. If the home is collateral, it is doubtful the owner will let his home be confiscated for a $60k debt, depending on the value of the home. In any case, the entrepreneur took the risk voluntarily.

Since this is a contract, apparently negotiated between friends, I doubt any government gun play is or was in the picture.

The government guns are aimed at if anyone, the poor guy illegally in the generator business in NY according to No1.

Originally posted by sh76
So, is he a:

1) capitalist hero and brilliant business person

2) shameless gouger taking advantage of the desperate

3) something in between

?

I have an opinion of course, but I'd like to hear what others think first.[/b]

I don't think the options actually cancel each other out.