- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
06 Nov 12
3 edits
Originally posted by sh76The friend who loans the money is the capitalist. That's by definition.
True story. I want to hear what the people hear think. (Well, I already know what rwingett thinks...)
As you know, though way overhyped (I love you, no1), Sandy knocked out power to most of my area. On Tuesday afternoon, an enterprising businessperson in the area stayed on the phone for hours until he tracked down a Target in South Carolina that had a bunch ...[text shortened]... g in between
?
I have an opinion of course, but I'd like to hear what others think first.
The businessman is just that. if he violates a law, then he's violating a law.
Why is this so hard?
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by sh76No 3, a professional gouger operating in a gouger frendly system, good luck to him / shame on the system.
True story. I want to hear what the people hear think. (Well, I already know what rwingett thinks...)
As you know, though way overhyped (I love you, no1), Sandy knocked out power to most of my area. On Tuesday afternoon, an enterprising businessperson in the area stayed on the phone for hours until he tracked down a Target in South Carolina that had a bunch ...[text shortened]... g in between
?
I have an opinion of course, but I'd like to hear what others think first.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by normbenignEnterprising guy puts a gun to your head and says give me your money, you say okay here's my money, please do not kill me, guy takes your money and does not kill you, guys happy, your happy?
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".
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by normbenignIt's a fine law made by the representatives of the majority to protect society against dirtbags who would profit from the misfortune of other members of society after a natural disaster. Mr. Dirtbag could have sold his generators for a reasonable profit (even adding in extra expenditures incurred because of the storm) but instead he choose to game the system and rip people off when they were vulnerable.
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 hope he gets the book thrown at him. I'd suggest he pay restitution to every person who brought the overpriced generator from him equivalent to the normal price - any extra expenditures he incurred. Then I'd total the amount of restitution and make him pay a fine in that amount to the government to discourage such activity in the future.
06 Nov 12
I still have no power and heat in my house as a result of the storm and I probably will not have either for another week. If I did not have a place to stay (which I do as my parents live half a mile away) I would gladly pay $400 for a generator rather than stay in a cold house. Especially since the value of the food in your freezer that you would likely have to throw away could pay the premium.
The gouging issue seems completely arbitrary to me. A beer at a baseball game is more than a six pack in a supermarket. If I want something shipped overnight I would pay extra rather than get in shipped a slow method. If this is OK, you should have the option (remember no one is forcing you to buy a generator) to a premium to get express service in a time of need.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderYou simply have no comprehension of the situation and would rather use this as a vehicle for a political belief than solve the problem.
It's a fine law made by the representatives of the majority to protect society against dirtbags who would profit from the misfortune of other members of society after a natural disaster. Mr. Dirtbag could have sold his generators for a reasonable profit (even adding in extra expenditures incurred because of the storm) but instead he choose to game the sy ...[text shortened]... ke him pay a fine in that amount to the government to discourage such activity in the future.
A $400 markup on generator to make a house that you would have to abandon liveable simply is not a significant price. You can save food that is in a freezer or refrigerator, you can prevent yourself from eating out (costly and less healthy). As it is getting colder, you can prevent pipes from freezing. Looting in many areas is a realistic and costly. No one wants to be burden and being able to stay in your own house prevents that. Many people with generators have taken in those who have completely lost their homes or are without heat.
Kids need to go to school (busses for kids only stop at thair houses). Parent need to go to work. Gas lines are already hours long and moving out of neighborhood normally means extra travel.
To call a guy a dirtbag, simply because he makes money while providing a service that the government did not despite my outrageous tax bill is simply ridiculous.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by quackquackNeither would 50$ be a significant price for a bottle of water when you're dying in the desert. But that doesn't mean that the guy who owns an oasis and is selling it to you for that price is any less of a ... (some rude language removed). I'm not sure whether he should be charged with anything, but the guy selling generators certainly doesn't deserve any applause either.
You simply have no comprehension of the situation and would rather use this as a vehicle for a political belief than solve the problem.
A $400 markup on generator to make a house that you would have to abandon liveable simply is not a significant price. You can save food that is in a freezer or refrigerator, you can prevent yourself from eating out (c ...[text shortened]... iding a service that the government did not despite my outrageous tax bill is simply ridiculous.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by BartsI guess we completely disagree.
Neither would 50$ be a significant price for a bottle of water when you're dying in the desert. But that doesn't mean that the guy who owns an oasis and is selling it to you for that price is any less of a ... (some rude language removed). I'm not sure whether he should be charged with anything, but the guy selling generators certainly doesn't deserve any applause either.
The analogy is bad because unlike the desert you probably will not die from this storm. I guess there are looting scenerios and you could get sick if you had no heat but most people have no fear of death but merely the cost of a disrupted life. It simply is not pay $1000 for a glass of water in the desert or you die. The genertor guy is really just having you pay small fee and have your life go 95+% back to normal.
The guy is providing a service and he is giving you the OPTION to buy a generator from him. He does not have monoploy power (as he does not own all the generators in the world) and he is not even from the area. He is traveling a large distance to a destroyed area and if you choose you have the opportunity to make a deal with him. He is taking a risk as there is little gas (so he might not be able to get back). Traffic lights are out, streets are blocked, mail has no delivered for most of the week so it is not like it is an easy trip. Some people (not me) spend $400 on a bottle of wine, or plane tickets, or other luxury items and would gladly pay that for the generator.
06 Nov 12
1 edit
Not sure what the story has to do with capitalism, but it seems like a solid business idea. Of course it was not without risk - what if the power would have come back on while the generators were still en route? More interestingly, the story is an illustration of how the invisible hand of the market can be quite slow... and crippled. It would have been much easier and more efficient for e.g. large franchises of hardware stores to do the same thing, yet they (apparently) have not done so (enough to take advantage of the potential profits). I don't see how this guy would be doing anything wrong since had he not done anything, people would have no power anyway and apparently they could miss the money. What it perhaps does illustrate is that having utilities privately owned is a poor idea.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by quackquackTell me, how is that a bad analogy ? Both scenarios are "Overpay for a simple product or bad things will happen to you". One situation is simply more extreme than the other.
I guess we completely disagree.
The analogy is bad because unlike the desert you probably will not die from this storm. I guess there are looting scenerios and you could get sick if you had no heat but most people have no fear of death but merely the cost of a disrupted life. It simply is not pay $1000 for a glass of water in the desert or you die. ...[text shortened]... le of wine, or plane tickets, or other luxury items and would gladly pay that for the generator.
Oh, and the rest of your post;
"the water guy is really just having you pay a small fee to not die"
"The guy is providing a service and he is giving you the OPTION to buy a water from him. He does not have monoploy power (as he does not own all the water in the world)"
The analogy fits. The only you point you might have is that the guy is taking some risks and pains by bringing the generators to a disaster area, but do I think that justifies the amount of price gouging ? No I don't think so, which means I'm perfectly allowed to call him a ....
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI agree with everything you say but I am just not sure utilities are a failure of capitalism as much as a failure of highly regulated industry in the US.
Not sure what the story has to do with capitalism, but it seems like a solid business idea. Of course it was not without risk - what if the power would have come back on while the generators were still en route? More interestingly, the story is an illustration of how the invisible hand of the market can be quite slow... and crippled. It would have been ...[text shortened]... money. What it perhaps does illustrate is that having utilities privately owned is a poor idea.
06 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by BartsIts a bad analogy because they are not parallel situations. In the desert you could die. The storm already hit. If you did not already die, it is simply unlikely that the storm will kill you.
Tell me, how is that a bad analogy ? Both scenarios are "Overpay for a simple product or bad things will happen to you". One situation is simply more extreme than the other.
Oh, and the rest of your post;
"the water guy is really just having you pay a small fee to not die"
"The guy is providing a service and he is giving you the OPTION to buy a water f rice gouging ? No I don't think so, which means I'm perfectly allowed to call him a ....
The generator guy is selling a convenience. It is nice to hang out in a warm house, watching my TV and not impose on a friend or family. But I certainly am not dying right now while I can't use my house in its customary fashion. To me the generator guy is like the vendor who charges 20 bucks for the convience of having a beer and a hot dog at the ball park. He'll make me more comfortable for a fee but I am certain I won't die if I denying his way overpriced services.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57You placed coercive force into the equation, violence if you will or the threat of it. Non sequitor.
Enterprising guy puts a gun to your head and says give me your money, you say okay here's my money, please do not kill me, guy takes your money and does not kill you, guys happy, your happy?
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderYou would rather have someone wait and die waiting for FEMA or some other State agency find a solution, than for a willing entrepreneur to find a profitable solution to a problem. Glad I don't live in NY. Your majority would probably prosecute me for voluntarily donating my generator to neighbors without their permission.
It's a fine law made by the representatives of the majority to protect society against dirtbags who would profit from the misfortune of other members of society after a natural disaster. Mr. Dirtbag could have sold his generators for a reasonable profit (even adding in extra expenditures incurred because of the storm) but instead he choose to game the sy ...[text shortened]... ke him pay a fine in that amount to the government to discourage such activity in the future.
Your professed devotion to natural law is again exposed as purely phoney, and subservient to the power of the State.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by quackquackIt is commonplace for vendors to offer next day delivery of goods at a premium.
I still have no power and heat in my house as a result of the storm and I probably will not have either for another week. If I did not have a place to stay (which I do as my parents live half a mile away) I would gladly pay $400 for a generator rather than stay in a cold house. Especially since the value of the food in your freezer that you would like ...[text shortened]... no one is forcing you to buy a generator) to a premium to get express service in a time of need.
And, of course the product can be rejected by the consumer, in which case the enterprising vendor may lose his investment or part of it.