Capitalism?

Originally posted by quackquack
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.

Besides the fine examples you list, those consumers also had the option of buying a generator in advance of the problem at a lower price. They chose other stuff instead.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
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.

"What it perhaps does illustrate is that having utilities privately owned is a poor idea."

And how does it show that? A small time guy operates more adeptly than the big box stores or government, and that shows we ought to prefer bureaucracy to the market?

Originally posted by Barts
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 ...[text shortened]... rice gouging ? No I don't think so, which means I'm perfectly allowed to call him a ....

The analogy is sophistry. There is a clear choice for the prospective generator buyer.

There is no choice for the water deprived at the oasis, nor is there a guarantee of survival on the basis of a single glass of water. Lifeboat scenarios are favorites of those wanting to destroy liberty and solutions of markets which aren't lifeboats.

Originally posted by normbenign
Besides the fine examples you list, those consumers also had the option of buying a generator in advance of the problem at a lower price. They chose other stuff instead.

I certainly did make that choice and I in no way resent someone trying to make money giving me the option to purchase something that he had to keep in stock for a long time.

Originally posted by normbenign
You 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.

Your professed devotion to natural law is again exposed as purely phoney, and subservient to the power of the State.

One problem is that you cannot even get in touch with FEMA. You need to be on site for contractors and people who are helping you salvage what you have and telephone calls repeatidly get cut off. A small premium for any help (like a generator) would be a welcome exchange for many.

Originally posted by quackquack
I 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.

One word: Enron.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
One word: Enron.

Not sure what you are driving at. Utilities are regulated. Government creates guidelines if they are blantly not being followed (and don't know whether or not that is true) then why do we have regulation?

Originally posted by quackquack
Its 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.

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 ...[text shortened]... comfortable for a fee but I am certain I won't die if I denying his way overpriced services.

Do you remember what you said earlier in the thread ?

"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. "

It's interesting that in that post you basically said, "not having a generator would be a minor disaster, it's great that this guy is stopping that from happening". When it's pointed out that it's not exactly an example of high moral character to put people before the choice of suffering all that or paying a "premium" that is completely out of proportion to the actual risk and extra work the man put in, avoiding all of the above is a "convenience".

Originally posted by normbenign
The analogy is sophistry. There is a clear choice for the prospective generator buyer.

There is no choice for the water deprived at the oasis, nor is there a guarantee of survival on the basis of a single glass of water. Lifeboat scenarios are favorites of those wanting to destroy liberty and solutions of markets which aren't lifeboats.

Not surprised by your answer Norm. I wonder though just where you draw the line. At which point would you say price gouging becomes morally despicable ? Is it a free for all as long as the choice isn't between the price gouging and death?

Originally posted by Barts
Do you remember what you said earlier in the thread ?

"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. ...[text shortened]... al risk and extra work the man put in, avoiding all of the above is a "convenience".

You are trying to make this into a moral issue.
There is a guy who is making some money by providing something that people really want. People are glad to pay the price charged and would survive if they don't. Nothing objectionable has occurred.

Originally posted by quackquack
You are trying to make this into a moral issue.
There is a guy who is making some money by providing something that people really want. People are glad to pay the price charged and would survive if they don't. Nothing objectionable has occurred.

Yes, I've been quite clear from the start that I am giving my opinion of the man's conduct.

Let's give you the same question that I posed to Norm, at which point do you believe price gouging becomes objectionable ?

Originally posted by normbenign
You placed coercive force into the equation, violence if you will or the threat of it. Non sequitor.

You are simply blind to the inherent coercion innate to many capitalist transactions.

However I was trying to critique your hijacking of the term 'happy' and applying it to a victim of a shake down.

Originally posted by quackquack
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.

Learn how to read: he's not selling the generator for $400, according to sh76 he's selling them:

$400 markup (more than 50% of the value)


That's a blatant violation of the law.

Originally posted by normbenign
You 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.

Your professed devotion to natural law is again exposed as purely phoney, and subservient to the power of the State.

You're so full of crap to pretend to worry about the people getting ripped out. In the Natural State, society would not have tolerated members having to freeze to death or be exploited by more wealthy members. Man's Natural State is egalitarianism.

I'm glad you don't live in NY either.

Originally posted by quackquack
You are trying to make this into a moral issue.
There is a guy who is making some money by providing something that people really want. People are glad to pay the price charged and would survive if they don't. Nothing objectionable has occurred.

I doubt people are "glad" to pay for an excessive markup just because of a natural disaster. More likely, they feel like there is no choice. It is a just role of a society to protect its members when they are vulnerable to exploitation.