06 Nov 12
Originally posted by normbenignnorm: Capital and labor automatically move where demand is, and prices adjust accordingly without force.
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 artif ...[text shortened]... ed, and fewer people step up to fill needs and wants, minus personal motivation, that is profit.
The laissez faire fairy tale. In the real world, the simplistic model of supply and demand falls apart due to externalities, information inequalities, barrier to entry, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
In this case, a natural disaster has disrupted supply and caused demand to be inelastic.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderTo criminalize this transaction is nothing short of idiotic. Both sides benefit significantly from the opportunity to buy a generator at this price and I hope that the district attorney understands the situation and uses his discretion to not prosecute someone who is allowing people get back on their feet when the governement is unable/ unwilling to help.
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.
A $400 premium to get full access to the comforts of one home in a time is nothing. My power is out since the storm. The rental value of just about any house is Long Island for the time since the storm is more than $400. So it makes sense to give someone the opportunity to make the transaction. When you add the fact that fear of looting, spoilage, need to get to work, costs of hotels and restaurants,costs of not being about to use a computer or charge you cel phones, the psychological value of normalcy it is logical to be willing to pay $400. The government overreaches when it criminalizes behavior that both parties want and the extarnalities are positive.
06 Nov 12
The law has been clearly violated:
(b) In any proceeding commenced pursuant to subdivision four of this
section, prima facie proof that a violation of this section has occurred
shall include evidence that
(i) the amount charged represents a gross disparity between the price
of the goods or services which were the subject of the transaction and
their value measured by the price at which such consumer goods or
services were sold or offered for sale by the defendant in the usual
course of business immediately prior to the onset of the abnormal
disruption of the market
The price gouging here is only possible BECAUSE of the natural disaster. While his fellow citizens were killed or suffering harsh misfortune, this guy schemed to make an unearned premium having no relation to any economic value.
He should suffer the full penalties of the law.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by quackquackSee my post above. Any DA who doesn't prosecute would be violating his obligation to enforce the laws of NY State.
To criminalize this transaction is nothing short of idiotic. Both sides benefit significantly from the opportunity to buy a generator at this price and I hope that the district attorney understands the situation and uses his discretion to not prosecute someone who is allowing people get back on their feet when the governement is unable/ unwilling to help ...[text shortened]... reaches when it criminalizes behavior that both parties want and the extarnalities are positive.
Mr. Rip Off Artist's storm markup adds nothing of economic value to society.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderDAs use discretion all the time and I'd hope the DA is smart enough to realize that the practical effect of denying this transaction is people will spend many multiples of the paltry sum of $400.
See my post above. Any DA who doesn't prosecute would be violating his obligation to enforce the laws of NY State.
Mr. Rip Off Artist's storm markup adds nothing of economic value to society.
Your prefered solution is to force storm victims to spend thousands of dollars in hotels for families (which aren't even available -- the Steelers flew in to NY the day of the game on Sunday) and have spoiled food. People will be late and miss work or school due to increased travel time. They would risk further damage from looting and they will add to the gas lines by being further from where they need to be and make the overloaded roads and mass transit. They will be in the cold while they wait for contractors to come and fix up any mess that may exist.
A generator is what many people and capitalism allows people the opportunity to get what the need most for a small percentage of what is worth to them.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by normbenignYou better not live in most of States in the Union if price gouging laws bother you sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much:
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.
As of 2008, thirty-four states in the United States have enacted laws against price-gouging.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging
Kudos to them.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by quackquackMy preferred solution is that the law be followed and unscrupulous rip off artists not be allowed to unduly profit from others' misfortune. More than 2/3 of the States have laws specifically outlawing the practice this guy engaged in. If he entered into a prompt consent decree reimbursing the buyers for the excess profit he gained because of the hurricane, maybe the DA would forego the fine if he sincerely apologized.
DAs use discretion all the time and I'd hope the DA is smart enough to realize that the practical effect of denying this transaction is people will spend many multiples of the paltry sum of $400.
Your prefered solution is to force storm victims to spend thousands of dollars in hotels for families (which aren't even available -- the Steelers flew in ...[text shortened]... ple the opportunity to get what the need most for a small percentage of what is worth to them.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by quackquackThere WAS no capitalism involved in this case. It was a friendly loan and if this guy gets in trouble and can't pay it back I don't think there is any mechanism to get the money from him. Thus it was not a capitalistic loan, a business transaction intended to provide profit to the loaning entity, but rather a friendly loan.
DAs use discretion all the time and I'd hope the DA is smart enough to realize that the practical effect of denying this transaction is people will spend many multiples of the paltry sum of $400.
Your prefered solution is to force storm victims to spend thousands of dollars in hotels for families (which aren't even available -- the Steelers flew in ...[text shortened]... ple the opportunity to get what the need most for a small percentage of what is worth to them.
I wish I knew people who had sixty thousand bucks lying around for making a business from scratch at my whim.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderYour preference prevents people in need from getting generators in a time when things were so out of whack that mail was not being delivered and people could not get gasoline to drive hundreds of miles to get a generator.
My preferred solution is that the law be followed and unscrupulous rip off artists not be allowed to unduly profit from others' misfortune. More than 2/3 of the States have laws specifically outlawing the practice this guy engaged in. If he entered into a prompt consent decree reimbursing the buyers for the excess profit he gained because of the hurricane, maybe the DA would forego the fine if he sincerely apologized.
People spend $400 all the time for luxury items (automobiles are twenty times the price); jewelry is many multiples of the price. People would gladly pay a little bit to get power let them.
07 Nov 12
Originally posted by sh76I think it is something in between, but isn't a 50% markup in a natural disaster against the law in most states?
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.