Ron Paul likes price gouging, and the way he explains it, ..

real rational comeback--how about just dealing with the unnfortunate situation & spending more time being creative then whining about what IS. I happily project that if a catastrophic situation arose in this Country, the weak, mindless would dissappear--how sad--NOT

Do you think a hauler could get all that done to public roads in a disaster area where every piece of equipment for many miles around is already working? Lets get real.

samhill wrote:Do you think a hauler could get all that done to public roads in a disaster area where every piece of equipment for many miles around is already working? Lets get real.

Think outside the box sam. Gas keeps us moving. I saw plenty of heavy equipment in my area. I am 3 hours from northern NJ, and maybe 4 from NY city. You could have a loader on a lowboy and in the area in less than 6 hours striclty opening roads for gas trucks. I would say just get things done, this type of stuff happens all day long people move equipment. You are the one who should get real rather than just slamming effective ideas




Eric

What about the stations that had to hire and run a generator ? Should they be allowed to charge more? Gas stations rely solely on volume because there $0.10 - 0.20 / gal markup is squat compared to the state and fed taxes. I don't feel they should try to get $20 / gal but should be able to recoup their costs without being vilified. I haven't heard anyone griping about $20 -$25 gas cans. Or a loaf of bread for $6 . Because gas is such a political commodity it gets a lot of attention. Me personally I don't like to see gouging but I am also against the govt. sticking there nose where it shouldn't be.

OK--let me clarify my last post--if gas would go up due to hiring this & that to get it there--guess what--if I put my bucket loader out there for the purpose of stations being able to charge $20.00 per gallon--my normal $60.00 machine & operator charge would instantly become $240.00 per hr. same as gas price 4XXXX right???--NOW--where would that put the gas price-- it's about nothing but greed & stupidity--deal with the temporary inconvenience--OR DIE-- your choice.

Coalfire wrote:

samhill wrote:Do you think a hauler could get all that done to public roads in a disaster area where every piece of equipment for many miles around is already working? Lets get real.

Think outside the box sam. Gas keeps us moving. I saw plenty of heavy equipment in my area. I am 3 hours from northern NJ, and maybe 4 from NY city. You could have a loader on a lowboy and in the area in less than 6 hours striclty opening roads for gas trucks. I would say just get things done, this type of stuff happens all day long people move equipment. You are the one who should get real rather than just slamming effective ideas




Eric

Your right, Kevin "they" don't get it because most people are not that greedy. There is nothing wrong with making a profit, but is it ever enough in this mindset? I'd venture to say no it's not. Price gouging your neighbors/community is ok in your model because it's a way to be greedy and feel ok about it because "I'm in business and I can just say gosh sorry folks but whatever the market will bear" regardless of the situation or consequences to others. This is nothing new. At the turn of the 20th century we had plenty of Robber Barons and finally people had enough of it and laws were changed when people had enough of it. It's the old Gordon Gecko "Greed is Good" philosophy. You can get away with it for a while until the community has had enough and as they did in the old days too, they tar and feather you and ride you out of town on rail.

You guys are delusional. The object of buying anything to sell later is hope that the demand for it or the scarcity of it will increase its value. Just because we have a storm means everyone has a right to my stuff, whatever it may be, for some arbitrary fair price? We"ll see how that works when the clam diggers start beating on your door Steve to get whatever you have they want. It has nothing to do with greed at all. There are 2 camps here, the ones that see the shortage would have ended quickly if the risk/reward was higher, and you guys that think the gov. is always the answer. How did that work out again? The gov. couldn't force everyone into a big group hug(just Obama and Christy) so it is the greedy name calling you resort to. I did my share to help neighbors in the Ice Storm but the gas was flowing, if it was scarce, it would have been different. The reaction against unjust charges would have damaged the person in a small community like mine, and did, charging to cover the risk would not. If people didnt buy the gas, it would come down in price unless the risk was to great, then the people would understand the risk and the price. That is what a free market does. The price of anything is what someone will pay, here, today. The danger is artificial shortage or scarcity, which is controlled by the same free market rules.
Your reference to Robber Barons is ludicrous, what was the plight of the average man before the turn of the century. All bright and rosy in your head I suppose? I still have written diaries from my ancestors that lived at that time, where you live today Steve. I think they would paint a different picture of that wonderful glowing view you possess of yesteryear. Remember, it took a greedy capitalist to invent toilet paper. Try shoveling out the outhouse pit full of old catalogs and cloth sometime. Or reading by kerosene lamp, after some Robber Baron produced it anyways.

By the way Steve, was it pure greed that made me put my clams on the back on my truck and take them to Ellsworth to sell for $30 more a bushel in the 80's because I was going anyways to play softball in the league there? Should I have supported Randy at Machias Bay Shellfish because it was the set price for our area? Where do you draw the line between greed and smart business? It meant $60 difference on average per day to me, greed or smart? You know what was greedy? the gov. got involved with the dealers and made it illegal to truck my own clams without refrigeration. Socialism at it best. I could drive them around on my truck for 2 days and then sell them to Randy, but not down to Ellsworth in about 1.5 hours. Go figure.

Kevin

and a post in the kitchen range thread gave me a good idea. Don't take offense at the defensive typing. it is good for discussion but hard to get feelings or or intent in it. Just a robust debate boys.

I think you are confusing common sense with greed. As far as speculation--is that not why the gas pricing situation is where it is? Nothing to do with a crisis--just everyday pricing. Is it good--or bad??? I personally think fair business values are very good & that gred sux & there is a BIG difference.

I think you are confusing common sense with greed.

And I think you think you are better able to discern the difference and act all noble. Get off the high horse or work horse, whichever you have.

KEvin

Me thinks somebody didn't have their oatmeal & raisons this morning.

Sure did, and they were great. Now, how about responding to the things I posted instead of getting all superior sounding. Draw the line somewhere and we will debate it. Don't just weigh in all puffed up and grandfatherly. Which I am also.

Kevin

When I wrote above that the government could actually benefit short term from their taxing of the the abnormally high temporary going price of gas within the hurricane stricken areas (whereas there is no government benefit stemming from the black market flow of gasoline, or any other goods/services for that matter) it dawned upon me that the issue of taxes itself is part of the major divide between politico/economic outlooks.

One camp says that the government should benefit from taxation only after the fact of economic recovery (or of transactions in general involving the flow of goods from one to another) and an increase in the velocity of money flow has already occurred (with the government getting its cut through indirect sales taxes).

The other camp says the government absolutely must get their cut directly from the people before any economic transactions whatsoever can ever take place and there is as a result any level of monetary velocity increase (flow).

It seems to me that option 1 naturally promotes the flow of goods and increases the velocity of money, and as a consequence (side benefit) increases government revenues. It also seems clear to me that option 2 would be a major drag upon the flow of goods and services, and a hindrance to the velocity of money (and as a consequence become a 'side deficit' to government revenue intake).

Hence the fact that I drove my clams to Ellsworth and pocketed the extra money, and stimulated my economy. Call me greedy if you will.

Kevin

KLook wrote:

Your right, Kevin "they" don't get it because most people are not that greedy. There is nothing wrong with making a profit, but is it ever enough in this mindset? I'd venture to say no it's not. Price gouging your neighbors/community is ok in your model because it's a way to be greedy and feel ok about it because "I'm in business and I can just say gosh sorry folks but whatever the market will bear" regardless of the situation or consequences to others. This is nothing new. At the turn of the 20th century we had plenty of Robber Barons and finally people had enough of it and laws were changed when people had enough of it. It's the old Gordon Gecko "Greed is Good" philosophy. You can get away with it for a while until the community has had enough and as they did in the old days too, they tar and feather you and ride you out of town on rail.

You guys are delusional. The object of buying anything to sell later is hope that the demand for it or the scarcity of it will increase its value. Just because we have a storm means everyone has a right to my stuff, whatever it may be, for some arbitrary fair price? We"ll see how that works when the clam diggers start beating on your door Steve to get whatever you have they want. It has nothing to do with greed at all. There are 2 camps here, the ones that see the shortage would have ended quickly if the risk/reward was higher, and you guys that think the gov. is always the answer. How did that work out again? The gov. couldn't force everyone into a big group hug(just Obama and Christy) so it is the greedy name calling you resort to. I did my share to help neighbors in the Ice Storm but the gas was flowing, if it was scarce, it would have been different. The reaction against unjust charges would have damaged the person in a small community like mine, and did, charging to cover the risk would not. If people didnt buy the gas, it would come down in price unless the risk was to great, then the people would understand the risk and the price. That is what a free market does. The price of anything is what someone will pay, here, today. The danger is artificial shortage or scarcity, which is controlled by the same free market rules.
Your reference to Robber Barons is ludicrous, what was the plight of the average man before the turn of the century. All bright and rosy in your head I suppose? I still have written diaries from my ancestors that lived at that time, where you live today Steve. I think they would paint a different picture of that wonderful glowing view you possess of yesteryear. Remember, it took a greedy capitalist to invent toilet paper. Try shoveling out the outhouse pit full of old catalogs and cloth sometime. Or reading by kerosene lamp, after some Robber Baron produced it anyways.

By the way Steve, was it pure greed that made me put my clams on the back on my truck and take them to Ellsworth to sell for $30 more a bushel in the 80's because I was going anyways to play softball in the league there? Should I have supported Randy at Machias Bay Shellfish because it was the set price for our area? Where do you draw the line between greed and smart business? It meant $60 difference on average per day to me, greed or smart? You know what was greedy? the gov. got involved with the dealers and made it illegal to truck my own clams without refrigeration. Socialism at it best. I could drive them around on my truck for 2 days and then sell them to Randy, but not down to Ellsworth in about 1.5 hours. Go figure.

Kevin

and a post in the kitchen range thread gave me a good idea. Don't take offense at the defensive typing. it is good for discussion but hard to get feelings or or intent in it. Just a robust debate boys.

No worries Kev, we are all thick skinned around here and like to make our points. I wasn't calling you personally greedy by the way and I certainly wasn't calling that time period one of wine and roses. There were certainly harder time then than now. You and I know allot of the same people and actually your example of Randy is pretty much what I was talking about. That fact that you had to or went to Ellsworth because of him is exactly what I'm talking about. When does it become more then just making a profit and turn to greed or taking advantage of people. That's all I was saying and maybe the "market" has it's own way of dealing with gougers? Some commodities though, like fuels are especially susceptible to greed because they are essential and people don't have allot of choice.

They have the choice to do with or do without. That is unless the government steps in and muddles up the works (the free market at work) and thereby stops the flow of goods, in which case they are left with only the choice of doing without.

In my politico/economic taxation blurb above another thing dawned upon me.

Option 1 clearly stems from a government which places the people first, and option number 2 clearly stems from a government that puts itself first.