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

lsayre wrote: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.

That's true Larry but when it come to essential commodities being controlled by a few and the needs of many then obviously some regulation is needed. It's exactly why we have "some" regulations now, because we've been there done that and the alternative was rioting and violence. I wish we could just depend on people to do the right thing but if the past has taught us anything, it is that this just doesn't happen without some regulation

SteveZee wrote:That's true Larry but when it come to essential commodities being controlled by a few and the needs of many then obviously some regulation is needed. It's exactly why we have "some" regulations now, because we've been there done that and the alternative was rioting and violence. I wish we could just depend on people to do the right thing but if the past has taught us anything, it is that this just doesn't happen without some regulation

Your attitude implies that doing the "right thing" (or the moral thing) is always simultaneously doing the "altruistic thing". It is an attitude that would agree in all essentials with Spock from Star Trek when he gives his famous diatribe that "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one." This is the attitude that human sacrifice is required in order for an act of kindness and assistance to be morally good, and if there has been no human sacrifice there is no good to be found within the act (and in fact there is evil to be found within it). It is the attitude that also agrees that your need places a noose around the neck of my ability, or that the moral high ground is occupied by those who believe that "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" is a truism worth sacrificing others for.

Where is the moral outrage for the outrageous greed and spending of government and the medical system? It has become so commonplace that nobody seems to notice.

But let some schlub drive 30 or 40 miles and fill up some gas cans to try to sell at $20 per gallon and all hell breaks loose. This is how markets work. When there is a shortage and prices rise then all sorts of things happen to ease that shortage. If price controls are so good then why not have them all the time?

Those gas stations who get too greedy will suffer when things get back to normal as they lose customers. Again the market corrects.

franco b wrote:Where is the moral outrage for the outrageous greed and spending of government and the medical system? It has become so commonplace that nobody seems to notice.

But let some schlub drive 30 or 40 miles and fill up some gas cans to try to sell at $20 per gallon and all hell breaks loose. This is how markets work. When there is a shortage and prices rise then all sorts of things happen to ease that shortage. If price controls are so good then why not have them all the time?

A very good observation. The far and away largest gouger in the USA today is the government.

Our country is led by the RICH! Need any more be said!

Thanks Steve, I thought you would take that away from our discussion, I just didn't want to ruffle to much. I don't blame Randy, we went to school together until he dropped out. And he has certainly been successful without a high school education. It is business and I found an alternative, nothing more. It only pissed me off when they passed rules for the public good(spoilage) that was nothing more then socialist gov. politics.
It seems to me that we have had the debate before. Charity and noble deeds are just that. And there are benefits beyond money to compensate for them. When the well meaning(socialist) get involved and try to force good deeds, it does not come out the same. The free market sets the price, the society sets the moral standard and the reward for moral and just behavior. Keep the damn gov. out of it!

Kevin

lsayre wrote:

SteveZee wrote:That's true Larry but when it come to essential commodities being controlled by a few and the needs of many then obviously some regulation is needed. It's exactly why we have "some" regulations now, because we've been there done that and the alternative was rioting and violence. I wish we could just depend on people to do the right thing but if the past has taught us anything, it is that this just doesn't happen without some regulation

Your attitude implies that doing the "right thing" (or the moral thing) is always simultaneously doing the "altruistic thing". It is an attitude that would agree in all essentials with Spock from Star Trek when he gives his famous diatribe that "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one." This is the attitude that human sacrifice is required in order for an act of kindness and assistance to be morally good, and if there has been no human sacrifice there is no good to be found within the act (and in fact there is evil to be found within it). It is the attitude that also agrees that your need places a noose around the neck of my ability, or that the moral high ground is occupied by those who believe that "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" is a truism worth sacrificing others for.

You make a good point Larry. I think Richard and Kevin make good points too that the market can and will correct itself or else society will. In some regards and this day and age, society has by using the vote and elected officials to make laws/regulations. It's not perfect by any stretch and there is always going to be some people who don't agree, but that's the beauty of our system. You don't have to like it, and you can work to change it.

SteveZee wrote:That's true Larry but when it come to essential commodities being controlled by a few and the needs of many then obviously some regulation is needed. It's exactly why we have "some" regulations now, because we've been there done that and the alternative was rioting and violence. I wish we could just depend on people to do the right thing but if the past has taught us anything, it is that this just doesn't happen without some regulation

People need houses. When does the government step in and limit the price?

How about food. With three boys, my food bill is outrageous. When will the government cap the price of a loaf of bread? I go through almost two loaves a week. That would really help me.

jpete wrote:

SteveZee wrote:That's true Larry but when it come to essential commodities being controlled by a few and the needs of many then obviously some regulation is needed. It's exactly why we have "some" regulations now, because we've been there done that and the alternative was rioting and violence. I wish we could just depend on people to do the right thing but if the past has taught us anything, it is that this just doesn't happen without some regulation

People need houses. When does the government step in and limit the price?

How about food. With three boys, my food bill is outrageous. When will the government cap the price of a loaf of bread? I go through almost two loaves a week. That would really help me.

They already have to some degree Jeff. Farm subsidies have attempted to control wheat and milk prices for years. The FLMHC (Freddie Mac) and to a lesser degree FNMA have worked to lower housing costs. They don't limit housing prices but they do broaden the market and maybe dilute it a bit.

One of the main intents (if not the main intent) of the false low interest rates in the housing market right now is to drive up the demand astronomically and thereby artificially drive up the prices of homes. There is every intent in Bernanke's actions (antics) to bring (manipulate) them back to bubble status and then beyond, and to do so quickly. I believe he is totally flummoxed by the fact that his superior intellect and his world class money manipulating power combined have not already accomplished the task.

Absolutely right Larry. There is a cyclical shift depending on the current economic conditions.

SteveZee wrote:

jpete wrote:

SteveZee wrote:That's true Larry but when it come to essential commodities being controlled by a few and the needs of many then obviously some regulation is needed. It's exactly why we have "some" regulations now, because we've been there done that and the alternative was rioting and violence. I wish we could just depend on people to do the right thing but if the past has taught us anything, it is that this just doesn't happen without some regulation

People need houses. When does the government step in and limit the price?

How about food. With three boys, my food bill is outrageous. When will the government cap the price of a loaf of bread? I go through almost two loaves a week. That would really help me.

They already have to some degree Jeff. Farm subsidies have attempted to control wheat and milk prices for years. The FLMHC (Freddie Mac) and to a lesser degree FNMA have worked to lower housing costs. They don't limit housing prices but they do broaden the market and maybe dilute it a bit.

If FNMA has worked to lower housing prices, how did we have a housing bubble? Maybe we don't need them if that's the kind of job they do.

And I don't want to "try" to control prices, I want what is being called for in this thread. A hard cap on "necessary" commodities. Food, shelter and clothing are the only things I REALLY need. I want a government controlled price.

Everyone who hates free market price "gouging" for a few days during disasters must love the manipulated and non free housing market price gouging that Bernanke (with full government blessing) is trying to pull over on us. If he is successful, his manipulative gouging efforts in re-inflating and then some as to house prices (being done on a scale of market freedom commensurate with the old style Soviet central planing that brought on an endless stream of 5 year plans) could last for decades. In a few years when houses are worth 50% more than they are now that will really be an altruistic show of concern for the poor. Right?

Remember: Modern liberalism (right or left or joint sanctioned) always achieves the exact opposite of its stated intent.

jpete wrote:
If FNMA has worked to lower housing prices, how did we have a housing bubble? Maybe we don't need them if that's the kind of job they do.

And I don't want to "try" to control prices, I want what is being called for in this thread. A hard cap on "necessary" commodities. Food, shelter and clothing are the only things I REALLY need. I want a government controlled price.

I understand your reasoning but a proper working free market will do just that. As stated people will only pay what they think it is worth. Putting caps on prices just pushes jobs overseas even more, Wal-Mart and box stores of type are a perfect example they dictate what they will pay forcing companies to either cut quality or find oversea vendors that will do it for less. You can buy some products at say Box store X say it is a Zero turn mower $400 less than Local dealer. The one at local dealer has Bearings in the spindles and yokes vs the one at Box store X that has bushings and very small indiscriminate differences to make up that money. Capitalism does work but only if it is left alone to play out. Every time the govt intervenes it corrupts the natural order of the system. As things progress we forget how to not fix what is not broken. It may be with good intentions but usually makes things worse.

jpete wrote:And I don't want to "try" to control prices, I want what is being called for in this thread. A hard cap on "necessary" commodities. Food, shelter and clothing are the only things I REALLY need. I want a government controlled price.

That's the best way to insure there wont be any available unless there is massive government subsidy and deals with the large producers that guarantee higher profits. Sort of like the Medicare drug program.