Just in Time for Halloween!

[paft.livejournal.com]

I suppose it’s appropriate that we get this truly scary, fanged, and drooling glimpse of the face of modern capitalism on October 31st. CNBC Senior Editor John Carney has decided to weigh in on the subject of price gouging during a disaster.

What’s striking is the bland cluelessness, a level of naivete that, feigned or not, borders on the murderous. After pointing out that, once a few of these layabouts experience having to pay, say, $100 for a case of bottled water, they’ll have received a salutary lesson in being prepared for disaster, Carney observes:

One objection is that a system of free-floating, legal gouging would allow the wealthy to buy everything and leave the poor out altogether. But this concern is overrated. For the most part, price hikes during disasters do not actually put necessary goods and services out of reach of even the poorest people. They just put the budgets of the poor under additional strain.

Right. The poor never have to do without “necessary goods and services” in normal times, so they certainly won’t have to do without them during disasters like floods and hurricanes! For the most part, anyway. And if a few poor people are unlucky enough not to be part of that “most,” seeing a few bodies of neighbors who’ve died from hypothermia or thirst will teach the rest of those lazy beggars a lesson about the dangers of overconsumption!

Carney apparently believes the plight of many people during a disaster is about dickering over prices rather than access to resources that could save lives. “This is a problem better resolved,” he declares, “through transfer payments to alleviate the household budgetary effects of the prices after the fact, rather than trying to control the price in the first place.”

Of course, this is only going to help those people who managed to survive in a "marketplace" where the prices of goods are jacked up to the point where they end up having to choose what live-saving goods to purchase. Potable water? Uncontaminated food? Dry warm blankets? Hey, if you can't afford all of them that's just now how the marketplace works, buddy, and if you or a member of your family ends up not making it because you chose wrong, those are the Randian breaks.

Surely the transfer payment you get later will compensate for having to watch them die.

But wait! There's more! Carney has followed this post up with another mentioning merchants giving away perishable goods, in which he asks:

Clearly, people could pay market prices for the perishing goods. Does the fact that they aren't mean consumers are gouging merchants? Should this be illegal?

Is this man from another planet?

*

Comments

[paft.livejournal.com]

v: Because you speak about the aid as a public service i.e. you want to implement your ideas at my expense.

But not at my own?

v: I'm pretty sure fire breathing dragons may cause severe damage and destruction so let's create anti-dragon squads.

You consider fatalities from hurricanes and other natural disasters akin to fatalities from fire-breathing fabulous monsters?

What planet are you living on?

You do realize that Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Hugo, Hurricane Camille, Hurricane Betsey, etc. all actually happened, right? The footage from them was not just cooked up in George Lucas' studio?

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>> But not at my own?
You're free to use your time and money as you want.

But you somehow miss the difference between putting your own money and efforts in what you think is wright, and forcing others to finance your ideas.
Why shall I spend my time and money the way you want?


>> You consider fatalities from hurricanes and other natural disasters akin to fatalities from fire-breathing fabulous monsters?
As I mentioned at the very beginning, this thread is not about the hurricanes etc.
It's just a bold and obvious example of using emotional fallacy - anyone who object your _ideas_ is pictured as "watching people dying".
That's, in fact, you only argument.

[paft.livejournal.com]

v: You're free to use your time and money as you want.

As any member of a society, that's true only up to a point. Paying taxes to support the government services I use and may need to use someday is not optional, nor should it be.

v: Why shall I spend my time and money the way you want?

If you live in the United States, because being a resident here includes certain obligations, like obeying the law, even laws I happen to support and you don't. I pay taxes for things I don't like, too. I'm still obligated to pay those taxes.

v: As I mentioned at the very beginning, this thread is not about the hurricanes etc.

That's exactly what it's about. It's about price-gouging during natural disasters like hurricanes. I should know. I wrote the OP.

The fatalities from Katrina and other natural disasters are not mere special effects.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>> As any member of a society, that's true only up to a point. Paying taxes to support the government services I use and may need to use someday is not optional, nor should it be.

Paying for something I don't need is not optional? How familiar...

>> If you live in the United States, because being a resident here includes certain obligations, like obeying the law, even laws I happen to support and you don't. I pay taxes for things I don't like, too. I'm still obligated to pay those taxes.

I didn't ask if you have to pay taxes or not. I asked why the hell do you think your ideas on how to spend my money are better than my own? It's you here who want to tax me, not the opposite.

>> That's exactly what it's about. It's about price-gouging during natural disasters like hurricanes. I should know. I wrote the OP.
You see, the price gauging etc. requires some logic and calculations - but formal logic does not exactly apply in your case (see our free speech but not free speech discussion as an excellent example).
So the only argument you have is "YOU WANT TO WATCH THEM DYING!!!" - it explains and excuses everything for you.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Paft: As any member of a society, that's true only up to a point. Paying taxes to support the government services I use and may need to use someday is not optional, nor should it be.
v: Paying for something I don't need is not optional? How familiar...

Ye-es, that's generally how taxes work in most societies. My husband and I are childless, but we still pay taxes to support the public school system. I am not so poor that I need government assistance to eat, but I still pay taxes to support WIC. There are countless roads and streets all over this region I will never drive on. I still pay taxes for their maintenance.

v: I didn't ask if you have to pay taxes or not. I asked why the hell do you think your ideas on how to spend my money are better than my own?

They aren't my ideas, They're the ideas about how to maintain a society that have been in place for about as long as humans have been building societies.

If you don't like them, go live somewhere on a desert island.

v: You see, the price gauging etc. requires some logic and calculations - but formal logic does not exactly apply in your case

A basic knowledge of how the real world works does apply.

v: So the only argument you have is "YOU WANT TO WATCH THEM DYING!!!" - it explains and excuses everything for you.

Actually, at this point my main argument with you is that you don't appear to have a real firm grasp on reality.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>>Actually, at this point my main argument with you is that you don't appear to have a real firm grasp on reality.
Yes, that's your second favorite.
Whoever doesn't see something as "watch them dying!" is from different planet, of course.

[paft.livejournal.com]

v: Yes, that's your second favorite.

When someone equates natural disasters with CGI monsters, it's a logical response.