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

[dwer.livejournal.com]

No, but you'll pay your taxes because you want to be part of this society.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

did you read the question? Let's start over.

You want to tax me (i.e. force me to give you money) to implement some weird idea of yours.

Why shall I spend my time and money the way _you_ want?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Disaster Management is not a "weird idea".

I will happily support taxation to provide for thinks like disaster recovery, infrastructure maintenance, welfare, defense, and more. I don't give two shits about what you think about it; taxes is how our society operates and pays for the things it needs that you absolutely benefit from.

You shall spend your money (I don't give two shits about your time either) the way I want because that's the way society wants it. And if you feel strongly enough about it, leave the society. But stop insisting that you should be able to get shit without paying for it.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>> I don't give two shits about what you think about it;
>> You shall spend your money (I don't give two shits about your time either) the way I want because that's the way society wants it.

Yes-yes, that's yaal stern idea, and I'm glad you make it straight and clear.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

The way you want is the way society wants it. Of course.
L'Etat c'est moi.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

No, it's got nothing to do with animals being more equal than others. It has to do with society having a cost. Don't wanna pay? Get the fuck out.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

As has been said elsewhere: "taxes are the price of admission to civilized society".

You don't like a portion of your money going to pay for the commons? Stop taking advantage of those commons, and go live out in the woods somewhere.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

But we're not talking here about the commons, but about all the extra stuff gov't is doing that is well beyond that.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

This strikes me as particularly strange. Even among those saying "let it be left to the states", I see no one advocating no state involvement. So even among those rejecting an overarching federal model, there's still an acknowledgement that disaster relief is part of those commons: the real disagreement is over who's in charge of it.

It's not "extra stuff gov't is doing". It's "this gov't" vs. "that gov't."

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Only a certain amount and type of disaster relief.

[paft.livejournal.com]

v: You want to tax me (i.e. force me to give you money) to implement some weird idea of yours.

You really need to read a few books and bone up on history. The concept of tax-funded public disaster aid, and aid to the poor is not "some weird idea" of dwer's. It's something governments have understood and implemented for centuries.