I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  


friendsmore friends | add your site
Extreme Humor


Gorilla Mask

123 Games

Funny Stuff

Viva La Games

Free Samples

FreeGame Heaven


Cool Humor

Anon email

Crazy Games

Quiz Stop

Insane Pictures

Funny stuff

Funny Videos

Funny Games

Comic World

Back to Listing

Price Gouging Actually Save Lives? Yep

Hits: 11056 | Rating: (2.0) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: Cajun247
Page: 1 2 3 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Male, 30-39, Western US
 102 Posts
Sunday, September 04, 2011 9:22:21 AM
Price Gouging = making supplies available for the rich during any disaster!

Female, 18-29, Eastern US
 352 Posts
Monday, August 29, 2011 11:10:24 PM
Three 1 gallon tea jugs my mother has had since the dawn of time filled with well water 2 days before irene. Cost us nothing.

Candles of various smells accumulated over the last 10 years. Also cost practically nothing.

Maybe it's growing up on farmland, or maybe it's the fact that the closest store is 10 miles from here but the way people freak out before storms and get all weird about water, milk, bread and eggs is so alien to me, I actually had to go look up what price gouging meant before I even watched the video.

Male, 50-59, Canada
 28595 Posts
Monday, August 29, 2011 10:48:01 AM
True @AntEconomist: if there were 'more stock' it wouldn't be 'sold out' eh? Notice that @Squirlz? Limiting how many one can buy is really easy to 'get around' and doesn't really help create fair distribution. Unless you want the FBI involved...
It's a financial risk for a store owner to massively over-stock before a storm, then not sell it! What can one do with 50,000 wind-up flashlights after the storm passes? (or misses?)

Extra costs (and risk) must lead to increased profits or it makes no financial sense to do it.

I know! We'll get the GOVERNMENT to do it for us! (rationing) Look how well FEMA works, and it's FREEEEE!

Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 321 Posts
Monday, August 29, 2011 10:22:53 AM
@LazyMe: It's the "order more stock" part that is hand-waiving. The whole point of a shortage is that there isn't more stock (or the "more stock" is hard to find, or that it takes time to produce, etc.). That's why allowing the price to rise is a good idea. The higher price gives entrepreneurs the incentive to use extraordinary means to find and get more stock to where it is needed quickly.

Male, 18-29, Canada
 10503 Posts
Monday, August 29, 2011 8:23:22 AM
It's entirely possible that ordering more stock in such situations and then selling all of it at a the normal price would yield more profit to the store than gouging the normal stock simply because there are more people that can afford it and profit margins for day-to-day items are usually pretty high.

Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10601 Posts
Monday, August 29, 2011 6:22:24 AM
So ultimately 'sales limits' have their own loopholes.

Male, 50-59, Canada
 28595 Posts
Monday, August 29, 2011 5:48:15 AM
So why did he have stock in the first place? - Baalth

*sigh* indeed!
To bring in extra stock would mean higher costs. If the store cannot raise prices to reflect these costs, they don't make much (or any!) profit. So WHY bother?

Most stores won't go "hog wild" gouging their customers, people would remember that and shop elsewhere in the future. But to simply run out of everything, THAT is better for whom exactly?

Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 321 Posts
Monday, August 29, 2011 5:46:11 AM
@Squrlz: "...whenever we had to put a limit on purchases, we'd restock ASAP. Why? Because the item was flying off the shelves and we were making profit off of every unit we sold."

You contradict yourself. If this was your behavior, then by definition there was no shortage.

Male, 50-59, Canada
 28595 Posts
Monday, August 29, 2011 5:40:28 AM
Lee Doren is the man! Looking at this objectively, he's right! Of course we FEEL bad when we see it, but feelings don't get you food or water, eh?

vv @Baatlh - idk if you have a better system for the world's economy (I haven't read the replies yet) but I do think that 75% of all humans on the planet use 'free enterprise' to one degree or another, eh? (this includes China)

If someone is willing to pay 7.3M for a picture, then that's what it is worth! YOU don't have to agree.

Male, 18-29, Asia
 4753 Posts
Monday, August 29, 2011 1:08:02 AM
"The free market price represents the consensus opinion of literally every single person in the world."

This is literally a misrepresentation of the word literally.

It represents the highest price that it is capable of selling for. If there is only one item, its value is determined only by one person. Even if everyone else disagrees, by any factor. Suggesting that one person is stupid is perfectly reasonable.

Example: A $7.3 million picture of Kate Moss. Do you really think everyone agrees that's how much it is worth? Most people? Many people? Or just 2 guys at an auction.

Sometimes, many people can be complete dumbasses, for example: This for example.

Male, 30-39, Western US
 243 Posts
Monday, August 29, 2011 12:19:50 AM

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1122 Posts
Sunday, August 28, 2011 11:43:22 PM

Changing the price tags on the items when stock is in danger of running extremely low (as it's not exercised normally outside of extreme circumstances (save for gasoline)) is a simple one step process to regulate the items from the shelf rather than the cashier at walmart dealing with a mother of 4 demanding why she can't buy more than one case of water even though she is ready and able to buy more.

Another example is that same mother of 4 sending her children back individually to buy the maximum amount of goods as set by the limit. Then you're back to square one. Hoarders will have most of the resources and those in need (even with the money) will be out of luck.

The goods at a set price are agreed upon by the consumer and the seller in a (perfect) free economic system. Setting limits on the purchase of items honestly falls outside of the economic system and is thus, extremely difficult to enforce.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1122 Posts
Sunday, August 28, 2011 11:39:07 PM
Speaking from a business standpoint placing buy limits on items is easy to do. Assuming that it is one particular product, there is a set limit in stock, and it will be written off as so. It's also easy to keep track of, assuming it's one or two items.

But it's extremely difficult to impose a 'buy limit for all essential supplies, have each employee oversee it, and make sure everyone is done in time for said disaster to strike. Managing the anger and disruption caused by such techniques within the customer base would be nearly impossible to do.

While this approach is good in theory, and it is, I don't disagree with the exploring the idea. It is fundamentally flawed in actual enforcement of said theory.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1122 Posts
Sunday, August 28, 2011 11:31:50 PM

Well because you believe you're in such a mental state to disagree with noted economists as well as the entire economic theory our country is based on please share what saves you from being so 'small minded' and a 'moron' as you are proposing a more difficult solution to enforce and you believe that no one's idea but yours is correct. I believe that constitutes a "small mind"

So share what finishing school(s) you attended and what you course of study was so that we can derive the credibility you are basing your untested theory on.

Female, 18-29, Australia
 5 Posts
Sunday, August 28, 2011 11:09:58 PM
Sure, relevant, but it took him 4 minutes of this to say 'price gouging stops people stockpiling cheap necessities, so there's more to go around.'

Male, 30-39, Western US
 2350 Posts
Sunday, August 28, 2011 10:46:25 PM

you really think that a black market of sufecient size could spring up in a situation where you have about 3-4 days to prepare??? are you joking? having lived in a few third world countries I have seen first hand how and why they start and trust me, they take longer then a couple days to organize and get running...

Male, 30-39, Western US
 2350 Posts
Sunday, August 28, 2011 10:44:22 PM
this is a total load of poo.

you simply place a buy limit on essential items. stores have been doing this for years during sales, wherein they advertise sales items and the fine print states "limit two per customer". Now the store does this to spread out the sale and bring in new customers and to create a sense of urgency in each customer.


this guy and those that defend this BS are small minded morons that cannot think of something as simple as placing limits on how much of each item you can buy...fing hell people, is that really hard to figure out????

morons, the lot of them.

Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 15860 Posts
Sunday, August 28, 2011 10:11:38 PM
The logical thing to do instead or raising prices in order to "make sure everyone gets some" is set a limit on how many you can buy on emergency goods.

Congratulations! You just created a black market...idiot.

If a willing buyer and willing seller agree on a price for something, that's exactly what it's worth -- no more, no less. The free market price represents the consensus opinion of literally every single person in the world. Anyone who says he should be be given the authority to use the coercive power of government to force or prohibit people from engaging in consensual transactions of any kind is an arrogant prick who thinks he's smarter than everybody else in the entire world combined. People like this should be hanged. (They don't deserve the dignity of being shot.)

Female, 18-29, Canada
 1569 Posts
Sunday, August 28, 2011 9:18:36 PM

Male, 18-29, Asia
 4753 Posts
Sunday, August 28, 2011 9:00:59 PM
"Once that product is gone, there is no incentive for suppliers to bring in more."


So why did he have stock in the first place? The original incentive was "I can sell this for money". Now that the plan is working he's giving up on it?

They profit from sales. If they do make a profit on each bottle of water, there is incentive to bring in more bottles of water to sell, to make more profit.

Same can be said of things like subsidizing oil companies.

"Hey steve, would you mind drilling for oil and making 75 million dollars a day in profit for it?"
"Why no US government, I would not"
"What if we give you $3 billion in subsidies?"
"Oh! Well if there's money involved then sure!"

Nobody has ever had this conversation.

Male, 18-29, Southern US
 651 Posts
Sunday, August 28, 2011 6:04:30 PM
The logical thing to do instead or raising prices in order to "make sure everyone gets some" is set a limit on how many you can buy on emergency goods.

Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 534 Posts
Sunday, August 28, 2011 5:01:53 PM
Besides, I said nothing along the lines of a 'hard limit,' I said that it would be in peoples best interest if there was a tax (one that would provide more relief funds in such an occasion) on over-consumption in the event of a natural disaster. It would be a situational tax, that would help people in need, not profit for the state, unlike some you have to live with every day (gluttony tax). Deterring one from buying too much is much easier than trying to keep a store from capitalizing on a disaster.

Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1725 Posts
Sunday, August 28, 2011 4:57:12 PM
This guy represents everything reprehensible in government today. We're going to cause you to panic, raise prices and.. and... and this is GOOD for all you folk. Thanks Mr. Think Tank.

This guy is a total douche, giving mild examples.... he obviously doesn't realize how bad price gouging can get. Maybe when he is dying of dehydration someone will charge him $10,000 for a bottle of water and he'll take that experience to his next meeting of thinking douchebag's tank of ideas.

Female, 50-59, Canada
 87 Posts
Sunday, August 28, 2011 4:56:53 PM
What. rubbish. Utter toad is right. Does anyone really think it's better having the likes of him running our lives than an elected government?

Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 534 Posts
Sunday, August 28, 2011 4:55:09 PM
--impose emergency rationing laws

More government U MAD?

I've been reading the comments here and have heard some good arguments for rationing as opposed to price gouging. But government is NOT the tool to be setting those limits. Let the stores set those limits at their own will.--

The fact is, most of them look at it like this slimy little turd. They'll just increase the price to profit off of a natural disaster.
I think it's funny how people think it's okay for the gov't to save them from the natural disaster, but if the gov't purposed to help the community ration its limited resources as part of that process; 'oh, hell no.'

Page: 1 2 3 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account

Back to Listing ^top

Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |