Here I am

The important role of (sometimes high) prices-- Walter E. Williams

Attention: TDR Forum Junkies
To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.

Thanks, TDR Staff

Ford outsells Dodge 3 to 1

Newly Installed Gauges

The fallout from Hurricane Katrina has featured a lot of ignorance and demagoguery about prices. Let's look at some of it. One undeniable fact is that the hurricane disaster changed scarcity conditions. There are fewer stores, fewer units of housing, less gasoline and a shortage of many other goods and services used on a daily basis. Rising prices are not only a manifestation of these changed scarcity conditions, they help us cope, adjust and get us on the road to recovery.



Here's a which-is-better question for you. Suppose a hotel room rented for $79 a night prior to Hurricane Katrina's devastation. Based on that price, an evacuating family of four might rent two adjoining rooms. When they arrive at the hotel, they find the rooms rent for $200; they decide to make do with one room. In my book, that's wonderful. The family voluntarily opted to make a room available for another family who had to evacuate or whose home was destroyed. Demagogues will call this price-gouging, but I ask you, which is preferable: a room available at $200 or a room unavailable at $79? Rising prices get people to voluntarily economize on goods and services rendered scarcer by the disaster.



After Hurricane Katrina struck, gasoline prices shot up almost a dollar nearly overnight. Some people have been quick to call this price-gouging, particularly since wholesalers and retailers were charging the higher price for gasoline already purchased and in their tanks prior to the hurricane. The fact of business is that what a seller paid for something doesn't necessarily determine its selling price. Put in a bit more sophisticated way: Historical costs have nothing to do with selling price. For example, suppose you maintained a 10-pound inventory of coffee in your cupboard. When I ran out, you'd occasionally sell me a pound for $2. Suppose there's a freeze in Brazil destroying much of the coffee crop, driving coffee prices to $5 a pound. Then I come around to purchase coffee. Are you going to charge me $2 a pound, what you paid for it, or $5, what it's going to cost you to restock your coffee inventory?



What about the house that you might have purchased for $50,000 in 1970 that you're selling today? If you charged me $250,000 for it, today's price for its replacement, as opposed to what you paid for it, are you guilty of price-gouging?



Recovering from Katrina means resources will have to be moved to the Gulf Coast. I ask you, how does one get electricians, plumbers and other artisans to give up their comfortable homes and livelihoods in Virginia and Pennsylvania and travel to Mobile and New Orleans to help in the recovery? If you said pay them higher prices, go to the head of the class. Higher prices, along with windfall profits, are economic signals of unmet human wants. As such, they encourage producers to meet those human wants.



Politicians of both parties have rushed in to exploit public ignorance and emotion. Last week Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (Democrat) threatened to prosecute gas companies. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (Republican) is threatening legal action against what he called "unconscionable pricing" by hotels. Alabama Attorney General Troy King (Republican) promises to vigorously prosecute businesses that significantly increase prices during the state of emergency. The Bush administration has called for the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission to look for evidence of price-gouging, and Congress plans to hold hearings on oil company "price-gouging. "



There's an important downside to these political attacks on producers. What about the next disaster? How much sense does it make for producers to make the extra effort to provide goods and services if they know they risk prosecution for charging what might be seen as "unconscionable prices"? Politicians would serve us better by focusing their energies on tax-gouging.
 
Supply and demand at work - Economics 101. Actually, gasoline demand (consumption) has dropped for the last 2 weeks according to an article in the Houston Chronicle this morning. When demand drops relative to supply, or when additional supplies come on line (including non-traditional sources, such as biodiesel) because of the higher prices, prices will fall until a point of equilibrium is reached.



Rusty
 
Last edited:
The issue of acceptable price increases hinges greatly upon circumstances and the availability of reasonable alternatives.



IF *I* cheaply develop an effective anti-cancer drug, and obtain the usual patent protections - and then market a product that costs me $1 to produce at a user cost of $1000 - as I rake in huge profits, YOU might not much care - unless YOU or someone close to you NEEDS that drug to live!



BUT, with the "protection" of patent laws, and the admired "free enterprise/Capitalistic society" mentality, you SHOULD applaud and readily accept MY "right" to charge YOU whatever I want for my lifesaving drug, right?



Would you - or would you cry foul?



Maybe that depends on how rich you are?



The key issue here, is is there a point at which the health or survival of an individual - or a nation - outweighs the "law" of capitalism or free enterprise? Is there a poit at which life is more important than PROFIT?



We have many available alternatives to items like property, housing, coffee and others - but FUEL is the very lifeblood of our society and country - and as such, like lifesaving medications - should face different controls than what I can sell a car or home for - the analogy really doesn't fit the situation...



So you have no problem with fuel at $3 a gallon - what about $10, $20 - or $100? Eventually, even YOU will hit your own personal threshold as to what is reasonable and acceptable purely in the name of free enterprise, and what is not - just as $1000 for a cancer drug might be acceptable to YOU and your circumstances - but be totally out of reach for many others just as needy and dependent, or more so, than you are.



Most of us understand and have no great problem with reasonable supply/demand issues - but runaway profiteering and rampant uncontrolled GREED, making money on the misery of your helpless victims, is another thing entirely!
 
Last edited:
more econ 101-- Larry Elder

Gouging: [Colloq. ] to cheat out of money, etc. ; also, to overcharge. (Webster's New World College Dictionary, Third Edition)



Just before Hurricane Katrina arrived, Alabama Gov. Bob Riley [D] announced his intention to prosecute "gougers. " "Those who engage in price gouging will be punished to the fullest extent of the law," said Gov. Riley.



How does Alabama define "gouging"?



Alabama Attorney General Troy King says price gouging occurs when the seller prices an item or service at 25 percent or more above the average price which was charged in the same area 30 days before the governor declares a state of emergency. The law allows exceptions for price increases attributable to "a reasonable cost. "



Hm-mm, does this apply to, say, housing prices?



For example, the city of Baton Rouge, almost 80 miles from New Orleans, saw its population double as a result of the people displaced by the hurricane and flood. Practically overnight, housing prices in Baton Rouge increased some 20 percent. Yet one reporter explained, "In a phenomenon familiar to Southern California's housing market, prices are rising not so much because sellers are gouging, but because buyers are bidding up the prices. " "Not so much"? Apparently, the reporter's keen, psychic instincts recognized that the home seller perhaps only "gouged" to a small degree, because "buyers are bidding up the prices. " But doesn't this describe exactly what happens when -- in the case of a natural disaster -- the price of gas climbs rapidly?



In economists Milton and Rose Friedman's classic book "Free to Choose," they explain supply and demand. " . . . f an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it. Most economic fallacies derive from the neglect of this simple insight, from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another. . . . Prices . . . transmit information. . . . Suppose that a forest fire or strike reduces the availability of wood. The price of wood will go up. That will tell the manufacturer of pencils that it will pay him to use less wood, and it will not pay him to produce as many pencils as before unless he can sell them for a higher price. The smaller production of pencils will enable the retailer to charge a higher price, and the higher price will inform the final user that it will pay him to wear his pencil down to a shorter stub before he discards it, or shift to a mechanical pencil. . . . Anything that prevents prices from expressing freely the conditions of demand or supply interferes with the transmission of accurate information. "



A convenience store owner who suddenly triples the price for batteries may suffer when the crisis ends. The seller could face the wrath of consumers who felt exploited or "gouged. " But that does not change the seller's right to charge whatever he or she feels the market can bear. In addition, the disaster-driven higher price creates opportunities for people outside the area to rush in supplies. Capping profit, in a time of sudden and severe shortage, creates a disincentive on the part of others to come in with supplies.



Now what about "dumping"? Dump: to sell (a commodity) in a large quantity at a low price, esp. in a foreign market at a price below that of the domestic market. (Webster's New World College Dictionary, Third Edition)



American lumber producers, for example, citing government subsidies for the Canadian lumber industry, accused the Canadians of "dumping" their lumber on the U. S. market at up to 75 percent below cost. Yet General Motors, according to Jeff Bennett of Bloomberg News, sold each of its vehicles, for the first six months of this year, at an average $1,200 loss. This compares to Toyota's $1,488 profit per car. If, by definition, "dumping" means selling the product below cost, then why can't Toyota and other competitors accuse GM of unfair competition?



Who wins when businesses "dump"? The consumer. True, some competitors face disadvantages when other countries subsidize their domestic businesses. Many American companies claim to support free trade, so long as it's "fair. " But a business cannot long survive by selling products below cost. And governments that provide subsidies burden that country's taxpayers. Despite the "unfairness" to competitors, consumers benefit. And our own Congress continues to provide protection to American farm growers against foreign competition. And auto makers pressured Congress into forcing foreign automotive manufacturers into "voluntary" import quotas.



Opponents of "gouging" and "dumping" make the same argument -- that government should halt a voluntary transaction between seller and buyer. It assumes the existence of some all-knowing, all-wise party with the judgment to guarantee that prices remain "affordable" or "appropriate" or "fair. "



This is precisely why we have a market-driven system. It is known as capitalism
 
Gary - K7GLD said:
The issue of acceptable price increases hinges greatly upon the availability of reasonable alternatives.



IF *I* develop an effective anti-cancer drug, and obtain the usual patent protections - and then market a product that costs me $1 to produce at a user cost of $1000, YOU might not much care - unless YOU or someone close to you NEEDS that drug to live!



BUT, with the "protection" of patent laws, and the admired "free enterprise/Capitalistic society" mentality, you SHOULD applaud MY right to charge YOU whatever I want for my lifesaving drug, right?



Would you - or would you cry foul?



Maybe that depends on how rich you are?



We have many available alternatives to items like property, housing, coffee and others - but FUEL is the very lifeblood of our society and country - and as such, like lifesaving medications - should face different controls than what I can sell a car or home for - the analogy really doesn't fit the situation...



So you have no problem with fuel at $3 a gallon - what about $10 - or $20? Eventually, even YOU will hit your own personal threshold as to what is reasonable and acceptable purely in the name of free enterprise, and what is not - just as $1000 for a cancer drug might be acceptable to YOU - but be totally out of reach for many others just as needy and dependent, or more so, than you are.



Most of us understand and have no great problem with reasonable supply/demand issues - but runaway profiteering and rampant uncontrolled GREED, making money on the misery of your helpless victims, is another thing entirely!



The problem with your examples is that the analysis in incomplete. It may very well only cost cents or dollars to PRODUCE your cancer drug, but how much did it cost you in R&D to develope the formulation for this drug? It costs substantial hours and dollars to develop drugs and bring them to market. How do you recoup the millions of dollars in development, by charging a price for a drug that will recoup those costs. It's not just about covering the cost of production.



Same is true of the oil companies. If they don't realize a profit on their product (fuel), how are they going to pay to maintain and repair their infrastructure? Refineries were severally damaged and oil platforms were destroyed by Katrina. If they sell their product at cost who is going to pay for the maintenance and repairs?



This issue is not as simple as most try to make it out to be, goverment does this and oil company does that :rolleyes: There are a myriad of factors determining the current MARKET prices of oil, lumber, contract labor, and everything else affected by Katrina.
 
I'm no economics major but it just doesn't seem right to me comparing assets (a house that will hopefully be there for 100 years) to a "liability" (gas that is burned in a matter of days).



I understand the situation after Katrina hit, but gas prices had taken a hefty jump well before then. I wonder... In your example of housing and fuel, were the realtors of yesteryear seeing a 44% profit like the oil companies of today? :p



Bottom line is I think they have no comparability and fuel is going to go up as a "commodity" as long as we are willing to pay for it. Honestly I figured there would have been a trucker's strike by now as they are the main ones effected directly.



As sad as it is, alot of Americans don't realize that the cost of fuel effects EVERYTHING they buy, everything comes on a truck. The cost they personally have to pay at the pump will be the factor on whether they cut down the use of their fuel and respectively possibly cutting the price of fuel.



In response to Brian: Last I saw it cost somewhere around $1. 50 to extact one barrel of oil (in the middle east). What you say is true to a point but with a 44% profit rise over last year I don't think "maintenance" and other factors are a dog in this fight as they are paid for before that big profit line comes out.
 
Last edited:
What about when a manufacturer manipulates the supply side of the equation to keep supply very tight to force the issue.



Now I am not saying that I believe this as I dont have any info to back up any claim made. Since oil prices are on everybodies mind lets use them as an example.



How about Mr Big Oil Inc is getting his oil from the ground relatively cheap lets say at a cost of 10 a barrel. Mr Big Oil Inc sells those barrels to one of its subsidiaries, Mr Big Oil Refining Inc, through the open market paying the spot oil price of say 60 a barrel. Mr Big Oil has just made a very nice profit indeed and did not really do anything wrong as it sold it at the spot market price, it just happen to be sold to someone it owns.



Now Mr Big Oil Refining Inc turns around and refines the oil. Now MBORI wants to sell fuel at a profit and needs to to stay in business so it doesnt want to build any additional refineries (even if it had permission epa etc) to increase supply because that will increase supply and lower its potential profit. Now MBORI could take that a step further and keep its current refineries offline for longer periods of time for maintenance or whatever excuse or just plain old cut back on production say 10% or 15% to decrease the supply further on purpose so that it can continue to demand top dollar due to the self imposed supply shortage. At what point is that an issue? or is it ever?



MBORI then sells the refined fuel to another one of Mr Big Oil Incs subsidiaries or one of Mr Big Oil Refiners sister companies Mr Big Oil Fuel Station. Now Mr Big Oil Fuel Station needs to make profit as well but knows that he will take a lot of heat for making too much profit on fuel so is willing to make a small margin on it and be happy. (and it doesnt really care as it knows it is a stooge of its parent company)



In the big picture Mr Big Oil wholly owns these subsidiaries. Made big profit at the selling the oil barrel to the refiner and made good money on the refining and then more again at the pump. So its profits are large. So are all of Mr Big Oil Incs competitors following the same model. Maybe not to the point of collusion but just a gentlemans understanding which in most cases really is collusion just cant be proven because it is just understood not a policy nor do they have meetings about it.



At what point is free enterprise undermined if at all? There really are very few real oil companies out there going from beginning to end of the product cycle (and if one them and you sell to any of the other small companies you still make a great profit). With a product like fuel that there are no substitutes for and though you may be able to cut back some certainly cant do without. Does that line in the sand of free market get muddled at all with the above example? Does Mr Big Oil have the last say in it, should they?



This is a totally fictitious story and is not meant to portray any current or past events just to portray an example.
 
Gary - K7GLD said:
The issue of acceptable price increases hinges greatly upon circumstances and the availability of reasonable alternatives.



So who defines "reasonable"?? What's reasonable to one is not reasonable to another, so this is a completely irrelevant statement. I happen to think $120k is "reasonable" for a house. Someone in GA might think it's too much. Someone from CA might think it's way too little. So who's right? Or perhaps, just MAYBE, that the price of housing is relative to the demand for it? Maybe, JUST MAYBE, the MARKET sets the price of the house, and *that* determines if it's "reasonable"?



Once you throw out the caca of "reasonability", then YES, we do have options. You yourself exercised an alternative moving from Vacaville to Oregon, correct? If the cost of living is too high in CA, then you move elsewhere.



Now, a person NEEDS housing. But there's a lot of options that run the gamut from small efficiency to large mansion, from a couple thousand to mega millions.



Just as we "need" oil (which I would disagree with, but I'm granting the point for argument's sake), we still have a lot of options within that gamut, from a 60+mpg hybrid to an H2 getting 10mpg. We have options. We can move from a guzzler to a sipper.

IF *I* cheaply develop an effective anti-cancer drug, and obtain the usual patent protections - and then market a product that costs me $1 to produce at a user cost of $1000 - as I rake in huge profits, YOU might not much care - unless YOU or someone close to you NEEDS that drug to live!



BUT, with the "protection" of patent laws, and the admired "free enterprise/Capitalistic society" mentality, you SHOULD applaud and readily accept MY "right" to charge YOU whatever I want for my lifesaving drug, right?



Would you - or would you cry foul?



Maybe that depends on how rich you are?



The key issue here, is is there a point at which the health or survival of an individual - or a nation - outweighs the "law" of capitalism or free enterprise? Is there a poit at which life is more important than PROFIT?



We have many available alternatives to items like property, housing, coffee and others - but FUEL is the very lifeblood of our society and country - and as such, like lifesaving medications - should face different controls than what I can sell a car or home for - the analogy really doesn't fit the situation...



So you have no problem with fuel at $3 a gallon - what about $10, $20 - or $100? Eventually, even YOU will hit your own personal threshold as to what is reasonable and acceptable purely in the name of free enterprise, and what is not - just as $1000 for a cancer drug might be acceptable to YOU and your circumstances - but be totally out of reach for many others just as needy and dependent, or more so, than you are.



Most of us understand and have no great problem with reasonable supply/demand issues - but runaway profiteering and rampant uncontrolled GREED, making money on the misery of your helpless victims, is another thing entirely!



Congatulations, Gary-- you've discovered Capitalism. Some people had a problem with fuel at $2/gal. Some will be fine at $10. Great! That's what freedom is: we have the right to make choices. We can CHOOSE not to drive. We can choose to drive differently (smaller car, different route, no recreation, whatever).



Capitalism works because when circumstances change, we can make different choices to accomodate them.



The problem with Gary's example about the expensive cancer drug is that is PRESUPPOSES THE ENTITLEMENT TO LIFE SAVING MEDICINE. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO SUCH MEDICINE!! Unless of course, you read the Constitution "right to life" to mean life saving medicine. Ironic that people can see the right to life when it comes to expending billions of taxpayer dollars, but somehow that same right to life is absent when discussing the murder of 1. 5million children annually. But that's another arguement.



ANNOUNCEMENT: "EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, ALL BUSINESSES IN AMERICA MUST SUBMIT PROFIT STATEMENTS TO GARYK7GLD TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE ONLY MAKING "REASONABLE" PROFITS" :rolleyes:



*I* would rejoice if you developed a cancer-curing drug and sold it for $1000. For one thing, that money will support future R&D which may lead to MORE life-saving drugs. For another, selling it for a high price ensures that only the most severe cases (the "neediest" but not in the economic sense) would it be prescribed, helping to ensure that it is available to those people when they REALLY need it.



What if your wonder drug sold for $10? People would take it almost pre-emptively if they think they *might* have cancer. Furthermore, you have little incentive to increase supply because profit is so low. The result is a shortage-- and then your life-saving drug does nothing to save lives at all.



The reality is that if someone wants to live badly enough, they will sell their house or even a kidney for a "wonder drug" that would cure cancer. In that case, $1000 is an awfully small price to pay, isn't it??



Now, think again from the perspective of the drug company. A wonder drug that people can't afford does no good for the company, because they have to sell it to make money, don't they? So would it be better to sell a $1000 drug that 10 people can afford, or a $100 drug that a ten THOUSAND people can afford?



Perhaps I've also illustrated for the less insightful just how the Medicare presciption drug entitlement was just a big fat blank check to the Drug companies. With the gov't subsidizing the cost of drugs, the market price will go up, because what the market will bear (i. e. what people will pay for something) will go up by the subsidized amount. This makes the drug company even more profitable. In essence, it's a gov't-mandated transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to the shareholders of Pfizer, Merck and that ilk. Nice. Wanna guess if any of those big shareholders are making campaign contributions to get the MediScare entitlement passed??



The national security aspects of high oil prices are another matter entirely. You cannot commingle the consumer's perspective and the national security perspective if you wish to properly analyze the situation. I've already commented at great length on the need for a comprehensive national effort to wean ourselves from an oil-based economy.



But until we do that, we use oil.
 
Last edited:
"Wanna guess if any of those big shareholders are making campaign contributions to get the MediScare entitlement passed??"



Wanna guess how many big oil companies are making political contributions to assure that these annual political "investigations" into fuel prices come up empty? ;) :D



So, what difference does it make which end of the blanket gets cut off? ;)



It's still too short either way...
 
If you look at actual numbers, I don't think that they are out of line, and certainly not indictative of gouging. These numbers are straight from the last quarterly report of ExxonMobile corp. This is just one example, but at least sheds ACTUAL data where people like to speculate and make accusations.



Total Revenues of $88,568M Less Total Costs of $75,809M equals Net Income Before Taxes of $12,759M, or 14. 4% of Total Revenues. Subtract Income Taxes of $5,119M to derive at Net Income of $7,640M, or 8. 6%. I certainly don't think a Net Income of 8. 6% is out of line.



Most organizations that I have worked with look for an ROI (return on investment) of at least 15-20% on their capital projects and business ventures.
 
Last edited:
BrianJones said:
If you look at actual numbers, I don't think that they are out of line, and certainly not indictative of gouging. These numbers are straight from the last quarterly report of ExxonMobile corp. This is just one example, but at least sheds ACTUAL data where people like to speculate and make accusations.



Total Revenues of $88,568M Less Total Costs of $75,809M equals Net Income Before Taxes of $12,759M, or 14. 4% of Total Revenues. Subtract Income Taxes of $5,119M to derive at Net Income of $7,640M, or 8. 6%. I certainly don't think a Net Income of 8. 6% is out of line.



Most organizations that I have worked with look for an ROI (return on investment) of at least 15-20% on their capital projects and business ventures.



You ever been around business owners - or operated one yourself?



I'll flat out GUARANTEE you that MANY of those owners live quite nicely on their businesses - yet produce tax returns that would make it seem they are in deep poverty! Ever hear of tax deductions? Big business hire TEAMS of tax lawyers to find every loophole, every allowance that will reduce their obligations, while making it seem they are losing money - do you really think the oil companies operate any differently?



"Now, think again from the perspective of the drug company. A wonder drug that people can't afford does no good for the company, because they have to sell it to make money, don't they? So would it be better to sell a $1000 drug that 10 people can afford, or a $100 drug that a ten THOUSAND people can afford?



Would YOU rather make a SINGLE $10,000 sale - or rent space and hire a staff to sell 10,000 SINGLE items? ;)



Would you rather drill lots of wells, and operate dozens of refineries fully staffed - or simply drive the price up and operate at half capacity - and make the SAME profit?



Get real - more profit with LESS product would be a no-brainer!



"What if your wonder drug sold for $10? People would take it almost pre-emptively if they think they *might* have cancer. Furthermore, you have little incentive to increase supply because profit is so low. The result is a shortage-- and then your life-saving drug does nothing to save lives at all. "



You example ASSUMES some sort of shortage of my medical supply - but I might easily have all the supply I could possibly distribute, and with the monopoly I hold, I can easily dictate my OWN price - and if I can make as much in a FEW high priced sales with minimal overhead, as opposed to MANY lower cost sales with LOTS of overhead, which way do you think I would go? ;)



AH - free enterprise, and NO ethics or conscience - ain't American "free enterprise" wonderful! ;)
 
Gary - K7GLD said:
You ever been around business owners - or operated one yourself?



I'll flat out GUARANTEE you that MANY of those owners live quite nicely on their businesses - yet produce tax returns that would make it seem they are in deep poverty! Ever hear of tax deductions? Big business hire TEAMS of tax lawyers to find every loophole, every allowance that will reduce their obligations, while making it seem they are losing money - do you really think the oil companies operate any differently?



Actually, as an accountant for appx 15 years I certainly have, from mom and pop companies in the motorsport (racing) industry, medium to large size organizations in the distribution and transportation industry, to a current role in a large hospital. So I definitely know how they operate.

As far as ExxonMobile owners are concerned and lining their pockets with tax breaks, I guess there are millions of them, i. e. the stockholders in the company. :rolleyes: The questions appears to be have you been around business and do you know how they ACTUALLY operate, or do you just speculate without any facts. I provided facts in my analysis on the situation.



This is a heated topic and you obviously have your opinion and mind made up, regardless of actual facts. To be honest, I am not a huge fan of big business and prefer to work with the small to medium size privately owned businesses. And recent history has shown it's share of corrupt business practices, both large and small. However, if you going to attack 'Big Business Oil Companies', at least be prepared with some facts to support your argument. Fuel prices are a wide spread economic issue with many facets, not just politics and big business. Again, it's called free market and supply and demand. Why aren't you crying about the higher lumber prices and higher costs for general contractors as a result of Katrina? Is it ok for the small contracting proprietors/company's to raise their prices (as is happening) due to the increased demand for their service?



I see where you are coming from on this and hate to pay the higher fuel costs as much as anyone, heck I commute 75 miles a day to/from work. However, I haven't seen any facts out of anyone crying for the heads of the big oil companies and politicians.
 
"The questions appears to be have you been around business and do you know how they ACTUALLY operate, or do you just speculate without any facts. I provided facts in my analysis on the situation. "



Tantrums aside, yes, I have been closely associated with several representative businesses - the last as production manager of a medium sized California daily newspaper. I regularly sat in on plant-wide budgeting meetings, and had my own production staff and a 2 million dollar annual departmental budget to produce and oversee.



My dad operated his own trucking business for many years, and my position within the newspaper industry and long term association with many local business owners gives a pretty decent overview of how they operate. An "expert", no - but not totally an ignorant dunce where business operation is concerned, either...



Satisfied?



So far, this is an interesting DISCUSSION on differing viewpoints - think we can KEEP it that way?
 
I think Gary is arguing from an ethics standpoint, Hohn is arguing from a legal standpoint.



Both of their opinions are equally legitimate and valid; and no one will ever settle such a debate. In this case, there's no way to reconcile the two sides.



But it sure is fun to argue about it! :D



-Ryan

P. S. As for the tax maneuvering being done by expensive lawyers in major corporations I have only 1 thing to say... C'MON FAIRTAX!!
 
My question to all parties is.....

If you were walking next to a mountain stream and found a 1 ounce nugget of gold, and decided to sell it, would you:



1) Sell it for fair market value ( as of 9/15/2005 $458. 90/oz)



2) Sell it for less, say around $200--after all, it was free, why not make a little holiday spending cash?



3) Sell it for $50--after all you found it, it was free to you & $50 would pay for a nice dinner out with your special someone.



4) Sell it for $0. 25--because anything more than a 25% profit margin is gouging.
 
Hohn said:
... Recovering from Katrina means resources will have to be moved to the Gulf Coast. I ask you, how does one get electricians, plumbers and other artisans to give up their comfortable homes and livelihoods in Virginia and Pennsylvania and travel to Mobile and New Orleans to help in the recovery? If you said pay them higher prices, go to the head of the class. Higher prices, along with windfall profits, are economic signals of unmet human wants. As such, they encourage producers to meet those human wants.



(1) The higher wages that will be paid will be with TAX PAYER money ... out one pocket and into another.

(2) Why would anyone one want to rebuild that "S... Hole" (i. e. New Orleans). Just nuke the whole city with 10 megatons to disenfect it than build shiping terminals further up the river.

(3) Who (i. e. private enterprise), would lend $$$ to people to build in those

areas again? Who would be stupid enough to offer property insurance to those who would rebuild in those areas (or insane enough to pay the premium they would be charged for it to be profitable for the insurance company). Unless you are talking about the Fed. Gov't once again selling Flood insurance, in which case refer to #1 above for who gets stuck with the bill again.
 
Dl5treez said:
If you were walking next to a mountain stream and found a 1 ounce nugget of gold, and decided to sell it, would you:



A more accurate analogy might be if you were a big oil company making record profits, getting HUGE tax breaks, while owning the ***** of many politicians & a devastating natural disaster came along would you-



1. Yell Yeeee Haw at the top of your lungs & raise prices just as fast as you can.



2. Pass on the cost of your storm damage to the consumer despite your record profits & HUGE tax breaks.



3. Jack up your prices because somebody else had some storm damage & the consumers may think it was you.



4. Decide that since you are already making record profits & get HUGE tax breaks that you can really afford to weather this to maintain a loyal clientele.



I'm half kidding but the bottom line is when companies get this big & powerful they do need to be regulated so that corporate greed doesn't become a danger to the welfare of the American people.
 
BDMiller said:
when companies get this big & powerful they do need to be regulated so that corporate greed doesn't become a danger to the welfare of the American people.



Thank goodness we have selfless regulators. Otherwise I'd be worried that a big and powerful beaureacracy might become a danger to the welfare of the american people.



Big Biz <> Gov

Rock <> Hard place



Guess who's in the middle.



Gary
 
Hohn said:
The fallout from Hurricane Katrina has featured a lot of ignorance and demagoguery about prices. Let's look at some of it. One undeniable fact is that the hurricane disaster changed scarcity conditions. There are fewer stores, fewer units of housing, less gasoline and a shortage of many other goods and services used on a daily basis. Rising prices are not only a manifestation of these changed scarcity conditions, they help us cope, adjust and get us on the road to recovery.



Here's a which-is-better question for you. Suppose a hotel room rented for $79 a night prior to Hurricane Katrina's devastation. Based on that price, an evacuating family of four might rent two adjoining rooms. When they arrive at the hotel, they find the rooms rent for $200; they decide to make do with one room. In my book, that's wonderful. The family voluntarily opted to make a room available for another family who had to evacuate or whose home was destroyed. Demagogues will call this price-gouging, but I ask you, which is preferable: a room available at $200 or a room unavailable at $79? Rising prices get people to voluntarily economize on goods and services rendered scarcer by the disaster.



After Hurricane Katrina struck, gasoline prices shot up almost a dollar nearly overnight. Some people have been quick to call this price-gouging, particularly since wholesalers and retailers were charging the higher price for gasoline already purchased and in their tanks prior to the hurricane. The fact of business is that what a seller paid for something doesn't necessarily determine its selling price. Put in a bit more sophisticated way: Historical costs have nothing to do with selling price. For example, suppose you maintained a 10-pound inventory of coffee in your cupboard. When I ran out, you'd occasionally sell me a pound for $2. Suppose there's a freeze in Brazil destroying much of the coffee crop, driving coffee prices to $5 a pound. Then I come around to purchase coffee. Are you going to charge me $2 a pound, what you paid for it, or $5, what it's going to cost you to restock your coffee inventory?



What about the house that you might have purchased for $50,000 in 1970 that you're selling today? If you charged me $250,000 for it, today's price for its replacement, as opposed to what you paid for it, are you guilty of price-gouging?



Recovering from Katrina means resources will have to be moved to the Gulf Coast. I ask you, how does one get electricians, plumbers and other artisans to give up their comfortable homes and livelihoods in Virginia and Pennsylvania and travel to Mobile and New Orleans to help in the recovery? If you said pay them higher prices, go to the head of the class. Higher prices, along with windfall profits, are economic signals of unmet human wants. As such, they encourage producers to meet those human wants.



Politicians of both parties have rushed in to exploit public ignorance and emotion. Last week Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (Democrat) threatened to prosecute gas companies. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (Republican) is threatening legal action against what he called "unconscionable pricing" by hotels. Alabama Attorney General Troy King (Republican) promises to vigorously prosecute businesses that significantly increase prices during the state of emergency. The Bush administration has called for the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission to look for evidence of price-gouging, and Congress plans to hold hearings on oil company "price-gouging. "



There's an important downside to these political attacks on producers. What about the next disaster? How much sense does it make for producers to make the extra effort to provide goods and services if they know they risk prosecution for charging what might be seen as "unconscionable prices"? Politicians would serve us better by focusing their energies on tax-gouging.

We have had a small family business for 50+ years. My dad started out in the building material/hardware business. He was very good at the commodity game, and could always make a buck. There were many times I can recall being "the last store around" to have some important item in a crisis, such as rock salt in an ice storm, or sump pumps during torrential rain events. We NEVER jacked our prices just because we could have. If the next load landed we would cost-average the item and maintain our margin, not rape people. If there was no product available we would sell it out at the same price 'til it was gone.

Our business has gone through many iterations, and I have been into and out of various segments of business for a variety of reasons, but we have thrived in the shadow of the mega-stores by selling quality products, and offering superlative service at a fair price. There are stores that sell for less, and stores that sell for more, but we are happy with what we have.
 
Gentlemen: I Suggest You Get Another Job To Offset Your Out Of Pocket Expenses... what About The Guy On A Fixed Income? I'll Bet He Thinks (price Gouging) I Didn't Read Everyone's Article Cause At My Age I Get Tired Quickly, So I May Be Out Of Line With All Of Your Thinking..... i'm Just Happy I Can Drive My 03 Ram Two Blocks To The Diesel Fuel Station... get Out My Leather Coin Purse And Dump It On The Counter ,,pick Up My Donut And Ride Off Into The Sun Rise... . all In All Gentlemen ... ... (it Doesn't Matter ) 100 Years From Now You'll Most Likely Will Be Gouging Digger O Dell... . but Then, Most Of You Never Heard Of Him,,,some Of You Might Be Grinning... ... have A Great Day In Good Ole America... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... doc
 
Back
Top