Gouging creates demand for not-gouging (assuming consumers are not masochists).
In the world of leftism, it’s all square circles. People = masochists, people = good, masochism = bad …
Modern progressivism represents one confused body of ideas derived from some golden mean between two bad ideas, where it is assumed that the truth lies halfway between two untruths.
The OP gives fundamental premise that defending private enterprise is bad, defending bureaucratic government is bad, and hence a person who does both or neither occupies a more rational position on price gouging than anybody else. As we see here:
“in the general case, people seem to see a bright line between government and private enterprise. any society that has a state has state privelege sown into all its entities to some degree. if we say that degree is zero, some sharp people of different mind will find fault. i think it is time to move to more nuanced arguments; not nuance for the sake of being nuanced—as some issues are surely black and white—but nuance when nuance is called for.”
You are utterly failing to get the point. We are talking about whether there is a theoretical tendency towards an unrestricted rise in prices, at the expense of the consumer, in the market. That is, a catallactic relationship, not an institutional relationship. By arguing that there has never been a free market you have disingeniously shifted the goal posts, but unfortunately for you the people you are debating are not ignorant or dull.
I am submitting that it is not me, but you who is shifting the goal post. You don’t get that? The author said “price gouging can’t happen in a free market, but does in a real market.” I replied “correct. leftists disagree with that position. Especially because there is no such thing as a “free” market.”
(I also said the discussion over whether there really is a free market was off topic. You are welcome to start a new thread to discuss it)
How is making a profit exploitation? When the primitive man fashioned a tool and sold it to a fellow man for profit (on this, see Reisman’s “primacy of profits” principle that totally debunks the Marxist “primacy of wages” doctrine), did he exploit that man? No, both men gained from the exchange.
Exploit, definition; http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=define%3Aexploit&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1
Making a profit is exploitation by definition. It is not my fault the (right) libertarian community redefines words to their own benefit.
He did not exploit the man, in that instance. He exploited the market. Because that is what business is all about. Exploiting isn’t always bad. Boxers exploit a weakness in their opponent, Hercules had exploits. Elementary, my friend.
(I’m not a marxist. But interestingly, there is a quote by Marx where he says he is not a Marxist either )
Please, show me where the gouging took effect. Our current problems are more complex than supposed “gouging”.
Who’s talking about the current situation? Sure, some gouging went into effect here, but that is not my point. I am saying, if gouging happens, it can have widespread repercussions (negative externalities, for you ivory tower types).
I don’t see a connection. Stringing random concepts doesn’t make a valid point.
Perhaps it’s because I meant to say “loses her job.” But in context, it should have been obvious what i meant. And if you cannot grasp the concept that people w/o jobs can’t afford mortgages, I just don’t know what to say…
If I may interject what I see as an important point…
Definitions are inherently arbitrary. There are no right or wrong definitions. So to claim that some people “redefine words to their own benefit” is not a criticism if they explain the definitions they’re using. Using different definitions is not the same as equivocation when one uses his definitions consistently.
Regarding exploitation, if you consider all profit to be exploitation, then consider this: both the buyer and seller profit from the exchange. Each one gives up what the other prefers in order to get what he prefers. Otherwise the exchange wouldn’t happen. Hence the exploitation is mutual and cannot be accurately described in terms of commensalism or parasitism.
I think you should look into the concept of mens rea. Or are you a proponent of strict liability?
boinks loon left Back to France! 
Definitions are inherently arbitrary. There are no right or wrong definitions. So to claim that some people “redefine words to their own benefit” is not a criticism if they explain the definitions they’re using. Using different definitions is not the same as equivocation when one uses his definitions consistently.
There’s a difference between using your own definition, and rewriting it so that it matches not its historical context in any way.
Regarding exploitation, if you consider all profit to be exploitation, then consider this: both the buyer and seller profit from the exchange. Each one gives up what the other prefers in order to get what he prefers. Otherwise the exchange wouldn’t happen. Hence the exploitation is mutual and cannot be accurately described in terms of commensalism or parasitism.
It can, in the right contexts. If I “own” the only watershed in an area, and force everyone else to live in poverty by the price I charge, that is certainly parasitical. The poeple’s only recourse is to pakc up and leave, trying to find a more benevolent capitalist. His ownership is most likely based on arbitrary reasons such as “my family called it theirs first… even tho people had been using it for millenia.”
This is kinda my whole point. One’s terms should be used in their historical context. And historically, ownership is very arbitrary.
No, I am not a fan of mens rea, in decision of guilt/innocence. It is good to be used in decisions of punishment (the degree of) tho. I am fully aware of people’s ability to justify themselves in nearly anything. I don’t care at all whether your mind was guilty or not. If you did it, you did it.
Following the comments on this thread, it has occurred to me that no one has defined “price gouging”. People seem to be talking about it as if it is a given. In practice, I find the term to be loosely used and applied emotionally.
I submit that there is no such thing as price gouging.
The variables involved in pricing cannot be objectively ascertained and all we can really discuss is price elasticity and inelasticity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
^ price gouging
(I know, not a free market. that’s not my point)
Epicurus,
I am not really sure what your reply is…based on the link you gave (I disagree with much of it’s assessment) I am assuming you’re saying what???
I’ll make it easy for you…
I don’t believe there is price gouging in any market. Free or otherwise.
To help you out on this line of reasoning…it is impossible to have price gouging unless three things fall into place:
a) infinite supply
b) one owner of that infinite supply
c) no consumer alternatives
There is nothing on this planet that fits that description. Everything is finite. If something wasn’t, there would either be no need to own it or there would many owners. And if even (a) and (b) were true, (c) would be temporary at best because even in the most unfree markets alternatives develop. (they call it the black market)
Henceforth, there is no such thing as price gouging. It is an emotional response from failure to understand the variables of pricing. It exists in the minds of people…kind of like…Bigfoot or the Boogie man.
notice that i called attention to the golden mean fallacy (“not nuanced for the sake of being nuanced”). i am not arguing that something being nuanced makes it inherently right or better; i am arguing that even though the left’s attempts at golden mean are misguided, the overreaction into seeing bright lines is also misguided. hence the left is “not so wrong” though still indeed wrong.
my point is that the only hope we have of getting to people like Kalhoun is to be more precise than they are, not merely to overreach or oversimplify in the opposite direction of their error (which is another, perhaps unnamed, fallacy).
Glad to see you think cartels are a market phenomenon. I agree.
Predatory pricing is also possible in our current corporatist economy.
I am submitting that it is not me, but you who is shifting the goal post. You don’t get that? The author said “price gouging can’t happen in a free market, but does in a real market.” I replied “correct. leftists disagree with that position. Especially because there is no such thing as a “free” market.”
No, the author said that price gouging can occur as a product of interventionism. You made the claim that interventionism is not a necessary prerequisite.
Who’s talking about the current situation? Sure, some gouging went into effect here, but that is not my point. I am saying, if gouging happens, it can have widespread repercussions (negative externalities, for you ivory tower types).
You made some nonsensical sentence where you equated lost houses with price gouging. I am asking you to specify.
Perhaps it’s because I meant to say “loses her job.” But in context, it should have been obvious what i meant. And if you cannot grasp the concept that people w/o jobs can’t afford mortgages, I just don’t know what to say…
Um, where is the price gouging? You aren’t being specific enough.
No, the author said that price gouging can occur as a product of interventionism. You made the claim that interventionism is not a necessary prerequisite.
Correct. Interventionism is not a necessary prerequisite because all markets are subject to intervention… aka, there is no such thing as a free market. What’s the problem?
You made some nonsensical sentence where you equated lost houses with price gouging. I am asking you to specify.
Kelly works at Non-gougers classic, and SHerry works at Gougers express. GE puts NGC out of business. Kelly loses her job. She spends the next month or two looking for a job (maybe longer) and gets behind on her mortgage. She has to borrow money to pay other bills. She defaults on her student loans… if the process is not corrected, she will lose the house.
I fail to see how that is hard to understand…
Um, where is the price gouging? You aren’t being specific enough.
Enron; california energy scandal/crisis… one amongst many
What is predatory pricing?
