quote:

---

Originally posted by STUD figmo Al

quote:

---

Originally posted by steve davis

I set the price,Al.
I figure how much time it takes to make one.
Right now I'm not making any because of the major issues with my sight.
6 hospital visits by the end of January and hoping to get back in business.

I would like to raise the price to help make up for the down time,but that wouldn't be the right thing to do.

---

But it would be good fer the Magistrate..deemed that you could do them at zero proffit.. or tell you what you are worth ..that would be good ..no..

N..i know..that you know ..i think you make great bridges.. n are worth more than you ask for them... ;0)

---

Obviously there has to be back and forth communication between the "magistrate" and private concerns.

Anything less would be a dictatorship.Limits need to be worked out between all concerned.Compromises must be agreed on.It takes work on both sides since we are all in this together.

Al, I think your comment in t'other thread might be a good fit in this one: "Save the damned few..that take advantage of others ... ."  

It's been mentioned in past BHO economic discussions how capitalism leads to everybody thriving.  But what I see is that capitalism fosters haves/have-nots.    Correlation? .... causation?  ... I dunno.  .. or maybe I need to get my vision checked.

Steve, re. "compromises must be agreed on."   What  happens if they're not?  Who should be in charge of overseeing the"must be" takes place? ...that "agreement" actually comes to pass?    [I'm not implying that I have the answers, just wondering what scenarios might work ... widespread and relatively long-term.   I previously mentioned the Canadian Dairy Commission .... so far as I know they considered m-a-n-y factors in their formulas and ratios. From what I saw they managed the long-term aspect of it, but I don't know how widespread it would be and still work.... i.e. regionally/nationally/internationally/???  I think much would depend on current/existing ideologies.]

Thanks Owen...
Nice to see someone actually reads me ...
Gobbullygook.. :0)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Owen

Al, I think your comment in t'other thread might be a good fit in this one: "Save the damned few..that take advantage of others ... ."  

It's been mentioned in past BHO economic discussions how capitalism leads to everybody thriving.  But what I see is that capitalism fosters haves/have-nots.    Correlation? .... causation?  ... I dunno.  .. or maybe I need to get my vision checked.

Steve, re. "compromises must be agreed on."   What  happens if they're not?  Who should be in charge of overseeing the"must be" takes place? ...that "agreement" actually comes to pass?    [I'm not implying that I have the answers, just wondering what scenarios might work ... widespread and relatively long-term.   I previously mentioned the Canadian Dairy Commission .... so far as I know they considered m-a-n-y factors in their formulas and ratios. From what I saw they managed the long-term aspect of it, but I don't know how widespread it would be and still work.... i.e. regionally/nationally/internationally/???  I think much would depend on current/existing ideologies.]

---

One of the truths about capitalism in it's current form is that it requires population growth to continue to perform to American standards. You'll notice the struggling EU economies in countries where the population is aging and shrinking. It's why, in the US, immigration reform has always been lip service no matter who is "running the show" because as American families have fewer children, we rely on immigrants for that population growth. Population growth increases demand and pushes down wages. For those that want "closed borders" and such, they need to become comfortable with an austerity economy as upward mobility slows with no influx of future "have nots". My guess is that austerity will be unwelcome. 

SJ Mike and Frank and others might be surprised to learn that I agree with them on the power or giant corporations and the need for that to be checked somehow (the how is not for here!) My advocacy of Free Enterprise does not include Corporatism, which is THE danger of our time, as it has completely captured our govt. That so many keep wanting to make the govt. ever more powerful is bewildering to me under those circumstances. I want to limit the power of that govt, and therefore the power that the rich and powerful have over our lives. That the govt.--or any politician--- has YOUR best interest at heart is a tragic fantasy that many buy into without reservation.

I am also not an fan of price gouging! I am also keenly aware that govt. action is never completely beneficial, there is always a down side, that often the hidden down side is far greater than the obvious benefit for some, I despise politicians who promise regulations and benefits as if there were no cost to anyone, and I greatly regret that so many voters fall for the false promises time after time after time. I think that there are other and better responses to price gouging than making it illegal. I also think that there are times when the profit motive can provide more relief than just the wonderful stories of human kindness which we are seeing. Eliminating such choices by legal mandate pleases our sensibilities but will leave some without for a longer time.

Part of a "ratio of fairness" I'll call it would involve the percentage of Americans that can't afford a home or new vehicle.
A big point might be inexpensive public housing with their own bus/van services.
Also having their own refrigeration/freezer capacity for buying good deals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

SJ Mike and Frank and others might be surprised to learn that I agree with them on the power or giant corporations and the need for that to be checked somehow (the how is not for here!) My advocacy of Free Enterprise does not include Corporatism, which is THE danger of our time, as it has completely captured our govt. That so many keep wanting to make the govt. ever more powerful is bewildering to me under those circumstances. I want to limit the power of that govt, and therefore the power that the rich and powerful have over our lives. That the govt.--or any politician--- has YOUR best interest at heart is a tragic fantasy that many buy into without reservation.

I am also not an fan of price gouging! I am also keenly aware that govt. action is never completely beneficial, there is always a down side, that often the hidden down side is far greater than the obvious benefit for some, I despise politicians who promise regulations and benefits as if there were no cost to anyone, and I greatly regret that so many voters fall for the false promises time after time after time. I think that there are other and better responses to price gouging than making it illegal. I also think that there are times when the profit motive can provide more relief than just the wonderful stories of human kindness which we are seeing. Eliminating such choices by legal mandate pleases our sensibilities but will leave some without for a longer time.

---

Where is the online form you filled in to get an exemption from the 'no politics' rule. ? I'd like one too. 

Let's be careful and not get into politics. This is an interesting thread, let's keep it clean so it can continue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

SJ Mike and Frank and others might be surprised to learn that I agree with them on the power or giant corporations and the need for that to be checked somehow (the how is not for here!) My advocacy of Free Enterprise does not include Corporatism, which is THE danger of our time, as it has completely captured our govt. That so many keep wanting to make the govt. ever more powerful is bewildering to me under those circumstances. I want to limit the power of that govt, and therefore the power that the rich and powerful have over our lives. That the govt.--or any politician--- has YOUR best interest at heart is a tragic fantasy that many buy into without reservation.

I am also not an fan of price gouging! I am also keenly aware that govt. action is never completely beneficial, there is always a down side, that often the hidden down side is far greater than the obvious benefit for some, I despise politicians who promise regulations and benefits as if there were no cost to anyone, and I greatly regret that so many voters fall for the false promises time after time after time. I think that there are other and better responses to price gouging than making it illegal. I also think that there are times when the profit motive can provide more relief than just the wonderful stories of human kindness which we are seeing. Eliminating such choices by legal mandate pleases our sensibilities but will leave some without for a longer time.

---

Thank you for your apt analysis.  As for teetering on the edge of politics, sadly, it is impossible to discuss economic realities of today without acknowledging the all-consuming role of corporate power in our regulatory structure.  Price-gouging is in fact a baked-in feature of our economic system, and for those charming individuals who actually think there is a level playing field available for all to achieve, I reckon living a fairy tale leads to a happy life.

AndrewD, it's not political, I'm not partisan, I hate all sides equally, and I have not advocated for any laws or any parties or any persons. The original question was philosophical in nature: is distribution efficiency of critical supplies during an emergency more important than punishing any profiteering from that emergency? That only becomes political if we get into the various ways and means of accomplishing what we think would work best and who we think should be doing it.

But Bill-e, maybe the philosophical answers to philosophical questions hold up best within that realm ... things can and do change when reality raises its head.   I expect there are Jean Valjean stories since day1.

Maybe a type of action/response should be seen as an objective rather than a "carved in stone"... and I acknowledge that that doesn't answer the "who decides" question.

I liken ^^ to the assertion that "you always have a choice." Philosophically it's true ...  but anybody who says that the kids on Canada's remote reserves have realistic choices is either coming from a position of ignorance or dishonesty, IMNSHumbleO.

One time when I was questioning the efficacy of some potion or other, the vet. clued me in: "What happens in the lab and what happens out in the field are sometimes two different things."

I challenged my agent about the rise in rates for our bundled insurance, far above the inflation rate. one reason given, was their big rise in cost for "re-insurance" that they all rely on to protect their exposure to claims, especially considering those big storm events. Brad

quote:

---

Originally posted by rinemb

I challenged my agent about the rise in rates for our bundled insurance, far above the inflation rate. one reason given, was their big rise in cost for "re-insurance" that they all rely on to protect their exposure to claims, especially considering those big storm events. Brad

---

Brad ..... my E&O insurance went up over 25% this year because I had a much better year income wise last year.  So my question to my broker was, why didn't it go down accordingly the last couple of years when I had a pretty miserable year?  I didn't expect a real answer and I wasn't disappointed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

SJ Mike and Frank and others might be surprised to learn that I agree with them on the power or giant corporations and the need for that to be checked somehow (the how is not for here!) My advocacy of Free Enterprise does not include Corporatism, which is THE danger of our time, as it has completely captured our govt. That so many keep wanting to make the govt. ever more powerful is bewildering to me under those circumstances. I want to limit the power of that govt, and therefore the power that the rich and powerful have over our lives. That the govt.--or any politician--- has YOUR best interest at heart is a tragic fantasy that many buy into without reservation.

I am also not an fan of price gouging! I am also keenly aware that govt. action is never completely beneficial, there is always a down side, that often the hidden down side is far greater than the obvious benefit for some, I despise politicians who promise regulations and benefits as if there were no cost to anyone, and I greatly regret that so many voters fall for the false promises time after time after time. I think that there are other and better responses to price gouging than making it illegal. I also think that there are times when the profit motive can provide more relief than just the wonderful stories of human kindness which we are seeing. Eliminating such choices by legal mandate pleases our sensibilities but will leave some without for a longer time.

---

Giant corporations are the result of free enterprise. It's near impossible to advocate for free enterprise and not giant corporations unless we value the importance of regulatory overlords. An example: US Steel, the second largest US steel manufacturer, based in Pittsburgh, was purchased by Nippon, a Japanese company. Now, being that it has shareholder approval, the only people that can prevent US Steel from becoming a foreign entity is the US Government. A major reason for the opposition is simply national security, but also because US Steel routinely seeks trade relief (tariffs) to battle cheap steel from China and Nippon actively opposes trade relief for US imports. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanjoLink

quote:

---

Originally posted by rinemb

I challenged my agent about the rise in rates for our bundled insurance, far above the inflation rate. one reason given, was their big rise in cost for "re-insurance" that they all rely on to protect their exposure to claims, especially considering those big storm events. Brad

---

Brad ..... my E&O insurance went up over 25% this year because I had a much better year income wise last year.  So my question to my broker was, why didn't it go down accordingly the last couple of years when I had a pretty miserable year?  I didn't expect a real answer and I wasn't disappointed.

---

Our industry activity is way down, after the post covid recovery peak.  Thus, so is my income.  I actually asked my general liability folks to audit my account.  They must have a base limit.  My policy premium was not lowered.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by rinemb

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanjoLink

quote:

---

Originally posted by rinemb

I challenged my agent about the rise in rates for our bundled insurance, far above the inflation rate. one reason given, was their big rise in cost for "re-insurance" that they all rely on to protect their exposure to claims, especially considering those big storm events. Brad

---

Brad ..... my E&O insurance went up over 25% this year because I had a much better year income wise last year.  So my question to my broker was, why didn't it go down accordingly the last couple of years when I had a pretty miserable year?  I didn't expect a real answer and I wasn't disappointed.

---

Our industry activity is way down, after the post covid recovery peak.  Thus, so is my income.  I actually asked my general liability folks to audit my account.  They must have a base limit.  My policy premium was not lowered.  

 

---

I am sure that is why mine stayed the same during the years I did not make as much as normal.

They're watching closely for price gouging in Florida right now with associated penalties if caught.

Not far back, there are three assessments I found quite interesting, but don't know enough economics myself to engage:

SJM: "Giant corporations are the result of free enterprise. It's near impossible to advocate for free enterprise and not giant corporations unless we value the importance of regulatory overlords."

SJM: "One of the truths about capitalism in it's current form is that it requires population growth to continue to perform to American standards."

Eulalie: "Price-gouging is in fact a baked-in feature of our economic system ... ."

Maybe even more "interesting" is that nobody, aside from  BIll-e ["The how is not for here."] saw fit to pick up on these statements.   I hope [with my screwed up close-up vision] I'm not  gonna have to start reading basic economics texts.  

^^ Corporations do not exist in nature, as people do, they are legal creations, which means that what they are and how they operate is entirely a matter of law. If their behavior is unacceptable then the correct response is to change the law.

I have no idea what being required to perform to "American standards" means, and do not see why "price gouging" is baked into our economic system. The term basically means that prices quickly rise in response to a sudden peak in demand and some people find this unfair enough to easily justify what all comes with the power to make that illegal. Some of us see a down side to interjecting legal power into what we feel should be individual decisions, even if we dislike some of those decisions. Might there be other social mechanisms to moderate those practices? Could there be any upside to raising prices during an emergency , such as discouraging hoarding*? Those were the discussions which I hoped to provoke.

*What about hoarding, should that also be illegal? Punishment for the unsocial buyer as well as the unsocial seller? Should a law limit your purchases?
Who would decide what amounts constitute hoarding? If we need officials to regulate how we sell, should we not also regulate, and punish, how we purchase? Or is it only the behavior of the other guy that we are so eager to regulate?

This is allegedly a free country and we have the right to purchase or not purchase just about any item that's for sale. If it's too rich for your pocketbook, don't buy it (unless it's a necessity). It's that simple.

When the price of eggs went out of sight, I quit buying them. I don't have to have bacon and eggs, I don't have to bake cakes. Many of my friends felt the same way.

When restaurants started charging prices that were too high for my budget, I fixed food at home.

I have a friend that doesn't have satellite or cable for her TV because of the price. She uses and over the air antenna and gets enough programs to provide her with programs she likes to watch. I'm not far behind because Dish just went up again.

I don't like the idea of everything being regulated or laws forbidding certain things. Too much of that and we're no longer a free country.

Dynamic pricing for concert tickets is another form of price gouging.

I don't think any form of gouging is fair. But what can I do....I'm on the receiving end (no pun intended).

IMNSHumbleO, "we" have all manner of regulation in our lives ... more-or-less what "we," supposedly living in a democracy have agreed to, or given our permission to some entity supposedly representing us*.  Should any particular segment of our society [eg. commerce] be exempt?

Sherry mentions "too much," [and laws forbidding certain things] but, as has been asked: Where is the point of "too much" and who decides? As others have pointed out it seems to be a question where "we" draw the line.  Maybe the best "we" can do is a system with built-in fluidity [via courts?... heaven forbid??].   Apparently the "it depends" rule works well for BHO.... why not on a B-I-G scale?

[I think I can sometimes I can see shortcomings/what doesn't work/deficiencies, even though I don't know, or have definitive answers as to, what will work.... kinda like learning banjo. ]

* - and that about empties my philosophy tank for this a.m. ... might have to go do some yardwork to replenish it.

Some regulations are good for us.

Some regulation of regulations is also good.

Some limits are a good thing.
Solutions to problems often require compromises.

Everybody doesn't get to do exactly as they want.
You have to consider the responses of the customer.
The customer has rights,too.The right not to be taken advantage of is a big one.