F**k the "price-gouging" debate
I try to be civil and considerate to other positions, but this really pisses me off.
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/426778.html There oughta be a law against gas price gouging, legislator says
Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, chairman of the Senate's Transportation Committee, says..."Where I believe the gouging occurs is in places we have no control over. Arab nations, South America,"...
This argument is totally irrational. Pretend I have land. I paid $1000 for it 10 years ago. I want to sell it for $1 million dollars today. Is this "price-gouging" or is this "charging what the market will bear"?
Oil is a one-time resource. Once I sell it, it's GONE forever, and I'll never have access to it again. Just because the "process" of selling it might only cost me $10,000, that doesn't mean I should only be able to sell it for $20,000.
The FACT is I have a CHOICE whether to sell it or not. If I offer something for sale for $1 million, you can CHOOSE to buy it or not. I don't have a gun to your head MAKING you buy my product.
Fine, I accept the "price-gouging" argument says "When people are dependent upon a product and sellers demand prices that allow large profits, it's UNFAIR." However this "blackmail" has a limited lifetime. If I'm lucky enough to have a monopoly on a resource, I can make a lot of money, but if I get too greedy, eventually my customers will go elsewhere for their needs.
The IDEAL for sellers is not "gouging", but "stretching" costs to what the market will bear without the long term loss of sales.
Well, I shouldn't get so upset I suppose. Politicians are people too, and addicts like the rest of us on unsustainable resource consumption. I ought to just smile and say "Thanks for your input" and let them rant on their "fairness" issues.
All sensible people, with the slightest knowledge of economics, know that "interfering" with market prices hurts consumers in the long run.
The exceptions to the "noninterference" rule are nearly all on the LOW price side. When sellers can completely undersell their competition due to some short term advantage, they can force their competitors out of business, and eventually reap higher profits when they gain monopoly position.
IN FACT, this is what HAS HAPPENED in regards to oil. We've been CURSED by low energy prices that encourages us OVER-CONSUME and renewable energy resources can't compete. The market has been distorted by a false economy. NOW we actually have a chance to transition to more expensive alternatives which are more secure and more sustainable. Prices must rise and we have to adjust, and we'll be better off in the long run because of it.
Instead of cursing our "dealers" we ought to be thanking them for helping us see the light and see we can no longer accept our dependency upon them.
If politicians want to make a different, they should do things that encourage conservation and encourage the development of alternatives.
Anything else is just wasting precious time towards reducing our addiction before its too late.
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/426778.html There oughta be a law against gas price gouging, legislator says
Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, chairman of the Senate's Transportation Committee, says..."Where I believe the gouging occurs is in places we have no control over. Arab nations, South America,"...
This argument is totally irrational. Pretend I have land. I paid $1000 for it 10 years ago. I want to sell it for $1 million dollars today. Is this "price-gouging" or is this "charging what the market will bear"?
Oil is a one-time resource. Once I sell it, it's GONE forever, and I'll never have access to it again. Just because the "process" of selling it might only cost me $10,000, that doesn't mean I should only be able to sell it for $20,000.
The FACT is I have a CHOICE whether to sell it or not. If I offer something for sale for $1 million, you can CHOOSE to buy it or not. I don't have a gun to your head MAKING you buy my product.
Fine, I accept the "price-gouging" argument says "When people are dependent upon a product and sellers demand prices that allow large profits, it's UNFAIR." However this "blackmail" has a limited lifetime. If I'm lucky enough to have a monopoly on a resource, I can make a lot of money, but if I get too greedy, eventually my customers will go elsewhere for their needs.
The IDEAL for sellers is not "gouging", but "stretching" costs to what the market will bear without the long term loss of sales.
Well, I shouldn't get so upset I suppose. Politicians are people too, and addicts like the rest of us on unsustainable resource consumption. I ought to just smile and say "Thanks for your input" and let them rant on their "fairness" issues.
All sensible people, with the slightest knowledge of economics, know that "interfering" with market prices hurts consumers in the long run.
The exceptions to the "noninterference" rule are nearly all on the LOW price side. When sellers can completely undersell their competition due to some short term advantage, they can force their competitors out of business, and eventually reap higher profits when they gain monopoly position.
IN FACT, this is what HAS HAPPENED in regards to oil. We've been CURSED by low energy prices that encourages us OVER-CONSUME and renewable energy resources can't compete. The market has been distorted by a false economy. NOW we actually have a chance to transition to more expensive alternatives which are more secure and more sustainable. Prices must rise and we have to adjust, and we'll be better off in the long run because of it.
Instead of cursing our "dealers" we ought to be thanking them for helping us see the light and see we can no longer accept our dependency upon them.
If politicians want to make a different, they should do things that encourage conservation and encourage the development of alternatives.
Anything else is just wasting precious time towards reducing our addiction before its too late.
posted by Ares Olympus at 2:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home