Price gouging, or capitalism?

Status
Not open for further replies.

onerifle

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2003
Messages
176
Location
Texas
Price gouging, or capitalism? I wonder if Spitzer would be going after Glock/SIG/S&W if they raised their prices after a natural disaster- or terrorist strike... :rolleyes: </sarcasm>

Would gunmakers/distributors/retailers be justified in hiking firearm or ammo prices in such emergencies? We already know that demand would go through the roof...


http://wcbs880.com/topstories/local_story_353173557.html

15 NY Gas Stations Fined for Gouging
Many Marked Up Gasoline Received Before Hurricane
Dec 19, 2005 3:32 pm US/Eastern

Fifteen gas stations statewide, including three controlled by oil companies, have been fined $63,500 for marking up profits 25 percent or more after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said Monday.

Retail prices paid by consumers increased notably after Katrina struck in late August. But Spitzer focused on the markup, or profit, at the pump when it far exceeded the cost of the gasoline paid by the retailer, often in shipments well before the hurricane.

"You cannot under New York law, and you cannot in good conscience, take advantage of an environmental debacle to extract unfair prices,'' said Spitzer.

A subsidiary of Getty Oil Co. increased its price at its Hancock store east of Binghamton from $2.65 per gallon before Aug. 29 to $3.52 after Aug. 29, when complaints of price gouging began. BP Amoco increased the price at its Westchester Avenue station in the Bronx from $2.79 per gallon to $3.51 after Aug. 29, Mack said. Lukoil Co., one of Russia's largest oil producers, increased the price at its Bronx station on Bruckner Boulevard to $3.49 per gallon, from $2.79.

The companies were fined under the state's business law, and the fines were civil actions. The attorney general's office had no jurisdiction to bring criminal charges and there is no specific state crime against price gouging, state Deputy Attorney General Martin Mack said.

Spitzer set the threshold of marking up the profit at 25 percent to capture the most egregious statewide cases. He said the 25 percent point should be drafted into law.

The fines ranged from $2,000 to the maximum $10,000 and were assessed to match the ill-gotten profit, said Spitzer, a Democrat running for governor in 2006.

Other prices were set by regional dealers or gas station owners.

In Westchester County, Hilltop Service Station in Shrub Oak increased its price from $2.69 a gallon to $4 a gallon, Spitzer said.

Prices spiked nationwide after the hurricane, prompting hearings and accusations of price gouging in Congress. Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano took action locally against stations and forwarded findings to Spitzer.

Spitzer said he was "curious'' about the potential role of oil companies. While he said there is a potential of price gouging when an oil company controls prices and costs from the oil derrick to the gasoline pump, he noted the industry is complex and he hasn't drawn any conclusions.

"This inquiry has spawned a series of concerns in the oil industry,'' Spitzer said. He said he is discussing the findings with other states and said the U.S. Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission should be involved.

In September, New Jersey sued three oil companies and several gas stations for allegedly gouging drivers during Hurricane Katrina. The state accused Hess, Motiva Shell and Sunoco with artificially inflating gas prices and for increasing prices more than the once-a-day legal limit. Independent gas station operators selling Hess, Shell, Sunoco and Citgo brands were also sued.

"When disaster strikes, state law requires that price increases be linked directly and proportionately to increased costs,'' Spitzer said in a prepared statement. "This investigation has found numerous instances of unwarranted price increases. In fact, many retailers appear to have used the disaster as an excuse to gouge consumers.''

Spitzer investigated 80 gas stations following complaints by consumers of prices immediately after Katrina. Monday's announcement concerns 15 of the more serious cases, but the investigation against other retailers continues, Spitzer said.

Spokesmen for Hilltop, BP Amoco and Lukoil didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.



(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
 
Funny how few put this kind of vitriol into the tax on the gasoline or onto the taxes that take a big chunk of your income before you even see it.

Also no mention of prices dropped on gasoline in the ground bought by the gas stations when prices were high. Or how the oil companies keep the gasoline flowing so we can all eat bananas and take the kids to soccer practice without an interruption.
 
Spitzer is running for Governot.
He ran out of steam going after Wall Street and now he's just looking for headlines.
What a POS.
Glad I'm out of the state

AFS
 
Would gunmakers/distributors/retailers be justified in hiking firearm or ammo prices in such emergencies? We already know that demand would go through the roof...

that's an interesting question, but keep in mind that it's not parallel. demand for firearms in an emergency would certainly skyrocket, but demand for gasoline in NY during katrina shouldn't have changed a whisker.

a bunch of wankers just raised their prices to make more profit, because they thought they had a good excuse.

in fact, said wankers' best defense is probably that there was no emergency in NY/NJ.
 
"a bunch of wankers just raised their prices to make more profit, because they thought they had a good excuse."

"Excuse? We don' need no steenkin' excuse. We done it on accounta we owned the product and decided to raise the price. Don't like it? Don't buy it."

Art
 
Art, there's a difference in you setting whatever price you want and people taking advantage of others during an emergency. a big difference.

if i'm offering hamburgers for $100 each when mcdonalds next door has 2 for $1, then i'm an idiot that needs a clue check.

if i'm selling hamburgers for $100 each because there's a famine and i'm the only guy in town with any food, then i'm breaking the law.



spitzer seems to be making a clear case that there was no legitimate reason for a sudden increase in price. (i.e. the gas stations were still buying gas for the same price) if they were selling pet rocks, then no harm no foul. but when they're selling necessities, then it's clearly illegal.
 
Art, there's a difference in you setting whatever price you want and people taking advantage of others during an emergency. a big difference.
No there isn't. Here's the clue of the week - it's their gas.

There is no such thing as "price gouging." There is, of course, such a thing as, "Self-righteous whimpering because those evil nasty business owners decide to set the prices of their own property higher than I think is fair."

Grow up.

- Chris
 
taliv said:
Art, there's a difference in you setting whatever price you want and people taking advantage of others during an emergency. a big difference.

if i'm offering hamburgers for $100 each when mcdonalds next door has 2 for $1, then i'm an idiot that needs a clue check.

if i'm selling hamburgers for $100 each because there's a famine and i'm the only guy in town with any food, then i'm breaking the law.

Err, if you're selling hamburgers for $100, and people are buying them, that's because those people are agreeing with you that your hamburgers are worth $100

There is no such thing as a "fair price" for a good or service that's determined by a third party. The only "fair price" is what the buyer and seller agree to.
 
*sigh*... I thought we'd done this one about a thousand times by now. The price you pay is not for the gas in the tank, it's for what it will cost to replace the gas in the tank. As supply disruptions, or the appearance thereof (which was really hard to miss after katrina) occur, gas stations raise their prices to offset their own costs in the coming market changes.

Artificially set prices are one of the cornerstones of the communist system. When you fix the price, the place sells out and does not make enough money to refill the tank in the ground. Thus, nobody has gasoline. Take the USSR for an example: the government set price controls on everything. In theory, it was all cheap and plentiful, except that it was neither plentiful in real supply, nor was it cheap when you had to resort to the black market to buy it.

If one station owner is being a jackass about gas prices, and really is artificially inflating the price, find another station. With the unbelieveable amount of focus on gas prices, the next station will have a lower price because the owner knows he will have more business.
 
Where did the $$$ of fines go? To the consumer? No, to the gov. And who does the cost of doing business get passed off to? The consumer.

So the consumer paid higher prices because he/she wanted the gas regardless of price. Now the gas will be higher because the gov added another item of cost to the gas.

Does the government ever get taken to court for profiteering or price gouging?

Vick
 
I agree with Chris. If the buyers and sellers are free to make up their own minds to buy/not buy or sell/not sell, there ain't no such thing as price gouging. If I have property, I am under no obligation to sell it at any price. If I wish to sell it, I get to decide the price at which I'm willing to sell it. If no one wants to pay it, then no one has to buy it. --That's the property-rights argument, which I think is sufficient. Joe gas station owner owns the gas in his tanks, and it's not the perogative of any person or government to tell him what he can and can't do with it.

From an economic perspective, "price gouging" serves an excellent purpose. It serves as a signal to conserve or produce more. Take that example of the hamburgers and the famine. If there's a shortage of food, you wouldn't be doing anyone any favors by not raising your prices. If you keep your prices the same, folks have no incentive to conserve and then you just run out. If, however, food becomes so scarce that hamburgers run $100 a pop, then that should be a strong sign for people to change their behaviors. Maybe at that price, I'll drive out to the woods and go hunt some squirells. Maybe I'll just eat some of the ramen noodles in the cupboard instead. In both cases, I make that food available for someone else. Also, if you can make $100 for a hamburger, folks who have surplus food (in the next house/town/city/country) have a strong incentive to sell it, increasing the supply.

If prices can't rise, then you just have rationing (by first in line, by ration stamps, by political clout, but rationing must occur). Normally price acts as the rationing function. By rationing by price (I don't have a 60" plasma TV because they're too frikkin' expensive for me to buy one. If they were $50 I'd sure as heck be in the market for one, as would most of the population--and the manufacturers sure couldn't produce that many at that price and remain in business)

Yes, some people will make a bunch of money in the $100 for a burger situation. But a non-regulated market can react quickly and efficiently in a way that a centrally planned economy can't.

So, regulated prices make the market work better (I didn't explain that part well, sorry. I'm an engineer who took just enough econ to be dangerous.) and they don't offend property rights. Even if the economy didn't work as well with unregulated prices, the idea of telling someone that he must sell his property at a given price is offensive.
 
For simplicity sake, a gas station is selling gas that cost the owner $1 a gallon. He gets the word that next week it will cost him $3 to buy gas. Where does he get the money to buy the $3 gas? Do you think he is going to the bank and borrow the money? No, he is going to raise the sales price of his existing supplies to more than $3 a gallon so he can stay in business. If you insist he keep his prices low and limit his markup, then guess what? There will be no gas at the pumps next week.

Pilgrim
 
While it is a free market and capitalisim is something I highly support and I think is the only way to go, it is open to abuses and thats when you get gouging.

Going up and down with supply and demand is fine, heck so is just playing a bit to peoples panic. But when say gas starts the day at under two dollars a gallon and ends the day at over five, that is an abuse an to me falls under gouging.

Starting the day at a 1.80 and ending at like 2.00 isn't gouging that is supply and demand and capitalizing. doubling and a half in a twelve hour period is gouging. Esspecialy when there is no other option and it is something essential. Upping the price of pork chops cause the guy across the street is out is fine, it isn't essential. Gas is essential and you either have to eat it or run out of gas.
 
I don't care if the gas in th e tank cost him $.50. If he wants to sell at $5.00 a gallon, its his gas, he can do with it as he pleases.

Now, if I don't want to pay $5.00 a gallon, and no one else does, he is going to have to come down, or risk going out of business. If I want that gas bad enough, I'll pay him the $5, and he will have made a good business move.

Also, if they are gouging, how come gas dropped back down to around $2/gallon, as it was predicted it would a few months afterwards? Wouldn't they like to keep making all the money they are supposedly racking in?
 
Economics and Capitalism should be a required coarse in high school and every year in college. The country would be much better if people understood just a little bit. I am always amazed on this board of screaming Libertarians when they all go whiney when they have to pay more for something they need. Sigh. What else do all the Libertarians want the government to provide and protect them from???????? How about medical care, food, housing, transportation(that includes the gas),education HUH?????????Might as well be a socialist and admit it or quit twisting your brain till it hurts. The next time you get a raise at work maybe the government will decide you make too much and pass a law fixing your wages or better yet tax your wages because you make more than they think you should. All for the common good and the children and elderly. Doncha know.
 
No there isn't. Here's the clue of the week - it's their gas.

There is no such thing as "price gouging." There is, of course, such a thing as, "Self-righteous whimpering because those evil nasty business owners decide to set the prices of their own property higher than I think is fair."

Grow up.

- Chris


I'm quoting Chris here because what he said bears repeating.

In the event of a catastrophe, where the supply of certain products becomes limited, there are really only two ways to deal with it:

1) Allow the price on said products to increase to what the local market will bear.

2) Have the government step in, and via threat of force institute price controls.

Now, which of the above two choices should any rational person who supports freedom and small goverment pick?

*hums the Jeopardy theme*
 
Some folks clearly don't understand what a price is. It's a mechanism that regulates demand and stimulates supply. Detach prices from that and they're meaningless.

Why on earth would you think that someone who owns something--anything--should be obligated to sell it to you at a price you like or at a price that is related in any way to what its price was yesterday? It's not your stuff, that's why you're buying it.

Hollering "price gouging" is a poor planner's way of saying I'm sorry I didn't shop yesterday. Should we go after google shareholders for gouging because we missed the runup?

I'm still confused by the new york thing though.

You cannot under New York law, and you cannot in good conscience, take advantage of an environmental debacle to extract unfair prices

but...

The companies were fined under the state's business law, and the fines were civil actions. The attorney general's office had no jurisdiction to bring criminal charges and there is no specific state crime against price gouging

Is there a law or isn't there?
 
...had a talk with a family member about this subject this evening- his postion was essentially that gas is a necessity, especially for those that need their car to get to work, to which my reply was something along the lines of suggesting that when gas prices get above their personal threshold- people cut down on recreational driving or buy a bicycle...


He wasn't pleased... :neener:
 
Prices are a form of communication, therfore and sort of price controls or punishment for pricesbeing "too high" is censorship.

Higher prices encourage rationing which leads to, as a tendency, that people will only buy the product for the best use. That is they will buy wood to repair their house rather than build a dog house. They will cut back on what they do not need to concentrate on what they do need.

It also encourages people to bring more of the product into the affected area. They do this to capture some of those high prices but the effect is to increase supply of the product and therefore DECREASE prices.

Taken together higher prices stretch the exisiting supply and simultaneously cause more supplies to appear.

Efforts to stop prices from going up impede this have the opposite effect. Prices stay down, the existing supply is used up faster and new supplies are not brought into the area. Thus more people are worse off than they should be.

This is of no concern to parasites like Spitzer however. They know they can further their carreers by engaging in sensationalistic tactics and damn the cost to innocent people.
 
Justin, there is a 3rd way, which is the legal one at the moment: allow normal pricing mechanisms to continue. (even if the goods are exhausted). if those guys can show that their costs are going up from $1 to $3/gal i'm sure that's a valid defense. however, since reality is that gas peaked then, and has fallen quite a lot since, these "what if" theories aren't going to go very far.


you guys are living in a high-school microeconomics dreamland if you think our brand of capitalism works like that.

i can't tell if some of you are arguing about the way it is or the way it ought to be, but let me repeat, that behavior is well defined, and illegal, as those gas station owners are about to find out.

during gulf war II, a local gas station raised their prices from $2 to $6 the night the "shock and awe" phase started. the state AG busted them on it. no surprise. they deserved it.

you guys get too attached to this individual freedom stuff, which is no doubt important, and blinded to reality. our laws aren't based on it to the extent you think. there are PLENTY of examples where our fed and state governments control what you can and can't do with your stuff. a simple one to understand is anti-trust laws.

you think AT&T gets to charge what they want for their service? hey, it's their service right? they should be able to charge what they want! well... they tried and got busted up as a result.

think microsoft can just do whatever they want because it's their software? got news for you.

how about product warranties? think you can just make a piece of crap and offer it with any warranty you choose? it's your product right? well, you can in some states, but not others.

interest rates? want to loan somebody money at 50% interest? hey it's a private deal between two consenting adults right? you should be able to do what you want!! heh. better watch what state you're in. check the fine print at the bottom of the next credit card app you get to see which states the offer's good in.


and no matter what other idiocy he's been involved in, it's spitzer's job to bring this sort of action against people who violate the law. granted, i don't think a 25% increase is all that worthy of notice, much less prosecution... but that's my opinion. we'll see what the judge says.

that's reality.

now if you want to argue about how things would work in our little anarchist fantasyland, then fine. the point of these laws that you guys are missing, is that it's for when the market isn't working like it's supposed to. things are disrupted and all buyers and sellers don't have access to each other like they do in a normal state. you get lots of isolation, limited competition, etc. essentially, mini-monopolies. demand for food and whatnot is inelastic. your option #1 is great, except all this economics you guys think everyone should understand says the price can go sky high and the demand for food isn't going to change. so what exactly does #1 accomplish?

again, for some things, yes, a 25% bump in price will reduce demand. for other things, a 300% bump in price won't affect demand at all. if hamburgers are selling for $100, something is really wrong and $100 hamburgers are not the solution. the economy isn't functioning at that point. if you want the billionaires to get the last scraps of food in your world, then fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top