i suppose you could argue that the 25% figure is someone's arbitrary idea of "fair". i'll buy that. but that's a new york specific rule. it's not the same in florida, for example, whose FAQ i posted.
We have a point of commonality which I had overlooked in reading the various posts prior to this. We agree that 25% is indeed an arbitrary number. This is a bad law, and it should be changed.
More generally, though, I guess where you disagree with me (and I assume others here, although I certainly don't speak for them) is the idea that it's ok for the government to apply tests to determine what's fair and right in free-market, arms-length transactions. Whether the test be a percentage (eg. increase in retail price more than 125% of increase in wholesale price) or a smell test (to paraphrase a court decision on another topic, "I can't define gouging, but I know it when I see it"), it's neither right nor just for the government to decide what price private individuals and companies can sell their property for.
You say that what those of us "guys" are missing is the problem of occasions when "the change in price can't be reasonably explained by increased cost or supply/demand." I say, speaking solely for myself, that there should be absolutely no reason why a price increase needs to be "explained" by increased cost or supply/demand for the transaction to be legal. If a gas station owner decides he wants to buy a yacht, so he increases prices by 50%, that's his right.
Even in a time of crisis.
Whether or not his costs actually go up.
Just because it's his property.
He should get to determine how much he sells it for.
Any alternative is a form of socialism or communism.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
(Oh, wait, yes there is.)
I have yet to see the law against gouging which I think is morally justifiable.
_________
-twency