thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

An excellent review of price controls throughout history.

4000 years of price controls

Some excerpts:

[ QUOTE ]
Greek price controls inevitably led to grain shortages, but ancient entrepreneurs saved thousands from starvation by evading these unjust laws. Despite the imposition of the death penalty for evading Greek price control laws, the laws "were almost impossible to enforce." The shortages created by the price control laws created black market profit opportunities, to the great benefit of the public.

[/ QUOTE ]


and

[ QUOTE ]
In 284 A.D. the Roman emperor Diocletian ... "fixed the maximum prices at which beef, grain, eggs, clothing and other articles could be sold, and prescribed the penalty of death for anyone who disposed of his wares at a higher figure." ... "the people brought provisions no more to markets, since they could not get a reasonable price for them and this increased the dearth so much, that at last after many had died by it, the law itself was set aside."

[/ QUOTE ]

that's right, price controls resulted in DEATH.

natedogg

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

So do you believe in *no* price controls whatsoever, or limited price controls? Are there times when price controls might be necessary or just?

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
So do you believe in *no* price controls whatsoever, or limited price controls? Are there times when price controls might be necessary or just?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Necessary" depends on who you ask. Clearly, they can never be just. If two parties voluntarily agree on a transaction, what business is it of anyone else?

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So do you believe in *no* price controls whatsoever, or limited price controls? Are there times when price controls might be necessary or just?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Necessary" depends on who you ask. Clearly, they can never be just. If two parties voluntarily agree on a transaction, what business is it of anyone else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on the intended transaction. In an open market with a true barter system, this is entirely true. What if the merchant selling the good has no bartering power and all providers of the product offer at the same price?

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
So do you believe in *no* price controls whatsoever, or limited price controls? Are there times when price controls might be necessary or just?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the article?

natedogg

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
If two parties voluntarily agree on a transaction, what business is it of anyone else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most (all?) significant transactions involve more than two parties who have an interest in the transaction.

Occaisonally a third party is "society".

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

without getting into any details, the main arguement as to why it would be unjust is that it would be usury due to the relative power of bargaining positions.

If you were starving and i offered you some food for all your worldly possessions it would be a fair deal, but there are those who would say that although voluntery it's unjust.

(yes this is incredibly simple and ignores the consequences of pirce controls, but it's the main idea)

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
Depends on the intended transaction. In an open market with a true barter system, this is entirely true. What if the merchant selling the good has no bartering power and all providers of the product offer at the same price?

[/ QUOTE ]

What if? I don't understand the point you're trying to make. What's the difference between barter and money? What's the difference between a "merchant selling the good" and "providers of the product"?

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most (all?) significant transactions involve more than two parties who have an interest in the transaction.

Occaisonally a third party is "society".

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never been involved in one of these. Where does "society" sign on the contracts?

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
without getting into any details, the main arguement as to why it would be unjust is that it would be usury due to the relative power of bargaining positions.

If you were starving and i offered you some food for all your worldly possessions it would be a fair deal, but there are those who would say that although voluntery it's unjust.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it be more just for me to not trade te food to you at all? What if I'm starving, too? Is it OK then? Why does someone else get to place a cap on how much I can value my property?

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most (all?) significant transactions involve more than two parties who have an interest in the transaction.

Occaisonally a third party is "society".

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never been involved in one of these. Where does "society" sign on the contracts?

Why does "society" care how much I pay for hot dogs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

jesus, come on i explictly said that was the main moral principal, i'm not capable of coming up with a complete solution for how economics should work, but there is a legitamate question to be asked here, and neither you or I are going to succinctly and sufficently wrap it up here today.

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
jesus, come on i explictly said that was the main moral principal, i'm not capable of coming up with a complete solution for how economics should work, but there is a legitamate question to be asked here, and neither you or I are going to succinctly and sufficently wrap it up here today.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's very succinct - I determine what my property is worth to me, given the alternative uses.

I have ice cream cones. I like to consume them myself (or maybe I just like collecting them, it doesn't really matter), but I'm willing to part with them in exchage for 10 hot dogs. I find a guy that has a bunch of hot dogs, and he's willing to give me 10 hot dogs for an ice cream cone. He values the ice cream cone more than 10 hot dogs, and I value 10 hot dogs more than an ice cream cone. I'd prefer to get 15 hot dogs per ice cream cone, and he'd prefer to get 2 ice cream cones for 10 hot dogs, but we negotiate and eventually we agree on a trade.

Who could possibly object to this?

How can some third party justify forcing me to only offer my ice cream cones in exchange for 5 hot dogs? Can he go further and force me to actually conduct transactions at this rate, or can he only prevent me from making transactions at other rates? Can he prevent me from eating the ice cream cones myself?

Why is it any different if we substitute some shiny metal or fancy pieces of paper for either hot dogs or ice cream cones?

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

Conclusion: Governmental forms in antiquity were insufficiently politically enlightened, thus they failed when attempting to introduce a command economy. Only when the middle-clas capitalist system emerged could society's productive energy be guided into a value driven, instead of profit driven, marketplace.

Or, sample size too small.

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

Did the Greeks and Romans have oligopolies and corporations that were bigger than most other countries?

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

because it completely ignores how you got your ice cream cones, ignores how the other person got the hot dogs, doesn't account for any distributional issue of who gets what to start with, and simply people accoun differently for issues of life and death than simple wealth aggrandizment (rightly or wrongly).

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

in another thread you said that people own the rights of their labor (we'll call this human capital)

I can agree with this.

You further said that they own the rights to anything produced thusly (non-human capital). That statement does not logically follow. Therein lies our basic disagreement i believe.

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
because it completely ignores how you got your ice cream cones, ignores how the other person got the hot dogs, doesn't account for any distributional issue of who gets what to start with, and simply people accoun differently for issues of life and death than simple wealth aggrandizment (rightly or wrongly).

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does any of that matter? If I legitimately own the ice cream cones, why should I be restricted in how I use them or dispose of them?

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
in another thread you said that people own the rights of their labor (we'll call this human capital)

I can agree with this.

You further said that they own the rights to anything produced thusly (non-human capital). That statement does not logically follow. Therein lies our basic disagreement i believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I own the materials, and I own the labor, how can I NOT own the product of materials + labor???

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

because you don't own the materials.

edit: cause that's sort of a jackass answer and i'll explain my thinking a little further. Your idea implies that there is some sort of original ownership of materials, which is frankly pretty silly. There is an entire market system that relies on inertia as to who owns what, but the orignial distribution follows no principal of "justice" or even "natural law".

The concept of ownership is a pretty arbitrary one in the legal sense. Most economist define ownership as the ability to profit from a(n) item/resource/attribute/etc. Ability to exclude others from using your property enhances your economic ownership as you can now profit by renting/trading, however economic ownership is never clearly defined over ANY object, and is rather a combination of ability to enforce and societal norms.

The idea that today's (or any days) property structure is seen as/or will be seen as legitamate is ridiculous. We all inherit the world the way it was passed down to us, but that's just the way it is, it doesn't convey any legitamcy on that strucutre.

There have been countless instances throughout history of people making claims on property and ignoring other's claims on property. Insomuch as a system of property allocation doesn't seem adequate to a large enough segment of the populace, they'll simply ignore it (revolution).

The reason why a person owns the rights to their labor is that they actual control such rights, and can act or not act. The reason why they don't own property in the same manner is that they only control the use of that property so far as the rest of the world recognizes the legitamacy of that ownership. It cannot nor will not ever have anywhere near the validity of ownership of labor.

property rights over anything but a person's own labor are inherantly impossible to completely delinate (and by that i do mean ANY property other than an individual's labor).

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
because you don't own the materials.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't specify that case. If one uses someone else's materials without that person's agreement, then they're stealing, and would not have legitimate rights to the product.

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

sorry for the poor response, it's now edited, feel free to respond, as i think i may have left things out.

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've never been involved in one of these. Where does "society" sign on the contracts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck enforcing your contract without the third-party help of society.

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
because you don't own the materials.

edit: cause that's sort of a jackass answer and i'll explain my thinking a little further. Your idea implies that there is some sort of original ownership of materials, which is frankly pretty silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. It assumes that one can obtain a property right in unowned materials by mixing one's labor into the material. I've already had this discussion with you before: here

[ QUOTE ]
There is an entire market system that relies on inertia as to who owns what, but the orignial distribution follows no principal of "justice" or even "natural law".

[/ QUOTE ]

It's precisely derrived from natural law, as explained in the post I linked to.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason why a person owns the rights to their labor is that they actual control such rights, and can act or not act. The reason why they don't own property in the same manner is that they only control the use of that property so far as the rest of the world recognizes the legitamacy of that ownership. It cannot nor will not ever have anywhere near the validity of ownership of labor.

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone else can take the product of your labor, they have effectively enslaved you.

[ QUOTE ]
property rights over anything but a person's own labor are inherantly impossible to completely delinate (and by that i do mean ANY property other than an individual's labor).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the best point you've made so far. However, the fact that we can't be 100% certain about property rights is not enough to discredit the system, especially in the absence of any credible alternative. Uncertainty can never be 100% absolutely eliminated. Modern physics seems to be doing OK despite the ramifications of the uncertainty principle.

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've never been involved in one of these. Where does "society" sign on the contracts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck enforcing your contract without the third-party help of society.

[/ QUOTE ]

The implication of your statement is that we should be accept any action of society as legitimate because without a society and rule of law we'd have nothing. But we both know where that can go.

Yes, the rule of law is why we have a free and prosperous society. No that does not make that every tyrannical whim of the majority into a just or even legitimate action. This is especially so when it comes to price controls. Society may feel like they have an interest but that interest amounts to little more than "wah wah wah I don't like that price so I'll recruit the power of the state to give it to me at the price I like".

of course, that always fails too because price controls merely result in massive shortages and then... higher prices. Nevermind explaining that to someone who feels the prices are "unjust". History and facts don't matter to them. the fact that price controls make things worse just doesn't compute, much less the notion that they have no right to dictate to two parties what they can be allowed to charge and sell each other.

natedogg

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

I'm pissed at MSFT for setting reverse price controls by pricing their xbox360 too low for the limited supply, thereby increasing demand and making it impossible for me to get one at a store with a return policy.

actually, if you think about it, they are manipulating demand through pricing. i wonder if it's possible that other companies would do similar things.

i'm not arguing for price controls mind you. i'm just saying even free markets can be imperfect.

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]

i'm not arguing for price controls mind you. i'm just saying even free markets can be imperfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is claiming that free markets are perfect. Undesirable things happen (Ignoring for now the fact that "perfect" is subjective anyway). But the state-enforced "solutions" are usually worse.

natedogg

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]

If someone else can take the product of your labor, they have effectively enslaved you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was in response to something i said about property rights being seen as illegitamte leading to revolution.

Suppose that in a system where many people have very little property (due largely to the fact that over the years very little has been handed down to them, unlike other elements of society which inherit large amounts of non-human capital) a revolution occurs, with wealth distribution as its motive.

Would you say that the rich in this society have been enslaved, and that the poor therefore are their masters?



I get at these issues because i disagree with your idea that people create their own property, most owned property in the world is heavily linked to the inertia of property allocations in previous generations.

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've never been involved in one of these. Where does "society" sign on the contracts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on this I have to conclude that you have never actually read a contract or negotiated one.

At a minimum I refer you to the ubiquitous clause that clearly states under which states laws that contract is being signed under. Hint there are other examples. All good contract negotiators understand this.

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If someone else can take the product of your labor, they have effectively enslaved you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was in response to something i said about property rights being seen as illegitamte leading to revolution.

Suppose that in a system where many people have very little property (due largely to the fact that over the years very little has been handed down to them, unlike other elements of society which inherit large amounts of non-human capital) a revolution occurs, with wealth distribution as its motive.

Would you say that the rich in this society have been enslaved, and that the poor therefore are their masters?

[/ QUOTE ]

Without any other information, I'd have to say this is possible. Just because the masses "feel" that property rights are illegitimate doesn't make it so. However, it seems likely (given the situation you set up) that some have used force to amass wealth - and that certainly doesn't convey a legitimate property right.

[ QUOTE ]
I get at these issues because i disagree with your idea that people create their own property, most owned property in the world is heavily linked to the inertia of property allocations in previous generations.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that makes it illegitimate somehow? Are you arguing that inheritance is an illegitimate way of obtaining property? Who has more right to direct the disposal of your property upon death than you do?

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
At a minimum I refer you to the ubiquitous clause that clearly states under which states laws that contract is being signed under. Hint there are other examples. All good contract negotiators understand this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good contract negotiators realize that there are coercive forces, and they work within the constraints imposed by those forces. That doesn't legitimize the coercion anymore than giving your wallet to a guy that sticks a gun in your face legitimizes robbery.

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
But the state-enforced "solutions" are usually worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

'usually'

I think your making some progress [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pissed at MSFT for setting reverse price controls by pricing their xbox360 too low for the limited supply, thereby increasing demand and making it impossible for me to get one at a store with a return policy.

actually, if you think about it, they are manipulating demand through pricing. i wonder if it's possible that other companies would do similar things.

i'm not arguing for price controls mind you. i'm just saying even free markets can be imperfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the problem? They have the xbox, they set the conditions under which they'll sell it (or the conditions under which they want their resellers to sell it under in order for them to distribute it to the reseller).

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

inheritance causes a lot of problems, and if the entire rest of humanity (assuming there is a propertied few) decides not to honour such rights, they simply don't exist. Property rights over youself are undeniable, property rights over anythign else is mearly a convention.

I really think that's impossible to deny.

edit: and i would say the sort of property rights you posit that are derived from material + self-ownership are in actuality property that you can control THROUGH self-ownership and is the same right that revolutionaries excerise.

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
inheritance causes a lot of problems, and if the entire rest of humanity (assuming there is a propertied few) decides not to honour such rights, they simply don't exist. Property rights over youself are undeniable, property rights over anythign else is mearly a convention.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a gang decides to take your stuff, you have no right to it? Might makes right?

What are the "problems" caused by inheritance?

What is your proposed alternative to inheritance? A gang of others gets the "right" to take your property because they have the most force?

[ QUOTE ]
I really think that's impossible to deny.

[/ QUOTE ]

I deny it.

[ QUOTE ]
edit: and i would say the sort of property rights you posit that are derived from material + self-ownership are in actuality property that you can control THROUGH self-ownership and is the same right that revolutionaries excerise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is might-makes-right thinking. Taking something by force does not inherently confer a legitimate property right.

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

no no-one can steal the right because the right doesn't exist in the first place.

Show me what a right over property is? it doesn't exist.

One can see self-ownership and the consequences, these are perfectly understandable. Ownership of self is demonstratable, ownership over property is nothing but societal convention.

Show me owning something. What does it even mean? I'll propose the ownership you're talking about never has, and never could exist.

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

what i said is impossible to deny is that the right over self is distinct and different then the right over property.

If you are going to deny that, explain how this ownership is not different given that an outsider can forcably take control of one, but cannot take control of the other.

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pissed at MSFT for setting reverse price controls by pricing their xbox360 too low for the limited supply, thereby increasing demand and making it impossible for me to get one at a store with a return policy.

actually, if you think about it, they are manipulating demand through pricing. i wonder if it's possible that other companies would do similar things.

i'm not arguing for price controls mind you. i'm just saying even free markets can be imperfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the problem? They have the xbox, they set the conditions under which they'll sell it (or the conditions under which they want their resellers to sell it under in order for them to distribute it to the reseller).

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is simply that MSFT is manipulating markets to its benefit. Note that their ability to mandate price controls among retailers is one of the things that is creating this whacky secondary market. Also, if you look at past MSFT practices, you'll see some practices which got in the way of a well-functioning free market.

Another way of putting it: it is fair to be skeptical of corporate power AND to be skeptical of government power. It's not like you have to choose one over the other, for now and eternity.

In the particular XBOX case, I am not really pissed, other than that I really would have liked to play the new Madden 2006 yesterday at my house instead of at Best Buy. But the case illustrates a relatively harmless example of how companies manipulate markets.

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point is simply that MSFT is manipulating markets to its benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Manipulating?

[ QUOTE ]
Note that their ability to mandate price controls among retailers is one of the things that is creating this whacky secondary market.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't see a problem. Should they not be able to set the terms of sale for their own product?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if you look at past MSFT practices, you'll see some practices which got in the way of a well-functioning free market.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do past practices have to do with Xbox360 "manipulation"?

[ QUOTE ]
Another way of putting it: it is fair to be skeptical of corporate power AND to be skeptical of government power. It's not like you have to choose one over the other, for now and eternity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm skeptical of all sorts of power. I just don't see any abuse here. Maybe there is some, but you haven't pointed to it.

[ QUOTE ]
In the particular XBOX case, I am not really pissed, other than that I really would have liked to play the new Madden 2006 yesterday at my house instead of at Best Buy. But the case illustrates a relatively harmless example of how companies manipulate markets.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like a Boxter for $100. Is Porsche "manipulating" the market by not selling me one on the terms I want?

Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
 

Either that or it takes time to make 30 million pieces of a complex piece of equipment!