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?