thank you, price 'gougers'

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Happens all the time. People who are either dumb, depressed, desperate, or just "need the money and will find a way to pay it back by working 80 hours a week", etc. There is a reason the bible and the Quran have laws against usery. There is also a reason why so many cultures despise Jews.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Maybe I just read this the wrong way...

Just to clarify, I don't think it's particularly fair or accurate to say Jews are/were, either contemporarily or historically, predatory money lenders. I realize such a stereotype exists, and has existed for centuries -- and merely referencing that such stereotypes exist/existed isn't nefarious in any way. But *I* would have been careful to note that:

1) 'so many cultures' don't despise Jews (which isn't denying that the Jews have been the focus of many culture's agitation)
2) the reasons Jews have been on the losing end of much state-sponsored discrimination (or worse), or other society-driven injustices are varied, and certainly not due merely to the fact that they've been burdened with the reputation of being Shylock-type characters in business affairs.


--------------------------

A note related to the thread, I'm in agreement with wacki that taking advantage of stupid people is clearly unethical and ought to receive our condemnation, regardless of what kind of 'lessons' the stupid person will learn, or other such Social Darwinism arguments we might be able to create.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wait, this guy is smart enough to buy a house, but too dumb to figure out what interest is? Come on. Fraud is a crime and one should be able to sue for damages. What else is needed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Happens all the time. People who are either dumb, depressed, desperate, or just "need the money and will find a way to pay it back by working 80 hours a week", etc. There is a reason the bible and the Quran have laws against usery. There is also a reason why so many cultures despise Jews.

[/ QUOTE ]




People shouldn't be sheltered from the consequences of their ignorance, or they will continue to be that way.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
A note related to the thread, I'm in agreement with wacki that taking advantage of stupid people is clearly unethical and ought to receive our condemnation, regardless of what kind of 'lessons' the stupid person will learn, or other such Social Darwinism arguments we might be able to create.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be flip, or to divert the thread; but if one really believes that taking advantage of stupid people is unethical, why play poker?

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you produce an example of this happening, ever, where government intervention wasn't leveraged to keep competition out?

[/ QUOTE ]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I already did, mutliple times in this thread.

done posting for the day,


[/ QUOTE ]

I read through this entire thread and didn't see any of these examples.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A note related to the thread, I'm in agreement with wacki that taking advantage of stupid people is clearly unethical and ought to receive our condemnation, regardless of what kind of 'lessons' the stupid person will learn, or other such Social Darwinism arguments we might be able to create.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be flip, or to divert the thread; but if one really believes that taking advantage of stupid people is unethical, why play poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's a fair point and not flip; but I'm of the opinion that when you sit down at a poker table, you've consented to the notion that better players (and of course, variance) will part you from your money, if and when you lose.

The unethical part of usury is that the victims typically aren't aware of the predatory terms they're agreeing to, so their consent to the loan is tainted by the fact that they weren't cognizant of the unfair terms they were consenting to -- and I think it becomes particularly unfair when the lender purposefully writes the terms of the deal in a vague or confusing manner (or hides some of the predatory aspects of the deal altogether), knowing that the party accepting the loan is incapable of understanding.

I think the situation becomes a whole lot stickier (and murkier, in terms of the ethics involved) if the party accepting the predatory terms is fully aware they're getting screwed, but accepts the deal anyway out of desperation or depression. Even then, the lender (I think) is still being unethical because they're taking advantage of parties whose ability to think rationally is in question -- and the rationality of both parties integral to the legitimacy of consent.

How then, do we treat situations at the poker table where we know our opponents are behaving irrationally (i.e., they're drunk, or are gambling addicts, etc.)? I don't know.

I certainly have no problem winning money from drunk donks at my local B&M, but then again, that just may mean I'm unethical -- or it's certainly possible I'm wrong on the ethics involved here. I would feel guilty winning money from someone I knew was a gambling addict -- or someone whose wife just left him, and he's spewing chips everywhere because he's depressed. So perhaps I just think drunk people are rational enough to consent to losing money at the poker table -- particularly if my drunk opponents arrived at the table sober, then got drunk during the course of play (indicating they intended to play irrational poker); again though, I'll admit these are complicated situations in regards to the ethical implications involved.

So yeah, it's a good question that I can't easily answer.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to be flip, or to divert the thread; but if one really believes that taking advantage of stupid people is unethical, why play poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it is not the price gouger that is unethical (perhaps it is unethical, but that is to me unimportant) it is the governments role in allowing price gouging that we can and should discuss. I am of course assuming that the government is a representative democratic model and not a anarcho-capitalist model.

Similarly, it is not the fact that in the long run I will take all your money in a poker game that is important (I think it is entirely ethical btw) but the question about whether government should regulate gambling activities in some manner. In our current society the indigent, broke, suicidal gambler is supported by our government at the cost of the tax payer. (Again a discussion of welfare or healthcare is not what this post is about).

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Nate,

I was trying to relay the concept of the market for lemons, predatory pricing, and many other devious acts large corporations perform. If you think you were clever by attacking my use of the wrong word when it comes to usery laws and explaining to me the concept of the black market, you weren't. You know what I meant.

The point is unregulated markets are perfectly suited for helping the largest corporations create an unfair playing field in industries that have barriers like high startup costs or are susceptible to takeovers at the expense of the public like the streetcar scandal. Large corporations will also take advantage of the public at all costs. They will take advatage of their ignorance (usery), their desperation (usery, public transit), and anything else that will boost their stocks. Does, that mean corporations are evil? No, they are doing what they are supposed to do and that is making money.

Here let me draw it out for you in crayon:

Does that mean the government should allow banks to take advantage of a factory worker that can't add or subtract by charging him 20% interest on a loan for a new roof? A factory worker that is too dumb to realize what interest is only to repossess his home, his car, and everything else he owns later on when he defaults just to pay for the interest. Is that really fair? Or even good for the general public?

Does that mean corporations like GM, firestone, and standard oil are allowed to perform predatory pricing, buyouts, or any other tactic to drive out successful and efficient competition so they can charge the public an exorbinant amount in the long run? Keep in mind the people most often his are those that can't afford lawyers or simply don't understand what is going on. In otherwords, the working class that drive this economy. The streetcar scandal is a good example.

Seriously natedog, I really had to stretch for a reason to reply to the last post as all I'm doing is repeating myself. Hopefully you will get what I'm trying to say as I drew it out in crayon.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you are talking about is a values question but the fact remains that price controls on interest rates merely create a shortage for people who are big credit risks. This is not disputable but you keep ignoring the issues at hand and choose to rant about tangents and insult me.

I just have one more request for you. Go back through this thread and count the number of times I have insulted you because of your position. I am constantly amazed at how you get so worked up just by the mere articulation of my points.

Honestly you need to relax this is just an exchange of ideas. My ideas on price gouging also happen to be corroborated by a nearly all leading economists but that's neither here nor there in regards to you constantly resorting to insults. Maybe the majority of economists and I are wrong but your points certainly haven't shown it to be so.

You also never answered my question as to how price controls suddenly change in nature when the vendor of the good is a large organization, an idea presented by Andy that you belauded as the best post in the thread. If you can't do so without resorting to insults please don't bother.

natedogg