thank you, price 'gougers'

[wacki]

Suncor can produce a barrel of oil for $8 a gallon yet it's not happening. Think about it. Think of the drain on the economy and think of the record profits for shell. And think of how nothing has been done with ITER for 25 years.

[ QUOTE ]
This may appear intuitively to be true, but I'm not completely convinced that it necessarily is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if I'm wrong, then all of the uber high priced lawyers I had breakfast with 2 days ago are wrong.


Don't have time or the will to say more, let alone make this post.

-wacki

[wacki]

Sorry $8 a barrel.

typo........

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Suncor can produce a barrel of oil for $8 a gallon yet it's not happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

So because they can in a certain manner, and you want them to, they should be compelled to act in such manner?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Suncor can produce a barrel of oil for $8 a gallon yet it's not happening. Think about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you're getting at (I assume Suncor is a shale oil or oil sand producer). If they can produce at $8 but are not, why not? Do they have liquid reserves that they can produce for cheaper? Are there, GASP, regulations involved?


[ QUOTE ]

And think of how nothing has been done with ITER for 25 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought ITER was publicly funded? What does that have to do with price controls?

My questions are serious.


Your examples of the forcing streetcars out of business is NOT an example of free market tactics, by the way. I join you in condemning those actions but they are unrelated to the issue of price controls.

And predatory pricing is addressed with price *floors*, which have their own problems that lead to reduced supply but from what I have read they are not as drastic as price *ceilings*, which are disastrous. (See minimum wage and gas price controls for excellent modern examples)

The point is the the intervention of price controls DOES have consequences and unlike Andy's insinuation, it doesn't matter if the controlled vendor is a multinational corporation or not, the controls rarely achieve a positive effect .

I'll admit I'm not omniscient so there may be some examples that have worked out well, but the examples given so far are not even examples of price controls working, they are examples of shady businesses recruiting the state to create unfair playing fields.

Situations like that are a big problem, and detrimental to all of us, but the fault does not lie with freedom of pricing.
The problem, and the answer to it, does not involve price controls at all.

Andy's insinuation is in my opinion flat out wrong, but sounds good to those who hate corporatoins for the sake of it.

(Note that the top 5 American oil companies represent a mere 12% of the world oil supply, when COMBINED. Gas price controls, which is how the price controls issue got popular recently, are absolute insanity. It's like believing the world is flat to believe that gas price controls will have merit)

natedogg

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

I'll admit I'm not omniscient so there may be some examples that have worked out well, but the examples given so far are not even examples of price controls working, they are examples of shady businesses recruiting the state to create unfair playing fields.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, loarn sharks recruit the state to create an unfair playing field. Firestone and Standard oil also recruited the state to help them purchase profitable streetcar public transit companies and turn them into unprofitable ones which went bankrupt or were forced to buy GM buses and expensive gasoline. The costs of which were pass on to the poor and profited the big companies. All of this couldn't of been done without the aid of the state. Ummmm. ok.

You made a real solid point there. (sarcasm)

My streetcar example wasn't about price controls btw. It was about how free markets aren't always the best for humanity. The loan shark example was about price controls.

[ QUOTE ]
Situations like that are a big problem, and detrimental to all of us, but the fault does not lie with freedom of pricing. The problem, and the answer to it, does not involve price controls at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even with loan sharks? right....

Ya, ya, repeat your ideology one more time. I'll take the pragmatic side.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'll admit I'm not omniscient so there may be some examples that have worked out well, but the examples given so far are not even examples of price controls working, they are examples of shady businesses recruiting the state to create unfair playing fields.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, loarn sharks recruit the state to create an unfair playing field. Firestone and Standard oil also recruited the state to help them purchase profitable streetcar public transit companies and turn them into unprofitable ones which went bankrupt or were forced to buy GM buses and expensive gasoline. The costs of which were pass on to the poor and profited the big companies. All of this couldn't of been done without the aid of the state. Ummmm. ok.

You made a real solid point there. (sarcasm)

My streetcar example wasn't about price controls btw. It was about how free markets aren't always the best for humanity. The loan shark example was about price controls.

[ QUOTE ]
Situations like that are a big problem, and detrimental to all of us, but the fault does not lie with freedom of pricing. The problem, and the answer to it, does not involve price controls at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even with loan sharks? right....

Ya, ya, repeat your ideology one more time. I'll take the pragmatic side.

[/ QUOTE ]


I never claimed free markets are perfect, but utopia is not an option. Free *pricing* on the other hand, IS perfect. The reason is that no third party can ever correctly decide how much I really am willing to pay for X, or at what price I'm really willing to sell X. That is best decided between me and the buyer, not by a third party.

The question brought up by me in response to your praise of Andy's comment is, do price controls somehow change in nature when applied to the goods sold by large organizations? The answer is clearly NO but I"m willing to change my mind with some evidence. (although I'm confident there isn't any)

On the other hand, the examples you bring up are very interesting and good topics for exploring the nature of free markets. Perhaps there is a good argument for certain interventions. I'm open to them if they make sense.

Although "loan sharking" can't actually exist in a free market since they must enforce collection with threat of violence, which is illegal. Usury, on the other hand, is the act of charging exorbitant interest but surely you understand that this is not a big free market problem?

In a truly free lending market, guess who gets charged the usurious rates? The people with the worst credit! Under usury laws, they can't get any loans at all no matter how bad they need it because the price controls on credit have disallowed anyone from charging the appropriate price for the risk involved in lending to such risky borrowers.

So again, usury laws, like minimum wage laws or any other price control, only cause shortages. Sometimes the shortage only affects a certain segment of the market but they are there.

Ironically, it is usury laws that *create* loan sharking, so they have indeed in effect recruited the state to keep themselves in business. Loan sharking is profitable not because of the high rates so much but because of the guaranteed collection. You can beat the payments out of them. The fact that loan sharks exist even though usury laws are in effect once again shows that price controls don't work because the goods simply go underground once the shortage appears.

For the vast majority of all borrowers, usury laws don't apply and are irrelevant (because of free market competition which keeps the rates low) so they don't feel the shortages but nevertheless they exist.

So we see that loan sharks are not a free market problem. They can't even exist in a free market. We see that it is price controls that *create* loan sharks.

yes, the "loan sharking" issue is a good topic for discussion. It clearly shows why free markets are better. Any others?


natedogg

[wacki]

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.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ 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 ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[MMMMMM]

Hi Wacki,

I am reading with interest the exchanges between you and Natedogg, and I'd just like to note something in the interest of keeping things clear and distinct. Two different matters are being touched on here: 1) price controls, and 2) near-monopoly-type situations. Personally speaking, I would be more likely to be in favor of antitrust laws than to be in favor of price-control laws. As long as there is competition, I think price levels will more or less work themselves out; and I don't see the proper role of government being to shield us from our own ignorance or stupidity via restrictive laws. Just my two cents.

[wacki]

[ 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 ]

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,

wacki