Price Gouging.

TheLastLink · Post by **TheLastLink** » November 24th, 2012, 11:23 pm

Is it moral for a local business to raise it's prices when a disaster hits? Do you think people should put ceilings on the prices gas stations can charge for gasoline in disaster-stricken areas?

dragonbo · Post by **dragonbo** » December 1st, 2012, 12:00 am

I think they would e making both a better moral and business decision to lower the prices.

Newah · Post by **Newah** » December 2nd, 2012, 1:14 am

On the other hand though, the local businesses need help too. So I don't know.

TheLastLink · Post by **TheLastLink** » December 2nd, 2012, 1:31 pm

Personally I think it's not only moral for companies to raise prices, but necessary.

It's moral because when they raise the prices, the producers of given products (Gas, Flashlights, you name it) rush to capitalize on the higher rates of profit, which means that resources are going where they are needed the most.

It's necessary because of supply and demand.

AtmoMario · Post by **AtmoMario** » December 2nd, 2012, 11:10 pm

That... is an interesting definition of moral.

When a disaster hits, there is frequently some form of increased demand. Normally, this means raised prices. However, morals have to do with good and evil, as opposed to making money, so for many people, it would be moral to not raise prices. Local businesses won't nescesarily have to raise prices to make money, because if they have enough supply, then they can continue to sell their products at the same price, and the increased demand means that they will still sell.

Luxury products, however, tend towards decreased demand is disaster situations. Increasing price will not do anything to fix that, and may, in fact, decrease sells, even if the price is raised by something small. This mentality is part of why prices are usually things like $19.99. It looks smaller (and is, but only a bit) and produces a different reaction than $20.00.

TheLastLink · Post by **TheLastLink** » December 7th, 2012, 3:57 pm

AtmoMario wrote:That... is an interesting definition of moral.

When a disaster hits, there is frequently some form of increased demand. Normally, this means raised prices. However, morals have to do with good and evil, as opposed to making money, so for many people, it would be moral to not raise prices. Local businesses won't nescesarily have to raise prices to make money, because if they have enough supply, then they can continue to sell their products at the same price, and the increased demand means that they will still sell.

Local Businesses HAVE to raise prices, or they will run out of supply (faster than they would if they had raised prices), which means that said disaster-stricken community has to wait even longer (Longer than they would if they had raised prices, producers gravitate towards high rates of profit).

Is it moral for the few people to buy gas for less, but then have the rest of the community deal with a longer shortage because said business didn't raise their prices?

Now of course, any town or city wouldn't rely on just ONE local business. It's common sense to let supply and demand kick in, whatever the company.
Each company in competition of eachother, once in possession of sufficient supplies, will lower prices. This in turn forces other companies to do the same, until eventually they hit regular levels.

Newah · Post by **Newah** » December 7th, 2012, 10:51 pm

Well it all depends on each individual situation. You can't judge all of the businesses on a whole.

TheLastLink · Post by **TheLastLink** » December 9th, 2012, 8:07 pm

Businesses who just randomly raise prices out of the blue will either
A: Lower prices due to competition or
B: Go out of business

How hard is this to understand?

Semesto · Post by **Semesto** » December 10th, 2012, 12:29 am

TheLastLink wrote:Businesses who just randomly raise prices out of the blue will either
A: Lower prices due to competition or
B: Go out of business

How hard is this to understand?

That's why Apple raises them high and keeps them high!

TheLastLink · Post by **TheLastLink** » December 10th, 2012, 3:45 pm

Semesto wrote:That's why Apple raises them high and keeps them high!

In case you haven't noticed, apple isn't a monopoly.

AtmoMario · Post by **AtmoMario** » December 10th, 2012, 7:16 pm

TheLastLink wrote:In case you haven't noticed, apple isn't a monopoly.

They just make their products incompatible with everything else, thereby making it so that if you need anything that does work with their computers you need to buy it from them.

Also, supply will run out if there is no way of getting more supply into the area. That makes sense in an isolated system, but then you get charities sending in supplies, and other businesses will be bringing things in from other places that were not hit with a disaster. Raising prices prevents stockpiling, but there will be outside groups artificially increasing the local supply, preventing this stockpiling from eating up all of the supply. Sure a business that doesn't raise its prices will be sold out faster, but it will have sold its product.
However, I know that you are like me: a person who will not conceed in any form of debate. No matter what I say, you will not be convinced any differently.

Semesto · Post by **Semesto** » December 10th, 2012, 7:31 pm

TheLastLink wrote:In case you haven't noticed, apple isn't a monopoly.

Monopoly: The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
In a way it is.

However this topic does not interest me so I have read none of it except that one quote of course. Semesto out! (Imagine that exit like Toby's)

TheLastLink · Post by **TheLastLink** » December 10th, 2012, 8:13 pm

Semesto wrote:Monopoly: The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
In a way it is.

However this topic does not interest me so I have read none of it except that one quote of course. Semesto out! (Imagine that exit like Toby's)

Nope.
Apple doesn't have exclusive rights to manufacture and sell MP3 players.
Or Laptop computers.
Or Tablets.
Or Phones.
Or any of their other products.
Anybody can sell phones or Mp3 players, they just have to offer a better deal than apple.
The thing about apple is that they have a reputation for quality products at good prices,
and they have advertising down to a science.

Semesto · Post by **Semesto** » December 10th, 2012, 8:53 pm

TheLastLink wrote:Nope.
Apple doesn't have exclusive rights to manufacture and sell MP3 players.
Or Laptop computers.
Or Tablets.
Or Phones.
Or any of their other products.
Anybody can sell phones or Mp3 players, they just have to offer a better deal than apple.
The thing about apple is that they have a reputation for quality products at good prices,
and they have advertising down to a science.

As I agree, I see what your talking about. ^_^
I was more looking at the control over the supply more then anything.

Post by **Lemon** » December 16th, 2012, 2:47 pm

A gas company can't actually charge whatever they want for gas. If it is too expensive, people won't buy it, and the price will need to drop to make sales.

If I were selling lemonade on the side of the street, and the government showed up and said I am charging too much, I would be pretty pissed off. A company should be able to charge whatever they want....I really don't see where the government comes into a relationship between a producer and consumer.