|
Will Rice posted:No, I'm sure most people object to to the killings themselves. which is why I said Media.
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
computer parts posted:which is why I said Media. The media hasn't really spent any more time on drones than they did previous bombing campaigns. The main issue people have with drones is that it's an under the radar means of expanding military conflict without actually moving troops to the area, and they have a fairly poor record of targeting the enemy unless you define the enemy as "anyone who looks vaguely poor and has a gun", which is a huge number of people in the areas we're using them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm not talking about handwaving away their significance? The US has been bombing people for over a decade, my point is that back then no one in the media cared but now they only care because it's fancy drones doing the killing. I misunderstood, as I guess I missed the posters who were specifically decrying the massacres from ten years ago opposed to the ones during the current administration. I don't think it has much to do with 'fancy drones' though, except in the way that they embody the culture of war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
The OP link on Innocents convicted doesn't work, and I'd really like to read that article! Does anyone have any good links or knowledge about the financial hardship car ownership puts low-income people through? Something with a focus on poverty more than how awesome public transportation is? I'm witnessing people (Baby Boomers, mostly) become poorer and poorer due to their acceptance that owning and paying for cars is a "part of life." The search results I'm getting are mostly really short articles with incomplete or out-of-date numbers. Though mostly I'm seeing articles about how to buy a new car with bad credit, which is causing my neck to burst open and spray blood everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
Danger posted:I misunderstood, as I guess I missed the posters who were specifically decrying the massacres from ten years ago opposed to the ones during the current administration. I don't think it has much to do with 'fancy drones' though, except in the way that they embody the culture of war. The complication I see is that a big part of the 'culture of war' they embody is one of total adaptability between military methods and civilian control. It used to be you'd test military tech on your citizens then deploy it in war, but now it's the complete opposite: you test military tech in war then deploy it on your citizens. There's a pretty big self-interested reason as to why drones would provoke reactions 'normal' bombings and so on do not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
JamesJBuffalkill posted:It's an idea that I don't recall reading around D&D, which makes me a but skeptical. It seems that, at it's core, you would do away with corporate taxes and just more heavily tax the individuals that would receive the money. Could someone clarify? A much easier (and plausible) idea would be to eliminate the repatriation waiver which allows corporations to shield income earned (or, in many cases, not really earned but made to look like it) from being taxed by the US (that's a major reason why GE got a refund a year or two ago and many major corporations pay next to no taxes or even get refunds).
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
My mom is sure that the Obama administration allowed the Benghazi attacks, based on that (while she doesn't have any idea what it could be) he must have sacrificed the dead for some bungled scheme. Her proof of this is the Fast and Furious scandal, where Obama allowed people to die so he could institute vast new gun control schemes. I'm looking for good resources on any of that, and haven't seen it in the last four or so pages or the OP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
ZeeToo posted:My mom is sure that the Obama administration allowed the Benghazi attacks, based on that (while she doesn't have any idea what it could be) he must have sacrificed the dead for some bungled scheme. What are these vast gun control schemes? I don't think that Obama has done anything whatsoever related to gun control legislation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
PokeJoe posted:What are these vast gun control schemes? I don't think that Obama has done anything whatsoever related to gun control legislation. Correct, but they're afraid that he WILL when he wins a second term. This is based on absolutely nothing but irrational fear of the "left."
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
Is there a good, non-biased book to read concerning the history of Palestine, the British Mandate, Israel, and how things have gotten to where they are now? I tried to search a few things, but, I really want the most concise and non-partisan source I can find, just for my own sanity.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
PokeJoe posted:What are these vast gun control schemes? I don't think that Obama has done anything whatsoever related to gun control legislation. They're all from Fast and Furious.  Yes, circular logic with two elements. I'd just like to be able to throw some proper sources at her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
ZeeToo posted:They're all from Fast and Furious. I don't think you're going to find a helpful source on that then. He hasn't done anything and hasn't made plans to do so (that I know of), and apparently a source saying just that would be rejected as not mentioning secret plans that only those on the right know about. At best you could point out the flaws in her logic but do you really want to get into such a debate with your mother?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
Michael Moore made a film about taking our guns. All liberals are working together in a vast conspiracy. Therefore, everyone else vaguely associated with Team Blue also wants to take our guns. The fact that Obama has made exactly no comments about guns shows how well this conspiracy is hidden.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
PokeJoe posted:What are these vast gun control schemes? I don't think that Obama has done anything whatsoever related to gun control legislation. Well he HAS signed into law a bill that permits concealed carry in national parks, which is his nefarious way of limiting guns because
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Correct, but they're afraid that he WILL when he wins a second term. This is based on absolutely nothing but irrational fear of the "left." The bolded part here is definitely wrong. Obama campaigned on re-instituting the Assault Weapons Ban, and Joe Biden sponsored the bill containing the ban. That said I think it's pretty clear at this point that bringing back the Assault Weapons Ban was just another campaign trail lie, and he has no intention of passing vast gun control schemes, but it is wrong to say that beliefs that he wants to do so is based on absolutely nothing. edit: He also nominated a judge on the anti-gun side of McDonald vs Chicago. twodot fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Oct 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
I'd like to ask for help/references regarding the "model minority" myth. I got into this discussion with my sister and mother talking about how Asians excel so much better at academics than Latinos and African-Americans because supposedly Asians had to work harder to get into the US because they did so legitimately, whereas Latinos "just cross the border illegally" and African-Americans are already inside the country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
Folderol posted:Well he HAS signed into law a bill that permits concealed carry in national parks, which is his nefarious way of limiting guns because Well, that's neat. I can probably spin something out of that, thanks. F&F isn't the only bit, though; any good article that says that and why there was nothing to send to Benghazi would be good, too. I get that whole "no time to do it, no assets and helicopters would need in-flight refueling anyway", but that's harder to convince someone of if there's not a single source to use.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I'd like to ask for help/references regarding the "model minority" myth. I got into this discussion with my sister and mother talking about how Asians excel so much better at academics than Latinos and African-Americans because supposedly Asians had to work harder to get into the US because they did so legitimately, whereas Latinos "just cross the border illegally" and African-Americans are already inside the country. We had a thread about this earlier. The model minority myth is horseshit. If you look at Asian populations, you'll see that there's big differences between various subgroups - and their actual performances roughly correlate, I would say, with the material conditions that they sprang from. Chinese, Japanese immigrants who've come from money and by the nature of their status as immigrants are the cream of the crop (or they wouldn't be here in the first place), in comparison to Laotians or Hmong people who barely scrape by.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 09:13
|
|
|
I was over at a friend's house for dinner over the weekend, and as we live in a swing state the incessant political ads prompted a lot of political conversation. Thankfully it was much more even-keeled conversation than my friend usually likes to engage in. He leans hard to the right (he considers Fox News "unbiased" and professes a "10% chance" that Obama is not American). His wife, who has always struck me as more left-leaning and usually avoids all political talk, actually joined in this time. She is an elementary school teacher, and expressed her dismay over welfare. She sees a lot of families whose kids are in school all day, yet the parents (usually single mothers) don't work at all and seem to sustain themselves exclusively via welfare. She didn't go on a "makers and takers" rant or anything, she just worried that there aren't enough incentives to wean people like these parents off of welfare. Now, my general understanding from reading D&D is that such indefinite welfare doesn't exist anymore (at least at the federal level). TANF, for example, has a lifetime limit of 60 months. Can anyone point me any good resources on the actual state of U.S. welfare? Can a single mother with no job and 3 kids really collect indefinite welfare?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
gently caress, wrong thread.
NatasDog fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Oct 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
Tibeerius posted:I was over at a friend's house for dinner over the weekend, and as we live in a swing state the incessant political ads prompted a lot of political conversation. Thankfully it was much more even-keeled conversation than my friend usually likes to engage in. He leans hard to the right (he considers Fox News "unbiased" and professes a "10% chance" that Obama is not American). There are a lot of ways to define welfare, though typically it refers to SNAP and TANF. I've yet to see many folks refer to WIC as welfare though it would technically fit in the general overview of government assistance programs. SNAP SNAP does not have a lifetime limit as far as I'm aware, though work requirements vary. Generally speaking, able-bodied adults will either have to be working or be actively seeking employment to remain on SNAP, though adults with dependents may have that requirement waived. Some links: SNAP Community Characteristics Interactive Map - This thing is awesome. It lets you get detailed information about SNAP recipients for any area in the U.S. all the way down to Congressional District levels as of September 2011, which is fairly recent.  Very cool stuff in general, lets you have actual facts about who is getting welfare in your local area readily available. SNAP Research - A bunch of really informative studies on SNAP, ranging from a total program overview to dietary patterns to fraud to potential policy change implications. On the right sidebar there are links to WIC and School Nutrition studies too. An example of a study I like for a subject that comes up often is the impact of restricting food stamps (i.e. no soda etc.) SNAP Homepage - Last but not least, this is where I basically started when looking for SNAP info. It's got handy links in the main frame for Eligibility Requirements and so on. A decent starting place if you're not sure exactly what you're after. TANF As you mentioned, TANF does have a lifetime limit. Like SNAP, TANF also has work requirements; the onus is put on the States who administer TANF to keep their "work participation rate" high enough to continue receiving federal funds for the program. Admittedly I haven't done much research on TANF, maybe someone else has better links, but here is a program overview. General Research and Information on Welfare Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - This organization focuses on policy and programs affecting low-income families in the U.S., and has a lot of research and information on welfare programs and proposed changes. Their reports are very readable with some very clean graphics to help organize data. Here's an example, regarding the impact of TANF: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
Hey, guys, mind lending me a hand in refuting some things? A friend, who's a nice guy, but hardcore NOBAMA, recently posted  )The video he linked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFLo-yec--0 It's a Janet Porter video where she lays out her "5 points against Barack Obama" which all trigger such a strong eye roll that I thought they would just loop all the way around. I can explain most of the points, but would really like to be able to lay out a strong case, with citations, showing why it's all crazy talk. I'm not trying to start an e-fight with him, I just want to show that, while there are some very valid reasons to not like Obama, this is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 03:21
|
|
|
I dunno, #1 These types of abortions are a statistical non-issue, representing less than 2/10ths of one percent of any abortion procedure: https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3500603.html Because Obama voted against a partial birth abortion ban, the right considers him for it, in that, he wants all babies to be aborted and their brains sucked out, but he opposed the ban on the grounds that it didn't have enough provisions in it to protect the life of the mother in extreme cases. He's also fine with the states themselves regulating against. The "born alive infant protection act" that is mentioned was signed into law before Obama was even a US senator, so I dunno wtf they're getting at there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_Alive_Infant_Protection_Act and http://ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm #2 Who even gives a poo poo if someone is against gay marriage. They're idiotic with backwards views. The shooting was a crazed idiot. Even trying to use it as proof that marriage is under assault by some kind of gay resistance is insulting and offensive. Throw abortion crusaders killing doctors in his face if you want, cite the loving Spanish Inquisition. #3 There is literally no proof that Iran is within 2 decades of a functional nuclear device. Obama has dragged Iran to the table with crippling sanctions that are destroying their economy. Israel are kind of lovely warmongers. #4 Can we also look at what the opposition did before the blood was "barely dry"? Oh yeah, he went on national television with a poo poo eating smirk on his face and tried to attack the President for his leadership skills. Also the right are giant assholes because they want to be able to take a steaming poo poo on anyone's beliefs at their whim and suffer literally no consequences for it because "FIRST AMENDMENT". They're children. Showing some kind of empathy and mutual offense is apparently weakness, and also tyranny. #5 The number on welfare is right, but really, more welfare recipients in the worst recession in 70 years? I DO DECLARE. Also, the percentage increased by 70% under GW Bush's years as well but nobody yells about that, and that was before he took a steaming poo poo on the economy. Numbers: http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm The us debt spiraling out of control is largely and correctly attributed to GW Bush,  The "OBAMA PHONE" part is petty racism, but even still, federal assistance for obtaining "a phone" have existed since phones. I'd say why bother, but hey if you can make ground with him, go for it.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 04:07
|
|
|
Thank you. And, yeah, he's still going to hate Obama, but he's a reasonable enough person to admit when something's been proven false.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:Is there a good, non-biased book to read concerning the history of Palestine, the British Mandate, Israel, and how things have gotten to where they are now? It's an inherently partisan topic, for obvious reasons, but in part because a lot depends on the framing, and a lot of the early history written in Israel was extremely distorted. You'd get very different accounts depending on whether you read something about 'the Israel-Palestine conflict,' 'the Palestinian People,' 'the History of Israel,' 'the History of Zionism,' and so on and so forth. In a pinch, you could try Benny Morris, because he's generally seen as too sympathetic to Israel by most people who stress the Palestinian side of the history and too critical of Israel by a lot of Zionist historians. Of course, all the controversy about his work is about biases, but anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 09:02
|
|
|
Does anyone have an overview of the energy subsidies in the recovery act, specifically a list of companies that received loans like Solyndra?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Does anyone have an overview of the energy subsidies in the recovery act, specifically a list of companies that received loans like Solyndra? Is this the sort of thing you're looking for: https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45 It was linked in a Politifact article about Solyndra after I did a bit of digging. Section 1705 seems to deal with Recovery Act related projects. It's important to note these are loan guarantees, not loans; the government only pays out if the company defaults on the loan, and generally not the full amount: quote:If borrowers can’t qualify for standard bank loans, they can apply for federally guaranteed loans. The government normally agrees to guarantee 80 percent of such a loan, the bank assuming 20 percent risk. But in some cases the government will guarantee as much as 100 percent. http://www.recovery.gov/News/featured/Pages/Overview-of-Recovery-Act-Loans.aspx Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Oct 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
Yeah, that's it. Of course the people I was arguing with demanded colorful graphs with the financial histories and stock prices of all the companies benefiting, otherwise they claim Obama is obfuscating the info and generally lying to the public, but just for my own curiosity it's pretty interesting. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Raise Taxes I want this yard sign.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
That would be a rocking bumper sticker, I admit. As an aside, I like graphs, and we like pooling knowledge. I've been organizing data to respond to points here and there and started using Google Drive because OpenOffice was being a pain in the rear end where chart creation was concerned. It occurs to me that just having my own information available is only marginally helpful though, so I messed with the settings. The Knowledge Pool "The Knowledge Pool" is a publicly viewable folder on the web, so anyone can jump into any of the created documents and see what's going on. I've restricted editing to only allow people who are added to an approved list to edit and create documents. If you're interested in contributing, be it spreadsheets, a document on a topic you wrote up with links to sources, etc. let me know. If you don't want to clog up the thread, I have private messages, or you can email me as neschampion at gmail. Right now I think the way Drive works is that other users can delete your documents from the shared folder, so I'd recommend saving anything you create to your hard drive as well. If we get a lot of interest we could whip up a general set of guidelines to keep things consistent in a document file as a How To / Readme within the Drive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/10/sandy_price_gouging_anti_gouging_laws_make_natural_disasters_worse.html Anyone else see this going around facebook? Its bullshit and I get the general reasons why, but can I get some help answering the argument here?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
Also share the general reasons how it's bullshit, please.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
For one, the general gist is "don't fine or get angry at price gougers because capitalism is awesome and that's how it works" which is pretty offensive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/10/sandy_price_gouging_anti_gouging_laws_make_natural_disasters_worse.html quote:Indeed, many of the problems associated with weather emergencies are precisely caused by the fact that we can’t count on shops to “gouge” their customers. I live in a neighborhood with buried power lines in a building that contains a supermarket on the ground floor. But I nonetheless found myself stuck in line Sunday evening at the Safeway stockpiling emergency supplies just in case something went badly wrong and knocked power out throughout the city. The issue wasn't that I wouldn't be able to get to the store in a worst-case scenario, as that I was afraid other people would already have bought up all the stuff. And indeed, by the time I made it, the shelves had been largely denuded of essentials such as bottled water, canned soup, batteries, and Diet Coke. Greater flexibility to raise prices would not only tend to curb overconsumption directly by encouraging people to buy less, it would inspire confidence that shortages wouldn't arise, reducing the tendency toward panicky preemptive hoarding. Bullshit: If a hurricane is coming and I think I'm going to need water or batteries I'm going to buy water and batteries regardless of the price. The whole point of anti-price gouging laws is to prevent exploitation of a market that's gone from elastic to highly inelastic due to a crisis. If batteries suddenly go from $6 a pack to $20 a pack you wind up with two results: people who can still afford the cost pay it anyway, and people who can't go without. Not only are you exploiting people in need of supplies for an emergency, you're also loving over the poor. Shortages would absolutely still arise without anti-price gouging laws, you'd just wind up with companies making money hand over fist in the process while hurting people who may very well lose everything else they own in the storm. quote:Last but by no means least, more price gouging would greatly improve inventory management. There is a large class of goods—flashlights, snow shovels, sand bags—for which demand is highly irregular. Maintaining large inventories of these items is, on most days, a costly misuse of storage space. If retailers can earn windfall profits when demand for them spikes, that creates a situation in which it makes financial sense to keep them on hand. Trying to curtail price gouging does the reverse. Not really. In any retail environment where storage space is a concern, holding onto stuff you won't sell is a bad thing. That doesn't change if you allow price gouging because the events that lead to price gouging are inherently unpredictable. You may as well argue that anti-price gouging laws discourage consumers from preparing for emergencies well in advance. In reality, people and businesses have limited resources, and allocating significant portions of them to potential disasters that might not happen for a decade isn't an option people or businesses will entertain for very long. It's not like businesses are hurting for profits leading up to a hurricane or major forecasted disaster to begin with; if your shelves are bare you made so many more sales in a single day than you probably do in a week or longer, and then you close shop when the storm hits and make even more money when people are restocking after the fact. Barring any damage from the crisis itself you're probably in a loving great spot at the end of the day. quote:But consider that declining to raise prices in the face of spiking demand and inelastic supply is a very odd form of charity: It doesn't create any new resources, just allocates them arbitrarily to whoever shows up first. As opposed to arbitrarily allocating them to whoever has the most money. I guess the poor can drink river water and scavenge batteries out of their remote controls though, gently caress those guys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Also share the general reasons how it's bullshit, please. Gas stations won't stock more flashlights or whatever on the off chance the demand may spike. Buying a ton of disaster supplies and then having the disaster whiff could be a big problem for the vendor. They will just jack the price of their existing inventory through the roof since there will be well off customers that will buy the items. First come first serve is inefficient but it at least lets the poor get a shot at buying some supplies. Poor people are not the ones buying out everything in moments of panic, because they can't. Richer people will still panic and will still buy out the stores at the gouged prices.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:If batteries suddenly go from $6 a pack to $20 a pack you wind up with two results: people who can still afford the cost pay it anyway, and people who can't go without. There are ten batteries. They cost $6 a pack. If they stay at $6 a pack, then they sell to the first people who show up who can afford that. Only ten people get batteries; the shopowner gets $60. If they jump to $20 a pack, they sell the first people who show up who can afford that, a smaller group than before. But they still sell to ten people; the shopowner gets $200. What is objectively right or wrong about either scenario? You're saying if they were $20, only a rich person could afford them; but if a rich person bought them up at $6, the poor still get the same zero amount of batteries. The capitalist argument would be that, since the store now has $200, it can restock with $200 worth of goods instead of $60, thus bringing prices down and more stock to a needy populace. Extend this across the entire retail sector of the affected region and the theory (I say it that way because I simply don't know if it's backed up by numbers or not) is that needed goods will flow to the region faster. What's more important: That a few people get batteries now, or that more people get batteries soon? Mo_Steel posted:As opposed to arbitrarily allocating them to whoever has the most money. I guess the poor can drink river water and scavenge batteries out of their remote controls though, gently caress those guys. This could also go into an interesting discussion on rationing vs price hikes, when is one better than the other? WoodrowSkillson posted:Gas stations won't stock more flashlights or whatever on the off chance the demand may spike. Buying a ton of disaster supplies and then having the disaster whiff could be a big problem for the vendor. They will just jack the price of their existing inventory through the roof since there will be well off customers that will buy the items. WoodrowSkillson posted:First come first serve is inefficient but it at least lets the poor get a shot at buying some supplies. Poor people are not the ones buying out everything in moments of panic, because they can't. Richer people will still panic and will still buy out the stores at the gouged prices. "The poor" is not a single mass. You're still picking ten poor people over the other thousand in line. What's to stop the person who bought it for $6 to then turn around and scalp them for $20? Unless gouging laws also apply to poor people with nothing left? Golbez fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Oct 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
I'll admit that I will blindly agree with just about Matthew Yglesias writes, but I have to agree with him that the free market, imperfect as it is, is the best thing we've come up with yet for allocating scarce resources. No matter what, not everybody is going to be able to get everything they want. If we're so concerned about poor people, we should just be cutting them checks (a pretty common theme of his). E: Pretend I didn't read the last few posts before I posted, because I clicked post and then left for an hour and came back. FISHMANPET fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Oct 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 23:16
|
|
|
Isn't Yglesias the idiot that doesn't know anything about capital gains and how they work (or, alternatively, don't)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
Golbez posted:So, here are the possible scenarios: If you can define for me what an objective right or wrong is I'd be happy to, but most views of right and wrong are predicated upon what moral structure you subscribe to. Setting that aside, let me propose a modified scenario: store limit one per customer. Now rich people aren't buying the entire store's stock of batteries and poor people can still afford them without anyone being gouged. Additionally, even without the limit, in principle the non-price gouging scenario gives poor people a chance at getting supply that they would lack if the price is entirely beyond their means. Golbez posted:And I guess the ones who lived more than a block away and didn't get there fast enough etc etc same hyperbole? You're making a drastic assumption that being closer to the store or having more mobility and thus able to grab the cheap stuff faster is inherently nobler than having more money. I disagree that it is a drastic assumption. Our market already operates on a first come first serve basis, in which case that objection applies to both scenarios, price gouging or not. Only one of the two scenarios proposed is allowing exploitation of sudden coercion of consumers for inelastic necessities in a crisis for the express purpose of increasing profits beyond normal operating profits. If as you said in the scenario above all ten batteries get sold regardless, and there is no change in supply, do you feel it is more just to allow price gouging? If so, why? Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Oct 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
The store still gets to jack up prices by 10% legally anyway. Why is that not enough? What use is it to the rest of us to let them jack it up by more than that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 23:37
|
|