Are the oil companies gouging us?

[Master of Ossus]

So you have no ethical problem with street-level price gougers in the aftermath of Katrina, then?

Not especially. People like that provide a necessary method of helping to move supplies to those who need them the most.

It's not real competition when everyone wins and no one loses. The real pressure to maintain high efficiency comes about through fear of extinction, not a desire to win just for the sake of winning.

"Winning for the sake of winning" is the entire point of capitalism and there are incentives to cutting costs and being efficient even when you are not in danger of going out of business. Furthermore, companies DO try to prevent their competitors from making large profits, which is why the competition between Nike and Adidas is so heated.

Companies which are fat and happy and are at no real risk of going out of business do not have to trim fat and cut ineffiencies the way a company facing real losses does. And why do I even have to explain this for fuck's sake?

Companies which are fat and happy have more difficulty cutting workers and inefficiencies than companies that are filing for bankruptcy because they do not have as much to fear from labor disputes and such. This, however, should not be taken to mean that profitable companies do not improve their own efficiencies over time.

Which is nonsense in anything but a pure luxury product; in any market where the product can be said to be needed, a non-competitive industry can raise prices to any level that the customer can afford.

Total bullshit. A non-competitive industry charges the price at which it maximizes profits.

For products which are necessities, the only real limit is the customer literally not being able to purchase the product.

Nonsense. I use less than half as much gasoline now as I did in 1998/1999 not because I cannot afford to purchase as much gasoline as I did in 1998/99 (indeed, my disposable income since 1998/1999 has gone up even compared to gasoline prices), but because I choose to use my money on things that are more important to me. This reduction in my consumption of gasoline, therefore, has nothing to do with my inability to pay for gasoline but because the higher price of gasoline has led me to shift my resource-purchasing ability to other fields which now yield greater utility/dollar in comparison to gasoline than they previously did.

[Surlethe]

People like that provide a necessary method of helping to move supplies to those who need them the most.

Question: Won't the people who need those supplies most not be able to afford them, as opposed to people who can afford them and thus buy the resources?

[Master of Ossus]

Question: Won't the people who need those supplies most not be able to afford them, as opposed to people who can afford them and thus buy the resources?

Why wouldn't they be able to afford them? Loans are easy to get, and the people for whom such loans would be the most valuable will also in almost all cases be the most likely to pay them back in the future.

[Darth Wong]

So you have no ethical problem with street-level price gougers in the aftermath of Katrina, then?

Not especially. People like that provide a necessary method of helping to move supplies to those who need them the most.

Ah, I see. Well, this explains everything: you worship the law of supply and demand as if it is an ethical law rather than a non-judgmental description of an existant phenomenon. Therefore, you have no problem with things like street-level price gougers taking advantage of a disaster like Katrina to turn a nice profit, and similarly, you have no problem with gas companies doing the same. Well, I can't identify what system of ethics you subscribe to, but at least you're consistent.

Which is nonsense in anything but a pure luxury product; in any market where the product can be said to be needed, a non-competitive industry can raise prices to any level that the customer can afford.

Total bullshit. A non-competitive industry charges the price at which it maximizes profits.

How is that different from what I said, asshole? If the customer can't afford it, he'll stop buying it, and the company will start losing profits. Ergo, "raise prices to any level that the customer can afford" will work out to the company maximizing its profits. The point is that the customer will be screwed in this situation, which is why monopolies are considered a bad thing.

[Master of Ossus]

Ah, I see. Well, this explains everything: you worship the law of supply and demand as if it is an ethical law rather than a non-judgmental description of an existant phenomenon. Therefore, you have no problem with things like street-level price gougers taking advantage of a disaster like Katrina to turn a nice profit, and similarly, you have no problem with gas companies doing the same. Well, I can't identify what system of ethics you subscribe to, but at least you're consistent.

The alternative to my view is to return to some sort of Aquinian view of the "just price." Frankly, that seems ludicrous.

How is that different from what I said, asshole? If the customer can't afford it, he'll stop buying it, and the company will start losing profits. Ergo, "raise prices to any level that the customer can afford" will work out to the company maximizing its profits. The point is that the customer will be screwed in this situation, which is why monopolies are considered a bad thing.

My method allows for consumers to be capable of purchasing something but who choose not to. Apparently your economic ideals really ARE founded in the works of Aquinas, who made no distinction between desiring something and believing that object to be his best possible choice.

And, BTW, monopolies are not considered a bad thing because they charge a higher price than a competitive market, but because they produce and trade less than a competitive market would. This makes perfect sense, because Pareto efficiency mandates only that all mutually beneficial transactions occur but says nothing about the terms under which those transactions take place.

[SirNitram]

A question for folks to think on. How is considering the mechanism of supply and demand an ideal truly different from concluding that because natural selection works in nature, we should institute it as a breeding policy?

Opposing unrestrained profiteering at the expense of the many does not automatically flip you to a far different economic view. The phrase of the day for this is 'Black/White Fallacy'. You know, kind of like 'You don't want to give Blacks money every day for their years of slavery? YOU WANT TO EXTERMINATE THEM!'.

[Darth Wong]

Ah, I see. Well, this explains everything: you worship the law of supply and demand as if it is an ethical law rather than a non-judgmental description of an existant phenomenon. Therefore, you have no problem with things like street-level price gougers taking advantage of a disaster like Katrina to turn a nice profit, and similarly, you have no problem with gas companies doing the same. Well, I can't identify what system of ethics you subscribe to, but at least you're consistent.

The alternative to my view is to return to some sort of Aquinian view of the "just price." Frankly, that seems ludicrous.

Hardly; one need only point out that taking advantage of people in times of emergency is immoral. That doesn't mean that one must deny that the mechanism of supply and demand exists; only that one need not be a mercenary and take full advantage of it all the time. Many companies voluntarily refused to price-gouge in the aftermath of Katrina; does this mean they were "returning to some sort of Aquinian view of the 'just price'", or that their directors chose to behave in a more ethical fashion? You still insist upon pretending that supply and demand is an ethical principle rather than a description of a mechanism.

My method allows for consumers to be capable of purchasing something but who choose not to. Apparently your economic ideals really ARE founded in the works of Aquinas, who made no distinction between desiring something and believing that object to be his best possible choice.

You seem quite fond of your bullshit today. What a customer can "afford" is based on numerous factors, including any and all factors that you have named. Your refusal to admit this is not my problem. Tell me, if you have $10k in the bank and something costs $5k, does that automatically mean you can afford it? No, because it's a question of whether you need it badly enough to empty half your bank account.

And, BTW, monopolies are not considered a bad thing because they charge a higher price than a competitive market, but because they produce and trade less than a competitive market would. This makes perfect sense, because Pareto efficiency mandates only that all mutually beneficial transactions occur but says nothing about the terms under which those transactions take place.

And who decides that this is the case, rather than what I said, particularly since what I said is the justification that was originally used to implement antitrust laws?

[tharkûn]

How is considering the mechanism of supply and demand an ideal truly different from concluding that because natural selection works in nature, we should institute it as a breeding policy?

Natural selection optimizes genes which may, but most often not reduce human suffering, increase happiness, or any of the other stock ethical measures of "goodness".

Supply and demand optimizes economic output. This always increases happiness, etc. of at least some individuals in the market. In most cases following the dictates of supply and demand creates more happiness or causes less suffering than paying the costs to circumvent it. I have yet to see how a 10% profit margin causes sufficient suffering that any of the methods I know of to counteract supply and demand would be less painful in the long or even intermediate run.

[SirNitram]

How is considering the mechanism of supply and demand an ideal truly different from concluding that because natural selection works in nature, we should institute it as a breeding policy?

Natural selection optimizes genes which may, but most often not reduce human suffering, increase happiness, or any of the other stock ethical measures of "goodness".

Supply and demand optimizes economic output. This always increases happiness, etc. of at least some individuals in the market. In most cases following the dictates of supply and demand creates more happiness or causes less suffering than paying the costs to circumvent it. I have yet to see how a 10% profit margin causes sufficient suffering that any of the methods I know of to counteract supply and demand would be less painful in the long or even intermediate run.

This shows a genuine misunderstanding of the question. An optimized genetic strain will guarantee happiness... For those whose genetics are thus optimized. Supply and demand guarantees happiness for those profitting. Both are nothing more than mechanisms; only an imbecile thinks you can't augment with ethics.

[tharkûn]

This shows a genuine misunderstanding of the question. An optimized genetic strain will guarantee happiness... For those whose genetics are thus optimized. Supply and demand guarantees happiness for those profitting. Both are nothing more than mechanisms; only an imbecile thinks you can't augment with ethics.

This shows a genuine misunderstanding of population genetics. Optimized genetics don't give a damn what happens to you once you reproduce. If you suffer from horrid disfigurement in your twilight years after you can no longer reproduce, it doesn't matter. If violent non-consentual reproduction (such as is observed in chimps) is a better mechanism for reproduction, then that is what will play out.

Vast numbers of species have lifestyles which can best be described as horridly painful, violent, short, etc.

Natural selection optimizes the ability to duplicate genes, anything that doesn't effect that goal is completely inconsequential (for instance the old living in agony).

Supply and demand doesn't optimize happiness either, however it does optimize economic output which generally reduces suffering in the long run.

Both optimize things, one optimizes for a variable that need have no relation to happiness or human suffering; the other optimizes a variable that is directly related to happiness and human suffering.

[SirNitram]

This shows a genuine misunderstanding of the question. An optimized genetic strain will guarantee happiness... For those whose genetics are thus optimized. Supply and demand guarantees happiness for those profitting. Both are nothing more than mechanisms; only an imbecile thinks you can't augment with ethics.

This shows a genuine misunderstanding of population genetics. Optimized genetics don't give a damn what happens to you once you reproduce. If you suffer from horrid disfigurement in your twilight years after you can no longer reproduce, it doesn't matter. If violent non-consentual reproduction (such as is observed in chimps) is a better mechanism for reproduction, then that is what will play out.

Heh. You're an imbecile, I see. Happiness is permenant in neither; that does not stop the comparison being valid.

Vast numbers of species have lifestyles which can best be described as horridly painful, violent, short, etc.

Thank you for your red herring. Are we going to be getting to a real rebuttal?

Natural selection optimizes the ability to duplicate genes, anything that doesn't effect that goal is completely inconsequential (for instance the old living in agony).

Supply and demand doesn't optimize happiness either, however it does optimize economic output which generally reduces suffering in the long run.

An interesting claim. Given that when markets experienced no regulation at all, and were left wholly to the whims of the mechanism, suffering was generally greater. Things like the horrible safety standards in early factories, and whatnot. Perhaps you'd care to offer proof to your claim that optimized profits for those on top make suffering go down?

Both optimize things, one optimizes for a variable that need have no relation to happiness or human suffering; the other optimizes a variable that is directly related to happiness and human suffering.

Indeed. A price too high decreases the happiness and causes suffering for the majority while only enriching a minority.

[tharkûn]

An interesting claim. Given that when markets experienced no regulation at all, and were left wholly to the whims of the mechanism, suffering was generally greater. Things like the horrible safety standards in early factories, and whatnot. Perhaps you'd care to offer proof to your claim that optimized profits for those on top make suffering go down?

How about the fact that while those safety standards sucked, life expectancies among factory workers were rising, namely because prices were falling and they could afford better food, hygeine, and medicine?

Frankly workplace safety would have eventually been brought into line by the market as well, having to retrain semi-skilled labor to replace ubiquitious accidents means that demand is rising with flatlining supply. An employer can then either pay more money or increase safety to reduce accidents and recoup a profit; this was slow to develop mainly because of the great influx of workers either through immigration from overseas or rural to urban migration.

With skilled labor it is not uncommon for industry safety standards to far surpass safety standards even when the nation in question has piss poor ones. Indeed any time the labor market gets tight enough workers can and do campaign for better working conditions and often get them.

Indeed. A price too high decreases the happiness and causes suffering for the majority while only enriching a minority.

A price too high, most often will be brought down. The big money has always been in bringing a good or service to the masses. If there is a means to bring affordably to the masses, it will be brought.


The truth is an efficient economy doesn't garuntee optimized happiness. A decidedly inefficient economy however does prohibit the optimization of happiness. In most cases optimizing economic efficiency tends to help optimize happiness.

[SirNitram]

An interesting claim. Given that when markets experienced no regulation at all, and were left wholly to the whims of the mechanism, suffering was generally greater. Things like the horrible safety standards in early factories, and whatnot. Perhaps you'd care to offer proof to your claim that optimized profits for those on top make suffering go down?

How about the fact that while those safety standards sucked, life expectancies among factory workers were rising, namely because prices were falling and they could afford better food, hygeine, and medicine?

None of which generally helped for limbs caught in the workings, lad. Try to apply the three pounds of grey matter evolution provided for you; many creatures died for it.

Frankly workplace safety would have eventually been brought into line by the market as well, having to retrain semi-skilled labor to replace ubiquitious accidents means that demand is rising with flatlining supply. An employer can then either pay more money or increase safety to reduce accidents and recoup a profit; this was slow to develop mainly because of the great influx of workers either through immigration from overseas or rural to urban migration.

Supply of people was on the rise, and remains on the rise. Your immigration bit only applies to the US, by the by. Europe had similarly crappy standards when people were leaving the continent. So your claim as to the cause of the slowness? Complete bullshit.

With skilled labor it is not uncommon for industry safety standards to far surpass safety standards even when the nation in question has piss poor ones. Indeed any time the labor market gets tight enough workers can and do campaign for better working conditions and often get them.

Skilled labour, yes. Thank you for tossing in a 'Well, this subsect has it fine!' to try and get away from the fact it doesn't do shit for those who fall under unskilled labour. Does your worldview dismiss their suffering?

Indeed. A price too high decreases the happiness and causes suffering for the majority while only enriching a minority.

A price too high, most often will be brought down. The big money has always been in bringing a good or service to the masses. If there is a means to bring affordably to the masses, it will be brought.

Actually, you're completely wrong. The big money is in controlling a very large share of the market and charging exorbatantly. Microsoft, deBeers, you know, those folks. And do try not to puff your little toaster of a chest up too big trying to defend them. When the main threat to Microsoft's dominance is a pair of sources for whom the majority of products are free(Google and Linux.), clearly supply and demand didn't really work. Same with deBeers and a rock once found on the Indian beaches after big storms.

The truth is an efficient economy doesn't garuntee optimized happiness. A decidedly inefficient economy however does prohibit the optimization of happiness. In most cases optimizing economic efficiency tends to help optimize happiness.

Black/White Fallacy again. Rejecting a completely optimized economy for efficiency does not, will not, cast one into the depths of inefficiency, and certainly not to 'decidedly' inefficient ones. This comment just demonstrates that you're a moron: You have no argument unless you can dress up the decision as between optimal efficiency and some suffering, or a complete collapse and global suffering.

[Master of Ossus]

Hardly; one need only point out that taking advantage of people in times of emergency is immoral.

Who said anything about taking advantage of people?

That doesn't mean that one must deny that the mechanism of supply and demand exists; only that one need not be a mercenary and take full advantage of it all the time.

Again, this is not necessary for my views.

Many companies voluntarily refused to price-gouge in the aftermath of Katrina; does this mean they were "returning to some sort of Aquinian view of the 'just price'", or that their directors chose to behave in a more ethical fashion? You still insist upon pretending that supply and demand is an ethical principle rather than a description of a mechanism.

I'm merely pointing out that by obeying such a mechanism no one is necessarily acting unjustly--something that you and others have railed against in this thread. And, incidentally, any company can say that they're not going to charge a higher price in the aftermath of a disaster, but that's much more difficult to do if you're also increasing production which is... precisely what the refugees require them to do. I'm sure that a few companies are willing to take a temporary loss because of the unusual circumstances, but do not confuse a blanket statement that they're not going to charge higher prices with some sort of ethical imperative that their executives are obeying. And what sort of an alternative would you propose?

You seem quite fond of your bullshit today. What a customer can "afford" is based on numerous factors, including any and all factors that you have named. Your refusal to admit this is not my problem. Tell me, if you have $10k in the bank and something costs $5k, does that automatically mean you can afford it? No, because it's a question of whether you need it badly enough to empty half your bank account.

I suppose if you define ability to afford something in terms of demand then of course it's going to be true, however this is not the normal way of defining this term nor is it the one that most people use on the street.

And who decides that this is the case, rather than what I said, particularly since what I said is the justification that was originally used to implement antitrust laws?

Economists have long since established that the issue with monopolies is not that they charge higher prices per se but that they tend to under-produce for society. The latter is far more serious because the former merely changes the method in which surpluses are distributed but does nothing to change total surplus.

[Darth Wong]

I'm merely pointing out that by obeying such a mechanism no one is necessarily acting unjustly--something that you and others have railed against in this thread.

So when people say "they're assholes", you say "but they have not behaved unjustly," and what exactly does that mean? From what I can gather out of your posts, it means they haven't broken the law: precisely the evasion that I mentioned before. You are attempting to respond to an ethical accusation with a carefully worded non-ethics rebuttal.

And, incidentally, any company can say that they're not going to charge a higher price in the aftermath of a disaster, but that's much more difficult to do if you're also increasing production which is... precisely what the refugees require them to do. I'm sure that a few companies are willing to take a temporary loss because of the unusual circumstances, but do not confuse a blanket statement that they're not going to charge higher prices with some sort of ethical imperative that their executives are obeying. And what sort of an alternative would you propose?

Oh yeah, every company I ever worked for would suffer terribly if they sold more of their product at the same prices. Unless you're talking about long-term production increases and purchase of new equipment (which isn't going to happen for a transient situation such as this disaster), you're just blowing hot air.

I suppose if you define ability to afford something in terms of demand then of course it's going to be true, however this is not the normal way of defining this term nor is it the one that most people use on the street.

Oh really? So when Joe MiddleClass says he can't afford a Corvette, do you look at his assets, notice that he could afford to buy a much more expensive three-bedroom house, and then tell him he's wrong?

And who decides that this is the case, rather than what I said, particularly since what I said is the justification that was originally used to implement antitrust laws?

Economists have long since established that the issue with monopolies is not that they charge higher prices per se but that they tend to under-produce for society. The latter is far more serious because the former merely changes the method in which surpluses are distributed but does nothing to change total surplus.

Could you explain what the functional difference to the customer is, since underproduction will produce ... inflated prices, just as I said? Please try to discuss this without more of your endless hair-splitting and evasions.

[RThurmont]

I have to say, if the oil companies are gouging consumers, they're being rather moronic. Consider this: all executives of publically traded companies have fiduciary duty, that means they're legally obligated to maximize shareholder value.

Now, with the incredibly fat third quarter these companies had, investors have been selling the stocks, fearing massive government reprocussions for the massive profits these companies have made. As a result, profits have declined.

In theory, if it was revealed that an oil company had been deliberately gouging customers, that would constitute a breach of fiduciary duty, for obvious reasons.

One other aspect that should definitely be considered in all this, is that the oil business is very cyclical...the same companies who we are now infuriated at for making so much money lost their shirts in the 1980s. The energy sector involves massive amounts of luck (one company might have successful exploration initiatives while another company's exploration will fail), massive amounts of risk, and extremely volatile pricing over which the energy companies themselves have little control. They are price-takers, not price-makers.

Ultimately, if you are ticked off at these companies, the only consolation I can offer is to remind you that in 30-40 years time, when we'll all be driving around in fuel cell or advanced battery powered vehicles, these companies will be virtually out of business (unless they are able to change industries, which seems unlikely, since natural gas in all probability won't be as important then, either, and the natural gas business is an entirely different animal). Their sole raison d'etre will be supplying oil for use in the petrochemical industry for making things like plastics.

By the way, if there is a morale to learn in this story, it's that it pays to get a degree in chemical engineering. The CEOs of many of these firms, including ExxonMobil, all started with chemical engineering PhDs in the 1960s. They did far better than anyone could have imagined.

[tharkûn]

None of which generally helped for limbs caught in the workings, lad. Try to apply the three pounds of grey matter evolution provided for you; many creatures died for it.

If we are looking at optimization of happiness then we must balance the good against the bad. Industrial accidents vs better standard of living. Terrible outcomes for the few vs good outcomes for the many.

Supply of people was on the rise, and remains on the rise. Your immigration bit only applies to the US, by the by. Europe had similarly crappy standards when people were leaving the continent. So your claim as to the cause of the slowness?

Did you miss the urbanization part? Traditional European agriculture required far more labor than post mechanization. Likewise population was growing far too fast for enough land to be found to keep the rural population working - hence why the great cities experienced a flood of internal migration from the provinces to the industrial jobs. Was your history education that deficient?

Skilled labour, yes. Thank you for tossing in a 'Well, this subsect has it fine!'

I pointed it out that the laws of supply and demand will increase workplace safety when there is not a vast surplus of labor on the market; which historicly existed because it was either that or be unemployed and starve.

Actually, you're completely wrong. The big money is in controlling a very large share of the market and charging exorbatantly. Microsoft, deBeers, you know, those folks.

Wrong. Microsoft made its fortune on bringing computer OS's to the masses in the IBM clones, rather than having custom built OS's or specialized ones for mainframes. The fact that they basily stole CPM doesn't change the fact that they made their money by bringing a previously unobtainable good (an OS for IBM programs) to the masses.

When the main threat to Microsoft's dominance is a pair of sources for whom the majority of products are free(Google and Linux.), clearly supply and demand didn't really work.

Oh please:
1. One counter example does not negate a general trend. You name Microsoft and De Beers. I name Toyota, GE, Apple, Ebay, ICI, Goodyear, Sears, and 3M.
2. Microsofts tactics of datalock, private "standards", etc. allow it to maintain marketshare and are external to supply and demand.

Rejecting a completely optimized economy for efficiency does not, will not, cast one into the depths of inefficiency, and certainly not to 'decidedly' inefficient ones.

I never said it does. I said that in general not fighting the laws of supply and demand will lead to an increase in happiness or whatever your ethical measure. There WILL be exceptions. However unlike natural selection there is a direct correlation between economic efficiency and happiness. (or whatever). The times when increasing one does not increase the other are sufficiently rare that they should be dealt with on a case by case basis (and it is rather telling the examples you cite are among the most extreme cases in economics today).

[SirNitram]

None of which generally helped for limbs caught in the workings, lad. Try to apply the three pounds of grey matter evolution provided for you; many creatures died for it.

If we are looking at optimization of happiness then we must balance the good against the bad. Industrial accidents vs better standard of living. Terrible outcomes for the few vs good outcomes for the many.

Hey look, another Black/White fallacy from the retard. Because, as anyone who studied reality can see, we acheived both less accidents and a better standard of living.

It seems you really can't argue without distorting things.

Supply of people was on the rise, and remains on the rise. Your immigration bit only applies to the US, by the by. Europe had similarly crappy standards when people were leaving the continent. So your claim as to the cause of the slowness?

Did you miss the urbanization part? Traditional European agriculture required far more labor than post mechanization. Likewise population was growing far too fast for enough land to be found to keep the rural population working - hence why the great cities experienced a flood of internal migration from the provinces to the industrial jobs. Was your history education that deficient?

Was yours? You're the one who thinks you have to choose between optimal efficiency or gross inefficiency, or between industrial accidents and poor safety standards and a better standard of living.

I spoke of emigration, which was the biggest way it worked. But hey, keep singling things out so you can avoid seeing the forest for the tree in front of you.

Skilled labour, yes. Thank you for tossing in a 'Well, this subsect has it fine!'

I pointed it out that the laws of supply and demand will increase workplace safety when there is not a vast surplus of labor on the market; which historicly existed because it was either that or be unemployed and starve.

And as expected, you simply ignore the fact this leaves unskilled labour completely fucked, and snip it conveniently out to avoid having to address the fact your view leaves them to suffer without a word.

Actually, you're completely wrong. The big money is in controlling a very large share of the market and charging exorbatantly. Microsoft, deBeers, you know, those folks.

Wrong. Microsoft made its fortune on bringing computer OS's to the masses in the IBM clones, rather than having custom built OS's or specialized ones for mainframes. The fact that they basily stole CPM doesn't change the fact that they made their money by bringing a previously unobtainable good (an OS for IBM programs) to the masses.

Who the fuck is talking about stealing CPM? Are you imbecilic? Well, yes, you keep distorting things into idiotic black vs. white, embracing an idiotic, unregulated market vs. the downfall of modern civilization.

When the main threat to Microsoft's dominance is a pair of sources for whom the majority of products are free(Google and Linux.), clearly supply and demand didn't really work.

Oh please:
1. One counter example does not negate a general trend. You name Microsoft and De Beers. I name Toyota, GE, Apple, Ebay, ICI, Goodyear, Sears, and 3M.
2. Microsofts tactics of datalock, private "standards", etc. allow it to maintain marketshare and are external to supply and demand.

I will admit to misspeaking; I was meaning to refer to the concept that competition will drive down price, as opposed to straight supply vs. demand.

As for the 'ONE COUNTER EXAMPLE!', anyone can notice the profit margin differences. Bill Gates was, for quite a while, richest man in the world. The head of Toyota? Steve Jobs? You know, not so much.

Rejecting a completely optimized economy for efficiency does not, will not, cast one into the depths of inefficiency, and certainly not to 'decidedly' inefficient ones.

I never said it does. I said that in general not fighting the laws of supply and demand will lead to an increase in happiness or whatever your ethical measure. There WILL be exceptions. However unlike natural selection there is a direct correlation between economic efficiency and happiness. (or whatever). The times when increasing one does not increase the other are sufficiently rare that they should be dealt with on a case by case basis (and it is rather telling the examples you cite are among the most extreme cases in economics today).

Yes, they are extreme. The problem is, your pathetic worldview would increase their occourance, because whenever you are confronted with a 'regulation vs. no regulation' situation, you invariably call it 'Collapse of civilization vs. completely unrestricted capitalism.'.

At it's core, you seem to have not grokked Smith's point. The law of supply and demand, the way price will drop when there is proper competition.. The things he outlined is not an idealogy. It's a mechanism that kicks in under specific circumstances. Those are healthy competition, informed customers, and the ability for the customers to exercise choice.

The oil companies during this time to gouging don't meet the requires Smith himself laid out. They aren't competiting hard, as shown by the fact they all made obscene profits. There is little for the public to be informed of in the differences between products. And the necessity of gas(As shown by the inelasticity of the demand) makes it harder to shop.

So it is anyone not thinking that the market is magic, and realizing the mechanism requires certain things in place to work, it's clear the prices are just riding fear and profiteering. But noooo, we mustn't admit that suffering could occour from this and that's ethically bad. We mustn't admit that, because then we have nothing but our Black/White Fallacies of Utter Terribleness against Unrestricted Markets.

[tharkûn]

Because, as anyone who studied reality can see, we acheived both less accidents and a better standard of living.

So what? I didn't say that following supply and demand would result in perfect, I said it would increase happiness or whatever measure you like. So what do we measure the happiness these immigrants would have had being destitute and poor before and the balance of happiness after being employed. They experienced a net rise on average. It was perfect, but following supply and demand had a positive impact.

You're the one who thinks you have to choose between optimal efficiency or gross inefficiency, or between industrial accidents and poor safety standards and a better standard of living.

No that is your strawman. I pointed out that by giving these peoples jobs, with the dangers known to them, resulted in a net increase. Is that the best theoretical outcome? No. Was it a practical improvement? Yes. Did following supply and demand increase net happiness? Yes.

As for the 'ONE COUNTER EXAMPLE!', anyone can notice the profit margin differences. Bill Gates was, for quite a while, richest man in the world. The head of Toyota? Steve Jobs? You know, not so much.

Oh I have another example for you then: Ikea. Whose head was also the richest man in the world.

Are you imbecilic? Well, yes, you keep distorting things into idiotic black vs. white, embracing an idiotic, unregulated market vs. the downfall of modern civilization.

When have I ever advocated an unregulated market? Never. I have always held to a regulated market. However I don't think those regulations should seek to counteract supply and demand except in a minority of crucial cases.

It's a mechanism that kicks in under specific circumstances. Those are healthy competition, informed customers, and the ability for the customers to exercise choice.

It kicks in even when consumers are idiots, when you have complete monopolies, and command economies that give consumers no choice. There are these things we call them "black markets", virtually all consumer electronics markets, and national monopolies, etc.. Such less than ideal markets behave less than ideally, but they still function; it is terribly hard to stamp out substitutionary consumption.

You see folks never have I called for unrestricted free markets and indeed in this thread this is the first time SN has brought forth the phrase. Does a market need to be unrestricted for supply and demand to function? No. Is this whole claim that holding supply and demand to be a good goal tantamount to supporting unrestricted markets? No. In short having noticed that he can't make a case that holding supply and demand to be a good ideal for exchange is a bad thing in general, SN decides to go after the strawman of Randite capitalism. How sadly typical.

[SirNitram]

Because, as anyone who studied reality can see, we acheived both less accidents and a better standard of living.

So what? I didn't say that following supply and demand would result in perfect, I said it would increase happiness or whatever measure you like. So what do we measure the happiness these immigrants would have had being destitute and poor before and the balance of happiness after being employed. They experienced a net rise on average. It was perfect, but following supply and demand had a positive impact.

You're just flat out fucking delusional. You specifically said 'Industrial accidents vs. better standard of living'. Stop being a pathetic little wanker.

You said it would increase happiness, but you have failed to show it. You're not new here, Tharkun. You know how things work.

You're the one who thinks you have to choose between optimal efficiency or gross inefficiency, or between industrial accidents and poor safety standards and a better standard of living.

No that is your strawman. I pointed out that by giving these peoples jobs, with the dangers known to them, resulted in a net increase. Is that the best theoretical outcome? No. Was it a practical improvement? Yes. Did following supply and demand increase net happiness? Yes.

Lying peice of shit. Your own words: Industrial accidents vs better standard of living. and The truth is an efficient economy doesn't garuntee optimized happiness. A decidedly inefficient economy however does prohibit the optimization of happiness.

And when called on it? You just lie. Big surprise.

As for the 'ONE COUNTER EXAMPLE!', anyone can notice the profit margin differences. Bill Gates was, for quite a while, richest man in the world. The head of Toyota? Steve Jobs? You know, not so much.

Oh I have another example for you then: Ikea. Whose head was also the richest man in the world.

Congratulations. Not all multi-billionaires are assholes. That does not mean that one should not work against the assholes.

Are you imbecilic? Well, yes, you keep distorting things into idiotic black vs. white, embracing an idiotic, unregulated market vs. the downfall of modern civilization.

When have I ever advocated an unregulated market? Never. I have always held to a regulated market. However I don't think those regulations should seek to counteract supply and demand except in a minority of crucial cases.

Then why do you post Black/White Fallacies to the effect of that, then? I've quoted them for your convenience, but you'll probaby just snip them away. Hint: That works better on newsgroups than on BBS'.

It's a mechanism that kicks in under specific circumstances. Those are healthy competition, informed customers, and the ability for the customers to exercise choice.

It kicks in even when consumers are idiots, when you have complete monopolies, and command economies that give consumers no choice. There are these things we call them "black markets", virtually all consumer electronics markets, and national monopolies, etc.. Such less than ideal markets behave less than ideally, but they still function; it is terribly hard to stamp out substitutionary consumption.

I like how you've decided to focus on 'Well, it doesn't really work properly, but the general idea works, even if the prices won't actually improve, if the products don't improve, etc'. Hell, look at the cell phone industry. As Information Weekly pointed out recently, when it was two giants and clueless consumers, prices were high, and customer choice and service were crap. As the number of competitors increased, customer awareness increased, and so forth, the benefits of the free market actually kicked in.

Sadly, Tharkun, your proven lying ass is less than convincing.

You see folks never have I called for unrestricted free markets and indeed in this thread this is the first time SN has brought forth the phrase. Does a market need to be unrestricted for supply and demand to function? No. Is this whole claim that holding supply and demand to be a good goal tantamount to supporting unrestricted markets? No. In short having noticed that he can't make a case that holding supply and demand to be a good ideal for exchange is a bad thing in general, SN decides to go after the strawman of Randite capitalism. How sadly typical.

Lookie at the grandstanding bullshit. Your quotes stand clear that you were engaging in fallacious logic to try and argue against regulation against price-gouging, and when you're called on it? No, you don't actually debate. You lie and then you try an appeal to the audience. Sorry, doesn't work with informed audiences: They see you for the snivelling twerp you are, a liar who will engage in any fallacy to try and avoid losing a point.

You're an imbecile, I repeat one more time for the record. You've stated that economics should be argued by idealology! What, don't they teach facts and logic in economics? You pretend I'm saying 'supply and demand bad!' when I made a specific point when I started posting: Supply and demand is a mechanism, and thus, inherently neutral. But throwing people to the harsh shores of whatever mechanism seems to work isn't ethical.

[tharkûn]

You said it would increase happiness, but you have failed to show it.

Normally having longer life expectancy with more purchasing power is considered equivalent to an increase in happiness.

Industrial accidents vs better standard of living. and The truth is an efficient economy doesn't garuntee optimized happiness. A decidedly inefficient economy however does prohibit the optimization of happiness.

And when called on it? You just lie.

BS. When we look at the utility of following supply and demand in nineteenth century employment we look take a look at the balance of things. Without following supply and demand workers were destitute and perhaps starving, following it they had longer life expectancies, better incomes, and much better diet (not to mention their children had it even better by being able to be better educated); against that we we must weigh the industrial accidents. On balance it is better to risk an accident than to have malnurished children, but maybe you'd be happier the other way around

So the net results were positive. Hence the elementary market mechanism managed an increase in happiness.

Congratulations. Not all multi-billionaires are assholes. That does not mean that one should not work against the assholes.

In other words you are just using Gates and the rest as red herrings, thinking if you spew enough detested figures it will cover up your lack of an evidenced point.

Then why do you post Black/White Fallacies to the effect of that, then? I've quoted them for your convenience, but you'll probaby just snip them away. Hint: That works better on newsgroups than on BBS'.

What the hell is your problem? You asked why natural selection "works" but should be an ideal; and then tried to extend the analogy to supply and demand "working" and should it be an ideal. The answer was natural selection optimizes something which has little to no bearing upon happiness while supply and demand optimizes something intrinsicly linked to happiness.

I like how you've decided to focus on 'Well, it doesn't really work properly, but the general idea works, even if the prices won't actually improve, if the products don't improve, etc'. Hell, look at the cell phone industry. As Information Weekly pointed out recently, when it was two giants and clueless consumers, prices were high, and customer choice and service were crap. As the number of competitors increased, customer awareness increased, and so forth, the benefits of the free market actually kicked in.

Quote the numbers. I hold that competition makes the market work better, but that its abscence does not make the market useless.

Your quotes stand clear that you were engaging in fallacious logic to try and argue against regulation against price-gouging, and when you're called on it?

A 10% profit isn't price-gouging

If this is price-gouging then you need to state your quantified definition of the term, something I've asked repeatedly for but it seems no one has both the balls and brains to post.

You've stated that economics should be argued by idealology! What, don't they teach facts and logic in economics? You pretend I'm saying 'supply and demand bad!' when I made a specific point when I started posting: Supply and demand is a mechanism, and thus, inherently neutral. But throwing people to the harsh shores of whatever mechanism seems to work isn't ethical.

When the outcome is better, including the costs of enforcing compliance, black market activity, hoarding, shortages, or whatever, then I am amendable to trying to circumvent supply and demand (and for more detail please read Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff by Okun). There are consequences to circumventing supply and demand, historicly they've been worse than harm they were trying to correct.

[SirNitram]

You said it would increase happiness, but you have failed to show it.

Normally having longer life expectancy with more purchasing power is considered equivalent to an increase in happiness.

And when rising prices are reducing your purchasing power, Tharkun? That's right, we're supposed to ignore that.

Industrial accidents vs better standard of living. and The truth is an efficient economy doesn't garuntee optimized happiness. A decidedly inefficient economy however does prohibit the optimization of happiness.

And when called on it? You just lie.

BS. When we look at the utility of following supply and demand in nineteenth century employment we look take a look at the balance of things. Without following supply and demand workers were destitute and perhaps starving, following it they had longer life expectancies, better incomes, and much better diet (not to mention their children had it even better by being able to be better educated); against that we we must weigh the industrial accidents. On balance it is better to risk an accident than to have malnurished children, but maybe you'd be happier the other way around

Gods, you're a dumb peice of shit. It is not 'risk an accident vs. have malnourished kids'. It is 'Risk an accident vs. have slightly lower profits from regulations'.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. Your whole argument is strawmen and black/white fallacies. Can you address the real rebuttals, for once? Or is that expecting too much from you?

So the net results were positive. Hence the elementary market mechanism managed an increase in happiness.

And when coupled with sensible interference, increased happiness alot more. By less severed hands. But you run away from that.

Congratulations. Not all multi-billionaires are assholes. That does not mean that one should not work against the assholes.

In other words you are just using Gates and the rest as red herrings, thinking if you spew enough detested figures it will cover up your lack of an evidenced point.

No, you fucking imbecile. I point out that the world is not the idealized free market you want it to be in all occasions. See, I actually read and understood Smith, you just seem to parrot some retard economist.

Then why do you post Black/White Fallacies to the effect of that, then? I've quoted them for your convenience, but you'll probaby just snip them away. Hint: That works better on newsgroups than on BBS'.

What the hell is your problem? You asked why natural selection "works" but should be an ideal; and then tried to extend the analogy to supply and demand "working" and should it be an ideal. The answer was natural selection optimizes something which has little to no bearing upon happiness while supply and demand optimizes something intrinsicly linked to happiness.

Ensuring a healthy life until and through mating age isn't happiness? News to me, kiddo. You're the one whose arguing a mockery of Smith's writings should be revered as holy writ, as opposed to interfering for ethical reasons.

You're strawmanning me, kid. I'm not saying we abandon supply and demand. Never was, because you can't. It's a mechanism that's always there.

I like how you've decided to focus on 'Well, it doesn't really work properly, but the general idea works, even if the prices won't actually improve, if the products don't improve, etc'. Hell, look at the cell phone industry. As Information Weekly pointed out recently, when it was two giants and clueless consumers, prices were high, and customer choice and service were crap. As the number of competitors increased, customer awareness increased, and so forth, the benefits of the free market actually kicked in.

Quote the numbers. I hold that competition makes the market work better, but that its abscence does not make the market useless.

Aren't you cute, demanding numbers when repeatedly asked to prove your statements and responding with nothing more than more naked assertions.

Your quotes stand clear that you were engaging in fallacious logic to try and argue against regulation against price-gouging, and when you're called on it?

A 10% profit isn't price-gouging

We aren't talking about 10%, you inbred, Republidrone, brainwashed peice of trolling gutter trash.

We're talking about 75% profits to use Exxon Mobile as an example. Does your semievolved lump of grey goo get that? It's not ten fucking percent, you are a liar and a troll for trying to use that.

If this is price-gouging then you need to state your quantified definition of the term, something I've asked repeatedly for but it seems no one has both the balls and brains to post.

Given your rebuttal was aimed at some fantasyland where profits were one-seventh what they really were, I'll just ignore your whining.

You've stated that economics should be argued by idealology! What, don't they teach facts and logic in economics? You pretend I'm saying 'supply and demand bad!' when I made a specific point when I started posting: Supply and demand is a mechanism, and thus, inherently neutral. But throwing people to the harsh shores of whatever mechanism seems to work isn't ethical.

When the outcome is better, including the costs of enforcing compliance, black market activity, hoarding, shortages, or whatever, then I am amendable to trying to circumvent supply and demand (and for more detail please read Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff by Okun). There are consequences to circumventing supply and demand, historicly they've been worse than harm they were trying to correct.

And how does cracking down on people who bounce the price like a rubber high bounce ball for their own interests circumvent supply and demand? Demand is static, supply is, at present, increasing, as those who angrily point out more oil is coming out of the ground than ever. Smith demands, therefore, that price goes down.

[tharkûn]

And when rising prices are reducing your purchasing power, Tharkun? That's right, we're supposed to ignore that.

Funny thing that. The industrial revolution did this wonderous thing and lowered prices; you know that was kind of the whole point - goods required less labor to make so they were sold for less.

It is not 'risk an accident vs. have malnourished kids'. It is 'Risk an accident vs. have slightly lower profits from regulations'.

Regulations can happen with or without following supply and demand. There are numerous examples of regulations in command economies which attempted to circumvent supply and demand by fiat. Following supply and demand raised standard of living, deal with it. Possibly it didn't raise it as much as was theoreticly possible, but following it did have a net positive impact.

I point out that the world is not the idealized free market you want it to be in all occasions. See, I actually read and understood Smith, you just seem to parrot some retard economist.

That would be the difference I read multiple economists, ones with experience in this century and unlike you I don't feel the need to call Nobel laureates "retard"s.

Ensuring a healthy life until and through mating age isn't happiness?

Nope. There are numerous species which are completely insentient till mating age. Indeed pain responses, loneliness, sexual frustration, etc. are all unhappy mechanisms which result in survival.

Aren't you cute, demanding numbers when repeatedly asked to prove your statements and responding with nothing more than more naked assertions.

Concession accepted you cannot or will not quantitatively define gouging.

We aren't talking about 10%, you inbred, Republidrone, brainwashed peice of trolling gutter trash.

We're talking about 75% profits to use Exxon Mobile as an example. Does your semievolved lump of grey goo get that?

What a moron. Let me quote the legally binding figures (as in if you can prove this wrong people can go to jail):
Revenue:
$100,717,000

Costs:
$84,665,000

Income taxes:
$6,132,000

Net income:
$9,920,000

9.9 billion is just slightly less than 10% of 100 billion. Profit is 10% revenue. Any other blatant lies you'd like put forth? (Oh and the year to date proft is again just slightly less than 10% of revenue, the two year average is significantly lower, and the three year average lower still)

Now if you can show me where Exxon is hiding $75,538,000 dollars or how they overstated revenue by a factor of 7.6 (and in that case where they managed to find oil at under half of market value) or any combination equivalent; I will mail you my stock dividends from Exxon for this quarter.

Given your rebuttal was aimed at some fantasyland where profits were one-seventh what they really were, I'll just ignore your whining.

Concession accepted. Thanks for playing, dumbass.

And how does cracking down on people who bounce the price like a rubber high bounce ball for their own interests circumvent supply and demand?

Who are these people? If we are talking oil only Aramco has anything close to that type of power. In most other goods bouncing the price is extremely hard to do unless a government has stepped in and created artificial boundaries to the free flow of goods of services.

Demand is static, supply is, at present, increasing, as those who angrily point out more oil is coming out of the ground than ever. Smith demands, therefore, that price goes down.

What planet do you live on? China's oil consumption is currently growing at a rate around 10% per annum (last year's figure was a 15% increase). Since 1990 its oil consumption has increased 7% per annum. India is only slightly behind with an average 6% increase in oil consumption per annum. Togethor that means that one third of the global market for oil is witnessing a 6-7% increase per year. That ignores other sources of emerging demand (like South Korea, Eastern Europe, etc.) and the increase in US demand due solely to population growth. The world's population is getting bigger, people are buying more consumer goods (particularly cars), and the demand is increasing.

Demand is increasing, supply is also increasing. Currently demand is rising faster than supply; Smith goes with higher average prices (and please don't be a moron and make peak to trough measurements).

So all told SN is a liar who over states Exxons net profit margin by a factor of 7.5, apparently in his world China and India have static demand for oil, and he is unwilling to quantitatively define "gouging". Sadly this is nothing new, rather than have an honest debate he must resort to lies, obliviously stupid statements, and obfuscation. Perhaps he will grow the brain and balls required to actually define his central charge, but I doubt it.

[Master of Ossus]

So when people say "they're assholes", you say "but they have not behaved unjustly," and what exactly does that mean? From what I can gather out of your posts, it means they haven't broken the law: precisely the evasion that I mentioned before. You are attempting to respond to an ethical accusation with a carefully worded non-ethics rebuttal.

Usually the word justice does carry with it a moral imperative.

Oh really? So when Joe MiddleClass says he can't afford a Corvette, do you look at his assets, notice that he could afford to buy a much more expensive three-bedroom house, and then tell him he's wrong?

I suppose not.

Could you explain what the functional difference to the customer is, since underproduction will produce ... inflated prices, just as I said? Please try to discuss this without more of your endless hair-splitting and evasions.

You realize that there are ways for monopolies to increase price without necessarily decreasing production, don't you? In fact, such methods are often embraced by government regulators who are dealing with monopolies because they offer a way to cut back on the difference in quantity that can be provided economically by a monopolist.

[SirNitram]

And when rising prices are reducing your purchasing power, Tharkun? That's right, we're supposed to ignore that.

Funny thing that. The industrial revolution did this wonderous thing and lowered prices; you know that was kind of the whole point - goods required less labor to make so they were sold for less.

I see you're going to throw red herrings around and think no one will notice them.

It is not 'risk an accident vs. have malnourished kids'. It is 'Risk an accident vs. have slightly lower profits from regulations'.

Regulations can happen with or without following supply and demand. There are numerous examples of regulations in command economies which attempted to circumvent supply and demand by fiat. Following supply and demand raised standard of living, deal with it. Possibly it didn't raise it as much as was theoreticly possible, but following it did have a net positive impact.

Wow. Whose talking about a command economy, you lying dipshit? That'd be no one. You can go fuck yourself sideways with a coathangar now, troll.

I point out that the world is not the idealized free market you want it to be in all occasions. See, I actually read and understood Smith, you just seem to parrot some retard economist.

That would be the difference I read multiple economists, ones with experience in this century and unlike you I don't feel the need to call Nobel laureates "retard"s.

If the crap you're spewing came from a Laureate, one of two things is true:

Damn, the standards dropped.

You're lying/too stupid to understand what they really meant/In a psychotrophic haze.

Ensuring a healthy life until and through mating age isn't happiness?

Nope. There are numerous species which are completely insentient till mating age. Indeed pain responses, loneliness, sexual frustration, etc. are all unhappy mechanisms which result in survival.

Ah, so clearly we would magically metamophize into these if we instituted eugenics. You're a flaming idiot as well as a troll, I see. I guess extended time on the far Right really does breed Creationist thought.

Aren't you cute, demanding numbers when repeatedly asked to prove your statements and responding with nothing more than more naked assertions.

Concession accepted you cannot or will not quantitatively define gouging.

Shall I accept your concession on everything you've failed to show a source for? That'd be the entire debate.

We aren't talking about 10%, you inbred, Republidrone, brainwashed peice of trolling gutter trash.

We're talking about 75% profits to use Exxon Mobile as an example. Does your semievolved lump of grey goo get that?

What a moron. Let me quote the legally binding figures (as in if you can prove this wrong people can go to jail):
9.9 billion is just slightly less than 10% of 100 billion. Profit is 10% revenue. Any other blatant lies you'd like put forth? (Oh and the year to date proft is again just slightly less than 10% of revenue, the two year average is significantly lower, and the three year average lower still)

Let's see. Tharkun posts numbers with no source. As to be expected from a lying, gutter-sucking troll.

I provide the following sources citing the very 75% leap in profit I was referring to:

Post

CNN

[Edit - Times link is being bad. Removed due to uber-spam.]

I wonder what Tharky will do now? Semantics-whoring, that's my guess.

And how does cracking down on people who bounce the price like a rubber high bounce ball for their own interests circumvent supply and demand?

Who are these people? If we are talking oil only Aramco has anything close to that type of power. In most other goods bouncing the price is extremely hard to do unless a government has stepped in and created artificial boundaries to the free flow of goods of services.

Funny, these companies cite the aforementioned 50-75 percent increases in pure profits so clearly it wasn't a price increase based on cost. But of course unless I somehow had names from an investigation you'd whine nd bitch.

Demand is static, supply is, at present, increasing, as those who angrily point out more oil is coming out of the ground than ever. Smith demands, therefore, that price goes down.

What planet do you live on?

One in which mistakes are admitted: I had a brain fart and mixed 'inelastic demand' with 'static demand'. My claims about oil demand are wrong, and I concede that point alone.

But you just haaaaave to grandstand some more. What a fucking troglodyte you are.