Price "Gouging"

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Malum Prohibitum, Sep 1, 2005.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    62,512
    18
    38
    Sonny Perdue signs price "gouging" executive order, threatening to take action against gas stations that raise prices too high: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=46083


    Has it ever occurred to this Republican (the party of small government and less control, right?) that the price was too LOW? If it were not too low, then why did gas stations run out of gas?

    Price - that controls the demand. If you artificially restrict the price, then people hoard, which is what happened yesterday. The same thing happened in Florida during the hurricanes.

    Laissez faire! Let the price float. Those of you interested in liberty beyond the Second Amendment ought to be breaking out your pens and telephones right about now . . .
     
  2. Wiley

    Wiley New Member

    2,609
    0
    0
    Hear! Hear!

    'Socialist Sonny' also diddled with taxes to implement his notions of proper behavior when he first came into office. Seems govenments idea of gouging depends more on what they think is 'nice' rather than what is rational.
     

  3. ICP_Juggalo

    ICP_Juggalo New Member

    1,922
    0
    0
    I understand where you're coming from. Let the "law" of supply and demand dictate the price. But when is enough, enough? What do you say to the person that was running on empty and had to fill up at the $9 a gallon station across the street because there was no gas at the other $3 a gallon stations?

    I think people who charge outrageously for a product that should cost 3 times less should face some legal penalty. To charge someone $9 a gallon for gas is uncalled for. As I drove around the other day watching the hording as I drove by gas stations, I noticed that the stations that had gas for $2.89 a gallon were swamped with cars, whereas the gas station down the road had gas for $3.19 a gallon and had absolutely no cars at the pumps and had plenty of gas. There is no justification for anyone to charge $3.50+ for a gallon of gas. Just raising the price above $3 a gallon was sufficent enough to put a stop to the hording, but also made the price still bearable for someone who actually needed gas to keep their car going.

    I am not fan of "socialist sonny" :lol: myself, especially after he put a lid on our bill this past legislative session. but IMHO he has it right with going after people who gouge the price of gas of $4+ and putting moratorium on gas tax until the end of September.
     
  4. Wiley

    Wiley New Member

    2,609
    0
    0
    is the wrong question.

    The proper question is: Who decides? And about what?

    'Gouging' applies to ALL products and services not just gas. Is over a grand for a tricked out Kimber or Wilson 1911 gouging or should the goverment force them to charge the same as a Jennings(?).

    How much should a Motel room, a beer, an airline ticket cost?

    [Milton Freidman voice on] Let the market decide! [Milton Freidman voice off]
     
  5. ICP_Juggalo

    ICP_Juggalo New Member

    1,922
    0
    0
    You're comparing apples and oranges.

    Gasoline is a bare nessecity in our society. Without it you're going to have a real tough time making a living for yourself, unless your income and food source is within walking distance of your house. Taking advantage of an every day need that most people rely on, and yes gouging is taking advantage, is wrong and the people that do it to a bare nessecity be it food or gasoline, is a dispicable piece of human garbage. Last time I looked, the oil companies were making a pretty good profit before, during, and well after the gouging.

    The items that you're comparing to gas are nothing but mere luxuries. They are not nessecities. So therefore the law of supply and demand should dictate their prices seeing how that they are not an everyday purchase for most people. I can't seem to ever remember any hoarding of airline tickets or beer.
     
  6. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    62,512
    18
    38
    From these sentences, it is clear that you recognize the principle at stake here.

    What you should know is that the long lines and hoarding were caused by the price being artificially low. You see no reason to have the gas at $3.50 a gallon, and in fact are willing to use a gun to prevent someone from charging such a price (that is what you said even though you may not have realized it at the time - think about how government must, of necessity, enforce laws). The fact that the higher price gas stations still had gas while the lower priced ones did not, undermines your premise (which is that the purchases were a "necessity" - as if someone else's "need" establishes a mortgage on your life, labor, and property). If they were indeed a necessity, you would have seen lines at the more expensive stations. The reason you saw lines at the less expensive stations was that people were buying gas they most emphatically did not need. Gas at the more expensive stations remained for those that truly needed it. Had gas been cheap everywhere, there may not have been any gas left for anyone.

    Think about it this way: If the gas was $7.99 a gallon on Thursday, most people would not have rushed in all 3 of their cars, their lawn mower can, and their golf cart (I did in fact see people filling their golf carts Thursday). They would have preferred to wait until the car was on empty, rather than filling up every car whose needle was not on full (which is exactly what I did - waited until it was under $3.00 again . . .).

    Then, not selling any gas, the vendors would begin to lower prices.

    There would not have been any shortage if gas prices had temporarily risen to reflect demand, because only people that "needed" gas would have purchased at the higher rates.

    I heard this example on Boortz, and I like it (paraphrased, of course):

    Hurricane in Florida - ice cube shortage.

    If the price is kept artificially low through a price gouging law, then people will buy all of the ice that remains. The mother with a baby who needs to keep milk cool, will find none when she arrives because it was purchased by the guy who wanted to keep his Budweiser cool, and he thought fifty cents was not too much to pay.

    Had the price been allowed to rise with demand, perhaps the Budweiser guy would have thought that $3.00 was too much, but the mother with the baby would have gladly forked over $3.00 for the ice, which was still available for her baby because Mr. Budweiser did not buy it.

    But ICP Juggalo was elected (or urges his elected representatives) and passes a law to use guns to shoot or incarcerate store owners who charge more than 60 cents (after all, that is 20% more, those greedy, cruel, rich store owners should be satisfied). Budweiser still gets his ice, momma and baby do not. Baby suffers. That is the consequence of your strategy, which was well intentioned, but not very well thought out.

    One must think through all the consequences to all of the parties involved prior to making a decision on this subject. Usually those who advocate price controls (which introduce shortages and all sorts of other problems) have rarely thought beyond "I need it and therefore someone ought to do something." That something is always a gun pointed at someone else, and in the case of price controls the result is inevitably a scarcity that need not have occurred had the market been left to operate.
     
  7. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    62,512
    18
    38

    Was it a necessity on Thursday? I didn't think so.

    What is your problem with "making a pretty good profit?" What exactly is it that you think motivates so many people and companies to engage in so many efforts just to fill an underground storage tank with gasoline so that it is there when you want it? Altruism? Service to the collective? Just because they like you and think you are swell?

    Why exactly are things so plentiful in this country?

    Answer: Profit. :wink:
     
  8. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    62,512
    18
    38
    Thomas Sowell on "Price Gouging"

    Please go here and read this short article by economist Thomas Sowell on the price gouging law in Florida. This article was published on September 14, 2004, shortly after several hurricanes caused devastation in Florida. Mr. Sowell articulately uses the example of a roof over one's head, which I am sure we can agree is a "necessity," right?

    Anyway, here is the link: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thom ... 0914.shtml


    and it is highly recommended.
     
  9. ICP_Juggalo

    ICP_Juggalo New Member

    1,922
    0
    0
    Malum, I think you're missing my point. As noted in my observations, stations charging $3+ a gallon of gas during the hoarding did not experience the hoarding like the $2.89 a gallon gas stations. The $3 a gallon gas stations still had plenty of gas at a reasonable price for someone who had an empty tank to fill to last them until the hoarding had subsided.

    Charging $6, $7, $8, and$9 a gallon for gas is uncalled for and a blatant attempt of the gas station owner or whoever to take advantage of a bad situation. Maybe someone with a $300 an hour lawyer salary can afford to pay that kind of price to fill their tank, but a person with a $15 dollar an hour salary, as well as many others, cannot afford to fill their tank with prices that high. And yes, there were people who were running on E on Thursday that desperately needed gas.

    I never said I had a "problem" with a making a pretty good profit. Please don't put words in my mouth. What I do have a problem with, is others taking advantage of people during a bad situation. The people that gouge know they are gonna get some unlucky bloke that desperately needs gas because this unlucky person can't find gas anywhere and sees that this guy's $9 a gallon gas station is the only place in town with gas, but its no use to this person because he cannot afford the overblown price this gas station is wanting to charge people with. So the customer is screwed both ways. He is driving on empty and he only has $5 which would be enough to buy half a gallon of gas at this gougers station, but it wont be enough gas to get the person where he needs to go. So what is this customer to do?

    So I wll say it one more time. There is no need, other than to take advantage of people, to charge outrageous gas prices of $4 or more a gallon, when only adding .30 cents or so to the current price was sufficent enough to cut down on hoarding, but keep the price affordable enough for someone who really needed to buy gas to get them where they needed to go.
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    62,512
    18
    38
    I think I understand your point completely.

    It is this:

    Rather than leaving two parties free to contract what they are willing to exchange, you wish to regulate the exchange to a certain acceptable price not to exceed what you believe to be appropriate - even if the buyer is willing to pay more! Willing buyer + willing seller = prison. Pretty good math, huh?

    There is a possibility, however, that it might take $7.00 a gallon or more (and not $3.00) if you are closer to the area of devastation to keep the station from running out of gas (which would encourage people to pile the family all into one car rather than taking two or three cars- thus actually having the beneficial effect of leaving gas for someone else - maybe you). If the price is left artificially at $3.00, then there is nothing left very soon because of hoarding. The very fact of hoarding shows that people recognize the price is too low. Have you ever hoarded anything you thought was over priced? Pause. Me, either.

    It is not, however, out of a desire to conserve gas that the prices are raised. Rather, it is charging what the market will bear and thus maximizing profit. The conservation of the gas is the beneficial by-product, or consequence, of maximizing the profit.

    If the market will not bear the $7.00, then the price will descend to what the market will bear.

    If you bought gas on Thursday without really needing it on that day, then you contributed to the problem by increasing what the market would bear. This particular lawyer waited until he could get the gas at below $3, as I wrote above.

    As for lawyers making a $300 hourly salary (oh- the class warfare begins), well, while there are some lawyers charging that amount (I know some), this is not their salary any more than the $900 price of a computer one buys at Best Buy is the salary of the sales guy for the 15 minutes it took for the sale to occur (and it is not the salary of anyone else at Best Buy, either). It is simply revenue to the company or firm. Salaries are paid to employees (a cost to the company), and profit margins to owners (there is that profit word again). People pay the $300 per hour because they value the legal service more than the money. The same goes for gasoline, except for the fact that gasoline is a commodity, and if one outfit sells the gas at a price that is "too high," then a competitor can undercut that outfit by selling at a discount to what the other place charges.

    In your posts you make it seem as of there is only one gas station, no competition, and thus the freedom to charge whatever and leave us poor motorists stuck with it. That is not the way a market works - Not with gasoline or any other product or service. Prices that are too high encourage a greater supply, as competitors seek to rake in some of the "obscene" profit. This brings down the price, at which point the supply slows down. If the price is forced down artificially, the supply may dwindle to the point of a "shortage."

    It is a little different with legal services in that while one may undercut my rate, he may not approach the quality of my service, and thus a client may choose to pay more for a better product.

    I would like to feel very smug in that my 12 year old Saturn still gets 38 miles per gallon, but I hate the car and still want to buy a big, gas guzzling, powerful monster of a car . . . I just have other uses for the ridiculous $30k plus it would require nowadays to buy such a car . . .

    See? Price controls scarcity. If such cars were free, I would grab more than one!


    P.S. If gas were selling for $9.00 a gallon in Louisiana, do you think you would join me in investing in the rental of a tanker truck and a driver to drive over there and sell gas at $5.00 or $6.00 a gallon? We could probably sell out, at a huge profit, in one afternoon! Others would do the same. If too many did the same, it would force the price down . . . You see my point, I hope.
     
  11. ICP_Juggalo

    ICP_Juggalo New Member

    1,922
    0
    0
    I will admit that I still don't totally understand where you are coming from and I also feel at the same time you still don't quite grasp the point I am trying to make. So I will see if I can explain it a little more simpler.

    Where I live there are 2 gas stations all within a mile from where I live. The next nearest gas station is about 6 miles away. Ok lets say there is a family traveling through and they are running on empty. They have to stop now for gas. The only carry a limited amount of cash, lets say $10. Their credit cards are useless because the gas stations around here, and some still are, are only taking cash for gas sales. This family still has 30 miles to go before they reach wherever it is they need to go. They pass some gas stations, but the gas stations either had long lines or they were charging $3.20 a gallon for gas - which they wanted to get farther away from the city to see if they could find gas a little cheaper so they could be sure to get enough to get where they needed to go.

    So they decide to stop in boondockville, where I live, at the local gas station. The gas station is selling gas for $2.89 a gallon. But the gas staion owner says he out, but Cowboys down the road a mile has gas and is selling for $3.19 a gallon. The family decides that they need gas and is willing to pay the extra that the hoarders weren't going to pay for gas. Well before the family makes it to Cowboy's gas station, the owner of Cowboy's finds out that his only competition within a 6 mile radius has sold out of gas and that anyone driving through needing gas will stop at his station because his station is the only game around for now. So he decides that he can take advantage of the situation by rasing his price to $8.99 a gallon. And he still isn't accepting credit card purchases because every credit card purchase costs him 3% of the total sale - after all he wants to "maximize" his profits during this rumored gas shortage.

    So the family arrives at Cowboys to their dismay to see the price at $8.99 a gallon instead of the $3.19 a gallon they were previously told. So now they are in a predicament. They only have $10 cash, their credit cards are useless to this vendor. So now they can only get a gallon or so of gas and that will not be enough to get them home seeing how their car only gets 20 miles to the gallon or so and even if it was enough to get them home, would they have enough to get them to another gas station to put gas in the car?

    There is no justifiable reason to markup the price of a commodity 3 times the current market price and demand other than to give the vendor an "artificial" high and maximize his/her profits. I remain steadfast in my previous comments, rasing the gas prices to the $3.20 - $3.50 a gallon range was enough to stop the hoarding at those respective stations and preserve the gas supply, but at the same time keeping the price reasonable enough for someone who needed gas could afford it. The vendors and oil companies were and still are making a sizeable profit to keep the gasoline business most lucrative to them. Anyone charging more than $4 a gallon of gas is doing nothing more than taking advantage of the current situation. I find it inconcievable to think that a vendor charging more than $4 a gallon of gas is doing so to conserve it. After all their ultimate goal is to sell it.

    Finally, last I heard a vendor wasn't facing prison time for gouging people, but be being slapped with a $5,000 fine. That should take a chunk out of the profits they made from the artificial high they set.
     
  12. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    62,512
    18
    38
    OK, I'll bite. Just exactly what is it you think happens when the owner refuses to pay the fine? You aren't one of these people that thinks law is something other than force, are you?

    Even if there is no competition within 6 miles, I think the gas station owner will have a very hard time selling gas at $8.99 a gallon (I also think he will lose all of his local repeat business for the future). In order to sell, he will have to lower his price.

    Hardship stories don't sell here (even ones about dummies "travelling" with their entire family with only $10). I ain't buying. Either the principle is a good one, or it is not. This is not a matter of degree. Once one accepts the principle that you have put forward, it is only a matter of setting the acceptable "price." I reject the principle. No government setting of prices.

    Law is force. I therefore reject using that force in any circumstance in which you as an individual could not use the same level of force. That the force is applied collectively, or with the vote of a majority, does not make it any more legitimate. One must be careful why and when he allows that force to be unleashed. Unleashing it because of a potential sob story that someone dreams up is, in general, a bad idea and a bad precedent.

    Unleashing it to administer the death penalty to a murderer is another matter entirely.


    Here is the law, by the way:


    10-1-393.4.
    (a) It shall be an unlawful, unfair, and deceptive trade practice for any person, firm, or corporation doing business in any area in which a state of emergency, as such term is defined in Code Section 38-3-3, has been declared, for as long as such state of emergency exists, to sell or offer for sale at retail any goods or services necessary to preserve, protect, or sustain the life, health, or safety of persons or their property at a price higher than the price at which such goods were sold or offered for sale immediately prior to the declaration of a state of emergency; provided, however, that such price may be increased only in an amount which accurately reflects an increase in cost of the goods or services to the person selling the goods or services or an increase in the cost of transporting the goods or services into the area.
    (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this Code section, a retailer or installer of lumber, plywood, and other lumber products may increase the price of such products as may be necessary to replenish his or her existing daily stock at current market rates, maintaining the same markup percentage he or she applied prior to the state of emergency.
     
  13. ICP_Juggalo

    ICP_Juggalo New Member

    1,922
    0
    0
    And why not? You made previous reference to a family loading up in one car to go get gas. Why would it be inconcievable to think that they don't have more than $10 between them? Maybe they spent it on groceries, maybe they only have one source of income, maybe they have to go withdraw from the bank, but have to stop and get gas so they can make it to the bank. You don't know what everyones' situation is. You can't say for certain that there is or there isn't a family, couple, or even a single person on the road that is in a time of hardship and would or would not have enough money to buy from a gouger. How can you possibly know?

    And before I get accused for being a poor sympathizer. People who are poor and have hardships have no one to blame but themselves. Maybe they made an unwise decision at a crossroad in their life or maybe they were just plain dumb. But they should learn from their mistakes, not be punished for it. And gouging a poor family that needs gas and only has a limited number of funds is downright shitty. Do you just say "oh well, just their luck. nevermind the jerk that is overpricing a good that helps sustain life."

    I'm sorry, but I agree with the law in this situation. If a vendor is selling a good or service that is neccessary to sustain life and during an emergency, crisis, or any other negative situation, jacks the price up to a point that it is NOT refelcting the current market price and demand, only to maximize their profit by creating an artificial high, then yes there should be some civil liability on their part. And they are welcome, I'm sure, to contest that in court if they have been fined and feel they shouldn't have been held liable for gouging their prices.

    I have no use and no sympathy for people who enjoy giving others the bone. By charging 3-4 times more than the current amount for a nessecity has nothing to do with conservancy, It is about capitalizing on other peoples' hard times and I find it dispicable.
     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    62,512
    18
    38
    I am not writing to "bash the poor." My major point here is that you don't use government force to ensure that the "poor" can buy gas. That is an illegitimate use of force.

    Besides, maybe the poor family you described could trade their fancy satellite TV system for gas . . .

    For those with access to the Wall Street Journal today, there is an excellent lead editorial called "In Praise of Price 'Gouging'" that is well worth reading.

    By the way, I feel the same way as you about those who charge 3-4 times what something costs in order to take advantage of someone in a crisis. That is not the same thing as passing a law, though. I feel the same way about the purveyors of filth called "MTV," but I would oppose putting them inprison for broadcasting it.


    And at least we agree that rising prices has a beneficial effect of conserving gas, while low prices cause more gas to be used, which is a problem when there is a limited supply. Maybe if they had been charging $5.80, you wouldn't of bought any, huh?

    AND- the rising cost is also reflective of what the retailer thinks the next tank is going to cost, not what the last one cost. No retailer is going to charge $2.50 for gas, even if that is a profit on the last batch, when he thinks the next tank is going to cost him $3.00 - that is a sure road to bankruptcy.
     
  15. ICP_Juggalo

    ICP_Juggalo New Member

    1,922
    0
    0
    Well, it depends. If $5.80 was the current market price that everyone was charging, then yes. But if this particular station was gouging and I was running on fumes and had no other station to go to, then I will fill up with as much gas as I needed to get to where I was going, then I would simply drive off. I might drop a $10 bill in the parking lot as I drove off to cover the "actual" cost of the gas, not what the gas station think it should cost.

    But hopefully by the time they get to charging $5.80 a gallon as the actual market price, maybe I can get one of those natural gas cars and then I can start eating alot of brocolli and save my farts in gas cans to use in my natural gas car. That way I can be my own supplier and vendor!
     
  16. ICP_Juggalo

    ICP_Juggalo New Member

    1,922
    0
    0
    There is a film that I think that might be of some intrest to you.

    The film is called "The Trigger Effect"

    It deals with a national crisis of electricity loss and the break down of society. It shows an excellent depiction of gouging at the gas pump and at the gun store. What I find really interesting is that towards the end of the film, the person that will plague the main characters and put them in a survival situation is labeled as the Bad Guy. But given the circumstances and the main character's lack of self-defense knowlegde, intentionally antagonizes this particular person which makes him out to be the bad guy, but all reality was a good guy and was trying to achieve the same goal as the main characters.

    I don't want to spoil it for you, but you should really watch. Not a terribly great film, but an interesting one nonetheless.
     
  17. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,457
    1
    38
    Their is a bit more to it than simple supply and demand that is going on. Yes we have a free market system in general, however it is ALWAYS subject to Government regulation in key areas.

    Without affordable gas, food, and housing our country's economy will grind to a halt.

    To that end the Government keeps gas prices low to keep the economy going. They offer gas companies tax breaks and incentives to keep the cost of gas low. How low is too low? Read below.

    Now, when the Government does this to most industries, they barely break even. Take airlines and trains for example, both industries rarely make good profit.

    Then we look at the oil industry, even though we pay some of the lowest prices of gas anywhere, US oil companies EACH made several BILLION in PROFIT last QUARTER. That is just in 3 months, note this is AFTER they paid for the cost of shipping, refining, exploration, expansion, payroll and pumping.

    Now with the way the oil industry works, their are the oil company stations like BP and Shell and then their are the independent stations. The oil companies generally sell the same gas to independent stations at about 20 cents per gallon more than the same gas that went to a name brand station.

    I think Sonny did what he had to do with the limited power he has. If he did not put a cap on gas prices, the cost of shipping would go up. If the cost of shipping rises, so does the cost of EVERYTHING else. Just think of any item shipped by ground and/or air.

    How this effects a person is simple:
    Any food you eat will cost more.
    Your power/gas bill will go up.
    The actual cost to get to work will be more.
    This results in less money for shopping and other activities.

    How this effects business is much worse:
    Clerical: The cost of office supplies (pens, paper, ink, toner) are going to cost more.
    Construction: The price of steel and lumber will rise dramatically because of the energy needed to produce them.
    Service: Mall is almost empty because no one can afford to drive to the mall much less buy things they really don't need.
    Travel: No tourist money.
    So the cost of living has increased. Well the business can either pay their employees more, or lay some of them off.

    What about the State and local Government?
    Well garbage pickup and recycling now costs more.
    Police and Fire fuel budgets will need to be increased, as well as salary.
    With the increase of unemployment, welfare payouts will increase.
    Meaning taxes will have to be raised.

    That is what you are looking at if nothing is done.

    In a time of great suffering and loss of life is not the time to make the most profit. That is the time for help and donations.
    That is why no one is writing letters to Sonny about a cap. Not only does it relieve their worry of not affording gas (and thus remove one of the main reasons for hoarding), but they are also angry of being taken advantage of for a key resource and glad Sonny did something about it.

    We hate a socialist system except in emergancies with a large loss of life. Basically when a "State of Emergancy" is called, the free market system is suspended and a socialist system is put in place until the emergancy is over. Food, water, cloths and transportation are given freely. People not only expect this, they get angry when it does not arrive.

    People expect companies to help in a time of need and in case they don't, they have given the Government the power to make them.
     
  18. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    62,512
    18
    38
    Well, that is exactly what I am arguing against . . .
     
  19. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    62,512
    18
    38
    Trigger Effect.

    Saw it. Pretty good movie. Elizabeth Shue is a babe. I think, however, that we have learned from the situation in New Orleans that things will get much, much worse than portrayed in the movies.

    Let's face it, if things were portrayed in the movies like are posted over in the post in this section, titled "Simply Horrifying," everyone would have thought the movie was too far fetched . . .
     
  20. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    62,512
    18
    38
    Maximizing Profit

    There is much more to maximizing profit that simply charging the highest price of anyone around - which may in fact cause profits to evaporate.

    In the overly simplistic examples above, it is assumed that someone would really raise their price to $8.99 a gallon hoping to make money off a poor family with nothing but $10 and a fancy TV satellite dish . . . :) . . . and that, somehow, this shrewd business tactic would "maximize profit."

    So - nobody else buys from Mr. Gouger, the station owner, because he has priced himself out of the market. The poor folks in their car buy the aforementioned one gallon of gas (Mr. Gouger was not willing to swap for the fancy satellite system).

    At the end of the day, Mr. Gouger has $8.99 to show for his efforts (tax is either included in the price or, as today, not being collected at all). He must now, to figure out his profit, subtract his expenses. His electric bill for the day may exceed $20. He also has costs for his staff, rent or mortgage on the property, and still has to come up with money for the next shipment of gas (which is sure to be more expensive than the $2.20 price he paid last time).

    What was Mr. Gouger's profit for the day?

    That's right, Mr. Gouger, if he did not lower his price, had a loss for the day.

    Now here is another complicated business question. How long can Mr. Gouger stay in business taking a daily loss?

    How long will he hold out at $8.99 per gallon on his price if he is losing money? Why not charge $100 a gallon and really maximize profit?

    Vote liberty.

    Liberty is always lost in response to some perceived emergency. Don't get taken in by economic fallacies and outlandish hypotheticals with no connection to how economics really work. This is the last web site where I would have thought I would be standing alone on an issue like this . . .

    It's not like this is the democraticunderground.com . . .

    Laissez Faire!