npts2020

I have read every word in this thread and looked at all of the links. If you can please repost the place where I missed price gouging being in reference to anything other than after a disaster or market disruption, it would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I can only assume that you believe the question to be answered by only applying the term to those situations and it not being valid in any other context.

If true, then why will one change their beliefs when presented with better evidence while the other will not?

So since the question has been answered, price gouging can only occur after a disaster or market disruption. Got it.

Ok, let's put this into perspective. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a chart that compares crude oil price with gas price over enough time but here is a chart of crude oil prices since 1946 in 2023 dollars. https://inflationdata.com/articles/inflation-adjusted-prices/historical-oil-prices-chart/ Note when crude oil prices peaked at the end of 1979 at around $160/barrel and remained above $100 for a couple of years and cost for the past 2 years, mostly between $65-$80/barrel Here is a chart of gasoline prices since 1929 in 2022 dollars so should be close enough for purposes of illustration https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/average-gas-prices-through-history/ Note that gas prices in 1979 peaked at $4.25/gallon (and stayed that way for a couple of years prompting the "windfall profits tax" mentioned by swansont above) and even though the more recent price at the pumps reached nearly $5/gallon we can still use the current (according to AAA) price of $3.20 for comparison If we compare when crude prices sustained $120 (or about $2.86/gallon of crude) price of gas c1980 gasoline was $4.25 IOW 67% of the cost, with today (I'll be very generous and use the $80/barrel and $3.20 gas figures) which works out to 60%of the cost. According to these guys https://ethanolrfa.org/media-and-news/category/news-releases/article/2023/02/new-university-study-ethanol-cuts-gas-prices-by-77-cents-per-gallon , Ethanol actually reduces the cost of a gallon of gas (even if it also reduces its energy content and has other drawbacks) and since unleaded and leaded gas cost about the same to produce (according to The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1985/12/29/end-nears-for-leaded-gasoline-and-for-bargain-fuel-prices/de18ff9b-00f0-45d3-8539-b4df60d0e3c2/ ) they will not be a consideration for me in this discussion. Also, if anyone can show me that other costs are significantly different between the times under consideration, I will take that into account. What this shows is that oil companies are making approximately the same dollars per gallon (even with the figures significantly skewed in their favor) because of that higher percentage markup. My apologies for using this example since there are many similar ones but the question (even if you disagree with the figures presented) still remains unanswered is it price gouging? If not, at what point does it become price gouging? I understand this is a difficult thing to quantify but it seems to me quantification must be attempted before any reasonable discussion about a remedy can take place.

It is my mistake, oil was actually just over$100/barrel but the point remains that oil companies are charging for more now with a greatly reduced price of crude. Except there is one major difference. AFAIK no significant portion of the US population supports this or your other example, whereas we supposedly support capitalism And I would argue that capitalism IS antisocial.

Virtually all of these laws are only applicable to the aftermath of some kind of disaster or emergency, however. What about increases every month or year? During the oil crises of the 1970's, crude oil reached over $150 a barrel yet prices at the gas pump never exceeded $1/gallon in most places. Today, oil is about half the 1970's price and we are paying over $3/gallon. Are oil companies price gouging and if they are, is anyone doing anything about it?

Great, then explain to me how trying to discern reality by following the evidence is indoctrination (as the term is commonly used).

Well you don't seem to show it. Imagine there are 2 people. The first one will modify their beliefs as new and better evidence comes to light, the second is willfully ignorant and will not change their beliefs regardless of any evidence presented. Which one is indoctrinated?

Ok, so how much is price gouging? 10% more than normal? 50%? 200%? 1,000%? If I had the foresight and means to acquire something in short supply, who are you to tell me I am price gouging if people will pay it? It seems to me I should be congratulated for being a good enough capitalist to maximize my profits.

Having laws is all well and good but they have to actually be enforced and in a timely manner. In the US, they seem to be rarely enforced and when they are, it generally takes years of litigation before there is any conclusion to the matter, by which time the monopolist usually has had long enough to make up for any penalties imposed. IMO that makes the current (US) system closer to that unfettered ideal than to than to the kind of ideal that ought control capitalism enough to benefit everyone. In an ideal world, this would happen but it doesn't seem to apply to the majority of citizens in the US. For example, one of the things people complain about the price of is cereal. All of the big producers (General Mills, Kelloggs, and Post) raised prices significantly over the past couple of years while most small producers' prices barely budged yet General Mills, Kelloggs and Post remain the top cereal makers, by far. This is even with many generics being virtually the same as what they sell. Well, the "simplistic label" I am trying to get to the bottom of is exactly what is "price gouging"? It seems to me, there are very few things in life one can't do without or find an alternative for so why pay a price for something if you feel you are being "gouged"?

Competition is an interesting concept when it comes to capitalism. Wouldn't getting rid of competition so you can maximize profits be what a good capitalist should strive for?

At least those knowing anything about dark matter and dark energy admit that and are willing to accept evidence to the contrary when found, unlike those who believe invisible pink unicorns are responsible for everything in the universe...

Even if you are granted the notion that most atheists think the same way about anything, I don't suppose it is possible that after eliminating invisible pink unicorns as being the cause of everything in the universe, that evolution might be the best explanation for the way things are. Don't most people believe in what they think is the most plausible narrative of a topic?

That's the beauty of typing, you can't be interrupted by irrelevancies, shouted down, or not heard. Furthermore, one has time to fully consider and review what is being "said" before actually "saying" it.

This was said on another thread, "We’ve seen many recent examples of companies price-gouging because they were prioritizing their own interests." It doesn't matter who it was because I have heard the same or similar statements from many people, both on and off of this forum. The question is, "How in a supposedly capitalist society can there be such a thing as price-gouging?" I thought the whole principle of capitalism is that greed is the best motivator and you should charge whatever the market will bear?

Flux??? Isn't that the stuff you use for welding?

It seems like you are trying to describe a maglev system which doesn't even require supercooling to lift the object in question, only certain materials.

It is definitely the culture IMO. Other than Native Americans, we are used to just taking whatever we want/need (by force if necessary) with little regard for those being taken from. In addition, those who take the most are held in the highest esteem.

Democracy runs into problems when those doing the voting are relatively clueless about exactly what it is they are voting on and how it affects anything...

IMO it IS Americans per se. We worship violence and are easily duped so allow the system being discussed to perpetuate. e.g. Kill enough people on the other side of a war to make them give up and you are a national hero, prevent that war in the first place and few will remember your name. Need I point out more than current American politics to make the case for being easily duped?

Maybe require those desiring guns become part of a "well regulated militia"?

It's not vegan. Here I was hoping you actually had a point related to the topic under discussion worthy of consideration.

I make maple syrup every year. Unless you are conceding that I am a god, it beggars sensibility to claim "god did it". It's the same with virtually all human endeavors. Your turn to give a counter example...

I have read the thread and in science you don't "know" anything, there are only provisional explanations for things until someone comes up with a better one. That is why I want an example of "god did it" being that best provisional explanation.

This is quite an extraordinary claim, so I asked for an example. I thought the request was straightforward enough for anyone able to comprehend the English language... Also, I never claimed humans cannot be deluded or that ANYONE knows everything.