Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is it no fault of their own? Houston is a poorly engineered, coastal urban sprawl that was already prone to flooding and gets more prone to it every year because of poorly engineered development and expansion.
What the hell do you think I've been trying to say in that Hurricane Harvey thread? Instead of anyone listening, they want to cry about how mean I am or that apparently it makes me a "racist" (card is dead, people, find something new) for spitting all over that crap mayor?
The PEOPLE who live there did not design that city. The people who live there were told not to go on the roadways because it was raining and the mayor said it would only be a rainmaker, no need to go out on to the road and get yourself in trouble. Useless mayor said there was no mandatory evacuation.
That's not the fault of the people.
The mayor should have pulled his head out of his ass and started evacuating by zones. Low lying areas first. And move on up a level depending on how high the ground is...but no, everyone wants to ***** and moan that it's "impossible" to do that. Everyone wants to screech about 6 million people, there's not even 6 million people in Houston. It's 2.3 and you don't have to evacuate everyone. But you sure as hell better evacuate the low lying areas when you know that your city floods every time it rains. You sure as hell better evacuate lower lying areas when it doesn't take a hurricane to cause floods and deaths in your city.
But did the mayor do that? No. He reassured them that it was a "rainmaker" and not something that could cause catastrophic flooding like the meteorologists and the governor were warning.
That's not the people's fault that the mayor is an idiot. He reassured them. They believed him. They stayed put. Now look. Now they definitely have nothing. No time to pick out the most precious of items, no time to pack some clothes and food and water and find a safe place to be, no. Because he assured them it would be okay despite being told it had the very real potential of NOT being okay. It's not like he didn't have the time to evacuate those people, but he chose not to do a thing.
I know very well about Houston and flooding. I lived there long enough to see it every time it rained. I would never have told those people to just stay home and act like it was nothing but some rain. But that mayor did, those people relied on that official, they got stuck, they lost everything, and you all want to come along and kick them square in the teeth while they are down.
And then have the audacity to tell everyone else that they are wrong for not trying to screw over the most vulnerable.
As has been stated, we aren't talking every day living, we are talking about a disaster. Houston is a fricken disaster. It was going to be a disaster no matter who said what, but the people didn't have to suffer like that, unnecessarily, when the low lying areas on up could have been evacuated in stages. There was time.
Quote:
Living there is a choice the individual makes. If you choose to live there, then you choose to put everything you own at known risk of being destroyed by a flood that your city is prone to. That's exactly 100% your fault. With towns like Houston and New Orleans, it isn't "if", it's "when." Again, it is their fault. They chose to be there and Houston is prone to catastrophic flooding, made worse by adding more and more concrete and asphalt every single day, nonstop. I feel for their loss, but I cannot say "no fault of their own" when they took a known risk that this exact thing would happen, given that it has happened several times in the past and the pattern is that it will keep getting worse.
Stupid. Everywhere you go in the US is prone to a disaster. Where would you like people to live? No where in the US is safe from a disaster...so every tornado, earthquake, hurricane, blizzard, volcano, etc victim is at fault for the natural disaster that wiped out everything that they owned.
Wow, that's some great logic you got going on there. Make sure you run for office, I'm sure that slogan will win people over.
Quote:
What they are asking is for someone in the lawmaking business to suspend private property rights in the event that they suffer misfortune. That is what disaster/emergency price controls are - suspension of private property rights during a disaster/emergency.
What they are asking is that DURING A NATURAL DISASTER when people's very lives hang in the balance, it is not legal to rip people off. If people want to be greedy bastards when people's lives are not in immediate danger, then they can knock themselves out and watch how society turns on them.
Let me remind you of what I said way early on in this thread:
Those jackasses who would take advantage of these people at this time should not be surprised if they find themselves looking down the wrong end of a gun, because desperate people and looters can be and are just as cold hearted as the greedy ones.
You all forget what disastrous situations do to people.
Quote:
The planet where a natural, individual right to private property and ownership exist? As I said before, I would give away water if I were there and in possession of water to give, but I would also NOT BE compelling others by force to do as I do. I believe everyone can choose for themselves how to conduct themselves in such situations, including in what manner they dispose of their private property.
No. You don't live on a peaceful planet. You live on an evil one who takes advantage of people during a DISASTER.
What the hell do you think I've been trying to say in that Hurricane Harvey thread? Instead of anyone listening, they want to cry about how mean I am or that apparently it makes me a "racist" (card is dead, people, find something new) for spitting all over that crap mayor?
The PEOPLE who live there did not design that city. The people who live there were told not to go on the roadways because it was raining and the mayor said it would only be a rainmaker, no need to go out on to the road and get yourself in trouble. Useless mayor said there was no mandatory evacuation.
That's not the fault of the people.
The mayor should have pulled his head out of his ass and started evacuating by zones. Low lying areas first. And move on up a level depending on how high the ground is...but no, everyone wants to ***** and moan that it's "impossible" to do that. Everyone wants to screech about 6 million people, there's not even 6 million people in Houston. It's 2.3 and you don't have to evacuate everyone. But you sure as hell better evacuate the low lying areas when you know that your city floods every time it rains. You sure as hell better evacuate lower lying areas when it doesn't take a hurricane to cause floods and deaths in your city.
But did the mayor do that? No. He reassured them that it was a "rainmaker" and not something that could cause catastrophic flooding like the meteorologists and the governor were warning.
That's not the people's fault that the mayor is an idiot. He reassured them. They believed him. They stayed put. Now look. Now they definitely have nothing. No time to pick out the most precious of items, no time to pack some clothes and food and water and find a safe place to be, no. Because he assured them it would be okay despite being told it had the very real potential of NOT being okay. It's not like he didn't have the time to evacuate those people, but he chose not to do a thing.
I know very well about Houston and flooding. I lived there long enough to see it every time it rained. I would never have told those people to just stay home and act like it was nothing but some rain. But that mayor did, those people relied on that official, they got stuck, they lost everything, and you all want to come along and kick them square in the teeth while they are down.
And then have the audacity to tell everyone else that they are wrong for not trying to screw over the most vulnerable.
As has been stated, we aren't talking every day living, we are talking about a disaster. Houston is a fricken disaster. It was going to be a disaster no matter who said what, but the people didn't have to suffer like that, unnecessarily, when the low lying areas on up could have been evacuated in stages. There was time.
Stupid. Everywhere you go in the US is prone to a disaster. Where would you like people to live? No where in the US is safe from a disaster...so every tornado, earthquake, hurricane, blizzard, volcano, etc victim is at fault for the natural disaster that wiped out everything that they owned.
Wow, that's some great logic you got going on there. Make sure you run for office, I'm sure that slogan will win people over.
What they are asking is that DURING A NATURAL DISASTER when people's very lives hang in the balance, it is not legal to rip people off. If people want to be greedy bastards when people's lives are not in immediate danger, then they can knock themselves out and watch how society turns on them.
Let me remind you of what I said way early on in this thread:
Those jackasses who would take advantage of these people at this time should not be surprised if they find themselves looking down the wrong end of a gun, because desperate people and looters can be and are just as cold hearted as the greedy ones.
You all forget what disastrous situations do to people.
No. You don't live on a peaceful planet. You live on an evil one who takes advantage of people during a DISASTER.
It's evil because you want people to suffer and die!
"the end result would be needless shortages and more hardship for the public, or under extreme circumstances, it could be deadly. To correct the situation, those opposed to price gouging laws argue that if not abolished entirely, laws would have to be amended to allow the amortization of equipment that is useful only during a disaster. Unlike amortizing for tax purposes, this would account for how equipment is sporadically paid off internally with the extra revenue, which is not normally done."
Last edited by lifeexplorer; 08-30-2017 at 01:27 PM..
First of all, I didn't compare that to hoarding houses.
In the real world, when you implement price control,
1. People would just watch your dehydrated person die rather than sell the water.
2. Nobody has any incentive to ship water to you. More people die.
3. Nobody has any incentive to stock up water before the disaster. Even more people die.
But you are totally OK with that as long as you aren't paying $99/bottle.
You brought up Zuckerberg and Gates buying houses in a thread about price gouging, and now want to say that you didn't bring up houses....
1) People would NOT just watch that dehydrated person die because they would know that they either had more water with them that they, too, could drink since it wasn't $99 a case, or they would know that they could go get more. I'm going to hoard that water if the price is $99 a bottle. I'm going to share it if it's regularly priced. Smack yourself again.
By the way, just how many of those people do you think are walking around with $99 in their pockets, as they are wading through filthy water, trying to hold their dog, their shoes, their friends, etc? How many? You think they are ready to walk up to your little sidewalk water stand and shoot the breeze with you and happily fork over $99 for a bottle of water? Why don't you go try that. Tell us if you came back unscathed. Part of capitalism is knowing your customers. If you don't know your customers, you're not selling a thing making you a failure of a capitalist.
2) The incentive is the same as it is for that company any other day of the week. Smack yourself some more.
3) Of course they have the incentive to stock up on water before the disaster. You never know if the tap water will be any good, you never know if the hurricane will damage something making you have to rely on water, it's fricken hot in Houston in the summer and with no a/c, you're going to sweat a lot, (same for Miami), help may be on the way but it might take a few days to get there, and you're going to need water in the meantime. WTH are you even talking about "no incentive". Smack yourself some more.
You don't even know if these people did or did not stock up. They may have, but because they were soothed in to thinking it was just a little rain, they've now lost all that they own, including anything they may have stocked up on before the disaster.
They lost everything.
But you are totally okay with that as long as you can rip people off who just lost everything and make $99 on a single bottle of water.
Boy I hope no one from City Data ever finds you in need of help during a disaster.
Last edited by Three Wolves In Snow; 08-30-2017 at 02:13 PM..
How is it no fault of their own? Houston is a poorly engineered, coastal urban sprawl that was already prone to flooding and gets more prone to it every year because of poorly engineered development and expansion. Living there is a choice the individual makes.
Where do you live? I wonder, because a natural disaster can strike in most parts of the US.
If there are price controls, can I buy everything and mark up the price to $49 for water... since price controls don't apply to people... otherwise I can't buy all the water and other people will have the opportunity to buy it for their family... /end sarcasm
LOL! Not it's not. It's only monopoly when the company actively stop others from entering the market.
This is NOT true and you know it, although you don't want to admit it because it makes your previous points invalid.
- When a store (or stores) in a disaster area are the only source of goods, they become a temporary monopoly.
- When there are barriers to entry (aka.... a flood in which a physical barrier has been created) where only the local stores can provide a goods or service, they become a temporary monopoly.
- When consumers have no ability to travel to other areas for the same goods and services offered in their local area, the local stores have a temporary monopoly.
- When local stores determine that they can increase the price of goods and services because consumers have no other option, they have a monopoly.
Think on that for a few minutes. It's a competitive market when the market is available to the consumer. The rest of the market is unavailable to the consumer in a case of a natural disaster where travel is not possible. They have one option... buy locally, or don't buy at all. In an emergency where the items needed are necessary for their survival they MUST buy locally. If the stores realize this and double their price of goods, while their cost of goods have remained the same, they have price-gouged. This is WHY the states have made it illegal. It is taking advantage of consumers in a time where they are desperate to survive.
All that aside... it is highly immoral to do so, and shows those companies have not taken on any corporate responsibility in their community. And while that will harm them eventually, it does nothing to stop them from taking advantage of a crisis immediately. THIS is why there are laws in place to prohibit it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
