It Isn’t Gouging

Peter and I usually see things from a similar viewpoint, and I generally respect and listen to his opinions. Not this time. He is saying that:

Businesses aren’t pricing their goods according to what they pay for them, plus a fair and reasonable profit.  Instead, they’re pricing them as high as they think they can get for the product. 

Then goes on to call this “price gouging. This is where I disagree with Peter.

Pricing things according to what people will pay is what everyone does. Let me explain. Let’s say that paying your bills costs you $40,000 per year. Adding on 10% for retirement savings, and 10% for discretionary spending would make your total $48,000 per year.

Now let’s say that your employer offers to pay you $60,000 per year. Do you say, “No thanks, boss. I only need $48,000, so me taking more would be unfair and unreasonable.”

Of course you don’t. So why would you expect a business to act any differently?

Prices are set by supply and demand. If customers are willing to pay $7 for an apple, then businesses will sell apples for $7. That’s what Whole Foods is selling apples for in Peter’s example.

Now let’s say that another business, call them Winn Dixie, is selling apples for $1. Now consumers have a choice: they can go get the $1 apples at Winn Dixie, or they can go get them from Whole Foods.

So why don’t consumers go to Winn Dixie, rather than Whole Foods? There are a number of reasons, which can include what the consumer perceives as the quality of the apples at Whole Foods, or perhaps the shopping experience (maybe one store is cleaner), or other issues like organic foods, the store supports causes or social issues that the consumer also supports, or any number of reasons not directly related to the costs of the apple itself. In other words, Whole Foods isn’t just selling apples. They are selling a shopping experience that some consumers are willing to pay more for.

That’s a choice we each get to make every time we purchase something. That isn’t gouging, it’s the market at work. Even when something IS considered price gouging, I maintain that it isn’t unfair. Let’s say that a hurricane hits my area. The law says that charging more than normal for products like gasoline is price gouging, and that is illegal.

Let’s say that before the hurricane, I was selling fuel for $4 a gallon, but buying it for $3 a gallon. So what happens when the hurricane hits, and everyone wants fuel? I could continue to sell fuel until I run out, then wait for more fuel to come in from my regular supplier, in which case no one gets fuel from that point forward.

Or, I can pay someone to haul more fuel in, even though it takes longer, and I may have to outbid someone else to get that supply from a different supplier. So now I can buy fuel at a higher price, pay more to have it hauled in on a chartered truck, and my cost to have the fuel delivered is now $7 per gallon. The only problem is that the law says that it is price gouging for me to sell that fuel for more than the $4 I was charging before the storm. So I stay home and don’t sell any fuel. Now there is none available at any price.

How did that help anyone, except the 10 guys who came to my establishment before the storm and bought up all of my fuel in anticipation of a shortage?

So how does the market respond? The black market comes in and makes a new, underground market. Now those ten guys are selling fuel for $20 a gallon because they are the only ones with any gasoline to be had.

This is why price controls cannot, and will not ever, work. It’s called the LAW of supply and demand for a reason.

Thought Exercise

Imagine that the US is in a second civil war. The left thinks that the military would simply use jets, tanks, and nukes to wipe out its own citizens. We all know that nukes are useless against your own people. Jets and tanks are only useful if the opposition is stupid enough to stand around in large groups, waiting to be wiped out.

What if instead, those opposition forces are doing things like this? The cops are not going to catch the people who did it. The fact that airports are “one of the most heavily surveilled areas possible” doesn’t matter, because the wires that were cut are more than 2 miles from the nearest terminal. Surveillance doesn’t extend that far in most cases.

Imagine that there was a simultaneous cutting of similar lines at four or five major airline hubs all over the nation. It would cause nationwide delays that could stretch for days.

This sort of action is something that the military calls a “force multiplier.”

Trump Wins Again

Trump’s Presidency will turn out to have been one of the most positively impactful events in recent history. The fact that he was able to put a right leaning SCOTUS in place is going to have a positive impact on the US for decades. In a landmark 9-0 ruling on Wednesday that you will never hear about in the media, the US Supreme Court has undercut all DEI-based discrimination, sending the Marxists into a tizzy. The case Muldrow v. St Louis, was decided on April 17 and can be read in its entirety here.

The US Supreme Court’s ruling that a St. Louis police sergeant can sue over a job transfer she claims was discriminatory because of DEI policies lays the foundation for legal action against employers who push discrimination against white people in job hiring, work assignment, and promotion.

That’s right, those “diversity-preferred” job postings, the practice of passing over whites for promotions, discriminatory job transfers, pushing unfair diversity trainings, etc…all of these are now legally actionable. The ruling was championed by human rights groups as “an enormous win for workers,” but has lawyers for companies like Disney warning that it could have a chilling effect on employers’ diversity initiatives.

Disney’s “Pale and Male is Stale” policy is a prime example. Disney has allegedly used it to drive out white animators by giving them the worst assignments, even though they have the most experience, skill, and seniority, in order to make the job humiliating enough that they quit…which many of them have done. The same companies argue that there is ‘good discrimination’ and “bad discrimination’, that white people should be purposely disadvantaged to pave the way for diversity. The lawyers stated that the decision will ‘complicate’ DEI programs and limit their ability to discriminate against white men. (Good) The Supreme Court torpedoed these claims, re-asserting that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

Warning Signs

Joe Biden’s economy is claiming more victims. I have been saying that restaurants don’t just compete against each other, they compete against home kitchens. When it becomes too expensive to dine out, people begin cooking more at home. That is what it looks like is happening.

Just in the last year, franchisees and chains under the umbrellas of Red Lobster, Chipotle, Taco Bell, Tijuana Flats, Burger King, Hardees, Popeye’s, Wendy’s, McDonald’s, and Denny’s have filed bankruptcy.

It’s getting worse.

Hate Crime

This country is done. It’s a hate crime to tear down the Fag Flag, but not to tear down the American one.

Hypocrite on the Right

Yesterday, I posted about this woman, who said that her “fellow conservatives” need Jesus because we argue with and threaten the left?

We don’t have to have a kumbaya moment, but some of yall show your true colors quicker than you think when it comes to wishing harm to the opposition… Yall need Jesus.

I will point out that I was pointing out the errors in her statement. She responded with:

Omg once again, we are discussing liberal posters on X. You got a thick skull with jack shit inside it bruh. And you are full of fear.

Who needs Jesus? Stupid cunt.

Here is the quote:

Excusing the Enemy

This woman is insisting that we, as the targets of the left who wants us either dead or in camps, must wait until they take overt actions to carry out their threats before we openly call for their elimination.

As I pointed out to her in the thread- when the other side is telling you that:

Still, she insists that we wait for “everyday people” to take action, and refers to the people out there openly calling for violence against us as “loudmouths” who don’t really mean it. Then she blocked me because I was “annoying”, despite the fact that I produced examples of those who are openly calling for genocide against Trump supporters.

Her position that you must wait for some sort of attempt to carry out a vocalized threat before defending yourself doesn’t work on an individual level and certainly doesn’t work at a national level. I don’t have to, and should not, wait for a person who tells me that they are going to shoot me while holding a gun to fire the first shot. I also shouldn’t wait for the people loudly screaming that they want me dead or in a camp to actually begin loading the boxcars before I call for active resistance.

The story, if it happened today

BREAKING NEWS: Seventy-Two Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation In Massachusetts. National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction.

Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw. Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement, which has been blamed for a number of terrorist acts, including the destruction of valuable cargo that had been located on ships in the Boston harbor.

Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals and cowards” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons after Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week.

This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms. One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”

Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.

During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange. Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths.

Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat. Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.

Some members of the Congressional Democrat leadership have called for the Governor to bring the full might of the military against the citizens in the area, up to and including aircraft and drone strikes on neighborhoods.

Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.