Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (321598)	1/18/2007 6:13:51 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574376

Who says there wasn't any profit? Their sales generally went up, a lot. I didn't say there was no profit. Although there might not be. The sales went up, but its a blip up not a sustained increase. Their post recovery sales in the local area would be lower, and there sales in areas they pull the goods from to move to the disaster area would go down. Did it actually cause their overall sales over a long period of time to go up? Probably not, except perhaps in response to the next factor you mention (quoted below), the point was that there will be less profit (and thus less incentive) without the higher prices. And its not just a matter of providing incentives to supply something, the prices also serve as a signal of what items are needed and how badly their needed. The lack of this signal is the main reason why purely centralized planning for a national economy just could work, the lack of incentive to work is an important reason as well, but a secondary one compared to the lack of price signals. Of course price gouging laws hardly make for a centrally planned economy, and they don't eliminate price signals throughout the economy, but they do eliminate them from a particular area for a period of time. And it generates a lot of good will because people see that they are doing the best they can for them. Now here you have something of a point. In a sense they are buying advertising with below market prices. Back to the broader argument - Remember I'm hardly condemning companies that don't raise prices, I'm only condemning arrests of, fines for, and confiscation from, people who do. If I provided additional goods that are in scarce supply then I would be providing a service to the community even if my prices are high. I shouldn't be punished for it (at least not legal punishment, public relations is more complex, and if people want to dislike me that's their prerogative). Such punishment is both unjust, and practically negative. Your reducing the availability of scarce goods, your punishing someone who did nothing wrong, and your imposing a cost on society to impose the punishment.