I Stand With Bernie Sanders

[LnGrrrR]

I don't mind providing evidence to back up controversial claims, but pretty sure the existence of price gouging laws is an obvious one. And although Republican's are also responsible for them, Democrats and democratic state legislatures have been far more complicit in there existence thanks to their attempts to demonize big business.

But I am going to assume you are a re and just explain it to you. Anti price gouging laws impede the ability for a population to exit a natural disaster area as well as impede the ability for goods, services, and equipment to enter them, because they disrupt the pricing mechanism forcing shortages.

ter McGee

I would love to see the proof. I'm not quite sure how jacking up the price of gas, water, and other essential items helps the population exit.

[LnGrrrR]

And liberals don't understand basic economics. The great rightwing conservative Paul ing Krugman agrees with me. Lets say you have a disaster, like Hurricane Katrina, and you have some guy who buys a bunch of generators drives to the affected area and tries to sell them at profit. This is a true story, and this is illegal. but what is wrong with it?

An ignorant liberal like yourself might argue that the evil man is trying to take advantage of people. Intelligent people like myself would recognize that there are now a bunch more generators in the affected areas. So what if only rich people buy them? Now the government relief efforts don't have to worry about the rich and they can hand out more generators for the poor people.

Ok, now other evil people trying to exploit poor people start buying more generators and taking them to the effected area because they saw the profit that guy made. Now generators are less scarce and there is compe ion, prices drop, all of a sudden the middle class is buying generators...and guess what, now government relief efforts can worry about them less and help the poor more.

But I guess you don't give a about the poor.

ter McGee

I don't think you've ever actually dealt with a natural disaster, or the response to it. Good luck trying to just give welfare/handouts/help to the poor and not the rich. And if you successfully do so, good luck dealing with the blowback. And I think it's strange that you used the example of someone seeing an inefficiency and bringing goods in, when the point of that legislation is to prevent artificially raising prices on things already there. If the market functioned efficiently as you stated, why would there be a need to price gouge? Is there any law saying he can't sell them at the normal price he sells them? Or just a law saying he can't sell them for double what he normally does?

[boutons_deux]

And liberals don't understand basic economics. The great rightwing conservative Paul ing Krugman agrees with me. Lets say you have a disaster, like Hurricane Katrina, and you have some guy who buys a bunch of generators drives to the affected area and tries to sell them at profit. This is a true story, and this is illegal. but what is wrong with it?

An ignorant liberal like yourself might argue that the evil man is trying to take advantage of people. Intelligent people like myself would recognize that there are now a bunch more generators in the affected areas. So what if only rich people buy them? Now the government relief efforts don't have to worry about the rich and they can hand out more generators for the poor people.

Ok, now other evil people trying to exploit poor people start buying more generators and taking them to the effected area because they saw the profit that guy made. Now generators are less scarce and there is compe ion, prices drop, all of a sudden the middle class is buying generators...and guess what, now government relief efforts can worry about them less and help the poor more.

But I guess you don't give a about the poor.

ter McGee

selling stuff at retail prices to disaster victims is fine, selling it an 2x or more isn't. GFY

[Slutter McGee]

I would love to see the proof. I'm not quite sure how jacking up the price of gas, water, and other essential items helps the population exit.

This seems like a legitimate question. So I am going to try and answer it without the sarcasm and insults I often use. Lets start with some explanation before getting into gas prices. This might be a TLDR post, but it is really gonna take that to explain. Skip to the end if you want.

Classical economic theory has often been proven wrong. Up until the 1990's economists were convinced that an increase in the minimum wage would automatically lead to an increase in unemployment. As we got better data, that simply proved to not necessarily be true. You may remember the supply curve, the demand curve, and the equilibrium point that at intersection that determines price and quan y. Set a price ceiling below the equilibrium point and all of a sudden you have a shortage. Set a price floor and you have a surplus. However, the labor market is very different than the product market. Labor is inelastic....the percentage increase in unemployment is far less than a percentage increase in the minimum wage. This is combined with the fact that their is a decrease in the marginal expense of hiring workers means that a small increase in the minimum wage can actually lead to an increase in employment. However, an incredibly large increase (or strictly binding) would still produce the same effects that classical theory predicts.

Lets take some silly number that even liberal economists wouldn't even recommend for a minimum wage. 30 dollars an hour. (Honestly about the highest you see recommended by some of the most brilliant liberal economists is around 14...and I think that is way too high.) We can all see how that would cause unemployment. My point with this tangent is that classical theory still applies to highly inelastic markets with many many variables, but when it comes to marginal increases it doesn't necessarily hold.

The product market though is far different. For the most part it is much more elastic, and compe ion is much more present. If classical theory still applies to the labor market, surely it holds in the product market which has many more of the assumptions necessary for classical theory application i.e. perfect compe ion. Now there are very few markets that meet the criteria for that assumption. Grain, corn, commodities, etc. But gasoline is pretty damn close.

There are 3 basic pricing mechanisms for gasoline prices. Sticky prices, cost based pricing, and Edgeworth price cycles and Intertemporal Price Discrimination. Sticky pricing basically means that prices rise quickly to accommodate increased demand or decreased supply, but fall slowly when the opposite happens. You are more likely to see this when you only have a few firms competing. Cost Based pricing is generally a function of implied price fixing. Basically everyone prices just above cost. This price fixing is fine because there is no implicit agreement by compe ors to price higher above cost. Besides, price wars often break out which is good for consumers. And then there are Edgeworth cycles which is a really cool thing that you don't see much in the US, but it pisses consumers off because they think they are getting screwed, when in fact it is a function of a highly compe ive model with one large firm, many small firms...and they are actually far better off.

My point is that retail gasoline is not ripping you off. They are not a monopoly. They can't be a monopoly because barriers to entry are relatively low. All three of the pricing structures are subject to supply and demand...a monopoly in a small town can't jack up prices too high because compe ion will spring up.

Now lets also differentiate between macroeconomic theory and microeconomic theory. Liberal economists, Conservative economists, and Libertarian economists often disagree when it comes to macro policy. But there is very little disagreement when it comes to micro...even the damn Austrian school economists agree and they hate math. And retail gasoline is definitely a micro phenomenon. And because of the low barriers to entry no natural monopoly exists.

So what happens when you set a price ceilings on gas? You get shortages. Look at the 1970s. We saw and experienced those shortages, and we also experienced the natural rationing process that went into them. Rationing means a longer wait to get needed supplies (longer waits mean more people in a city while a natural disaster approaches.) Shortages means not enough gas to go around to everyone. (More people are stuck in the city without the ability to get gasoline). Low prices means that people are topping off their gas tanks when they already have enough gas to leave. It means that families are taking their belongings instead of taking their neighbors and combining their funds to afford that natural increase in price resulting from the increase in demand.

The problem with so many people is that they think (jacking up the price) means businesses are taking advantage of people, when they are simply responding to an increase in demand. This a natural rationing, and it is far better than the alternative. And I have not even gotten into the black market consequences.

Ultimately, price gouging laws are absolute dog .

Sincerely,

ter McGee

[Slutter McGee]

selling stuff at retail prices to disaster victims is fine, selling it an 2x or more isn't. GFY

What if demand is 2 times more?

ter McGee

[boutons_deux]

What if demand is 2 times more?

ter McGee

Disasters aren't a bidding war, an auction, with the rich buying their way out, as you dog-eat-dog rightwingnuts would prefer.

[Slutter McGee]

when the point of that legislation is to prevent artificially raising prices on things already there.

This is the whole point...The price rise is not artificial. Its the result of a natural disaster...Not some monopolist trying to screw people over.

ter McGee

[Slutter McGee]

Disasters aren't a bidding war, an auction, with the rich buying their way out, as you dog-eat-dog rightwingnuts would prefer.

You are right, Lets not allow the rich to buy their way out. They will be stuck right there with the poor. That is how you liberals want it right? Sure, the government will have to help those who could have bought their way out at the same time as the poor, which means they can help less poor people. But you are a liberal...you don't really give a about the poor. You just hate the rich, and if you can over the rich at the expense of a few of the poor, well then I guess you are happy.

I am not, Id like to help the most people possible in the fewest amount of time (rich or poor), without screwing over anybody.

ter McGee

[boutons_deux]

You are right, Lets not allow the rich to buy their way out. They will be stuck right there with the poor. That is how you liberals want it right? Sure, the government will have to help those who could have bought their way out at the same time as the poor, which means they can help less poor people. But you are a liberal...you don't really give a about the poor. You just hate the rich, and if you can over the rich at the expense of a few of the poor, well then I guess you are happy.

I am not, Id like to help the most people possible in the fewest amount of time (rich or poor), without screwing over anybody.

ter McGee

, displaying the typical ignorance, misinformation, rampant among rightwingnuts.

[Slutter McGee]

, displaying the typical ignorance, misinformation, rampant among rightwingnuts.

boutons, tell me why I am wrong. Try it out. See if you can do it.

ter McGee

[boutons_deux]

boutons, tell me why I am wrong. Try it out. See if you can do it.

ter McGee

blatantly false: "you don't really give a about the poor. You just hate the rich,"

The poor, even the non-poor have been, are being ed over DAILY by the rich. It's way past time to stop that ing and to reverse the ing.

[Slutter McGee]

blatantly false: "you don't really give a about the poor. You just hate the rich,"

The poor, even the non-poor have been, are being ed over DAILY by the rich. It's way past time to stop that ing and to reverse the ing.

So you admit you want to the rich at the expense of the poor. Very well.

And I mean.. tell me what I was wrong about price gouging. I wrote a ing book a few posts ago. If you can read at a high enough level to respond I would be interested.

ter McGee

[boutons_deux]

So you admit you want to the rich at the expense of the poor. Very well.

And I mean.. tell me what I was wrong about price gouging. I wrote a ing book a few posts ago. If you can read at a high enough level to respond I would be interested.

ter McGee

of course, ing the rich back for ing everybody else is way overdue. ing people in dog-eat-dog America is how the country operates. You aren't A Real American unless you're ing over somebody, or voting for someone to over people.

Price gouging? It's immoral, unethical (not that either of those concern you rightwingnuts), screwing the poor in a disaster who can't pay to pander to the rich.

ing book?

[Slutter McGee]

You aren't A Real American unless you're ing over somebody, or voting for someone to over people.

Zero sum " ing over people" was disproven in the 1800's by David Ricardo.

Price gouging? It's immoral, unethical (not that either of those concern you rightwingnuts), screwing the poor in a disaster who can't pay to pander to the rich.

Read my post and respond to specifics. Try it out. I think you can read?

ing book?

Long ass post I made you idiot.

ter McGee

[Th'Pusher]

I don't mind providing evidence to back up controversial claims, but pretty sure the existence of price gouging laws is an obvious one. And although Republican's are also responsible for them, Democrats and democratic state legislatures have been far more complicit in there existence thanks to their attempts to demonize big business.

ter McGee

You mean like this liberal: http://archive.courierpostonline.com...-will-punished

you trot out this price gouging straw man whenever you want to paint "liberals" as economically challenged. Grow up. And off with your partisan politics you bag.

[Th'Pusher]

This seems like a legitimate question. So I am going to try and answer it without the sarcasm and insults I often use. Lets start with some explanation before getting into gas prices. This might be a TLDR post, but it is really gonna take that to explain. Skip to the end if you want.

Classical economic theory has often been proven wrong. Up until the 1990's economists were convinced that an increase in the minimum wage would automatically lead to an increase in unemployment. As we got better data, that simply proved to not necessarily be true. You may remember the supply curve, the demand curve, and the equilibrium point that at intersection that determines price and quan y. Set a price ceiling below the equilibrium point and all of a sudden you have a shortage. Set a price floor and you have a surplus. However, the labor market is very different than the product market. Labor is inelastic....the percentage increase in unemployment is far less than a percentage increase in the minimum wage. This is combined with the fact that their is a decrease in the marginal expense of hiring workers means that a small increase in the minimum wage can actually lead to an increase in employment. However, an incredibly large increase (or strictly binding) would still produce the same effects that classical theory predicts.

Lets take some silly number that even liberal economists wouldn't even recommend for a minimum wage. 30 dollars an hour. (Honestly about the highest you see recommended by some of the most brilliant liberal economists is around 14...and I think that is way too high.) We can all see how that would cause unemployment. My point with this tangent is that classical theory still applies to highly inelastic markets with many many variables, but when it comes to marginal increases it doesn't necessarily hold.

The product market though is far different. For the most part it is much more elastic, and compe ion is much more present. If classical theory still applies to the labor market, surely it holds in the product market which has many more of the assumptions necessary for classical theory application i.e. perfect compe ion. Now there are very few markets that meet the criteria for that assumption. Grain, corn, commodities, etc. But gasoline is pretty damn close.

There are 3 basic pricing mechanisms for gasoline prices. Sticky prices, cost based pricing, and Edgeworth price cycles and Intertemporal Price Discrimination. Sticky pricing basically means that prices rise quickly to accommodate increased demand or decreased supply, but fall slowly when the opposite happens. You are more likely to see this when you only have a few firms competing. Cost Based pricing is generally a function of implied price fixing. Basically everyone prices just above cost. This price fixing is fine because there is no implicit agreement by compe ors to price higher above cost. Besides, price wars often break out which is good for consumers. And then there are Edgeworth cycles which is a really cool thing that you don't see much in the US, but it pisses consumers off because they think they are getting screwed, when in fact it is a function of a highly compe ive model with one large firm, many small firms...and they are actually far better off.

My point is that retail gasoline is not ripping you off. They are not a monopoly. They can't be a monopoly because barriers to entry are relatively low. All three of the pricing structures are subject to supply and demand...a monopoly in a small town can't jack up prices too high because compe ion will spring up.

Now lets also differentiate between macroeconomic theory and microeconomic theory. Liberal economists, Conservative economists, and Libertarian economists often disagree when it comes to macro policy. But there is very little disagreement when it comes to micro...even the damn Austrian school economists agree and they hate math. And retail gasoline is definitely a micro phenomenon. And because of the low barriers to entry no natural monopoly exists.

So what happens when you set a price ceilings on gas? You get shortages. Look at the 1970s. We saw and experienced those shortages, and we also experienced the natural rationing process that went into them. Rationing means a longer wait to get needed supplies (longer waits mean more people in a city while a natural disaster approaches.) Shortages means not enough gas to go around to everyone. (More people are stuck in the city without the ability to get gasoline). Low prices means that people are topping off their gas tanks when they already have enough gas to leave. It means that families are taking their belongings instead of taking their neighbors and combining their funds to afford that natural increase in price resulting from the increase in demand.

The problem with so many people is that they think (jacking up the price) means businesses are taking advantage of people, when they are simply responding to an increase in demand. This a natural rationing, and it is far better than the alternative. And I have not even gotten into the black market consequences.

Ultimately, price gouging laws are absolute dog .

Sincerely,

ter McGee

Maybe we should do an analysis of the supply and demand of your time as ^this was wildly inefficient considering there are literally hundreds of articles detailing the price gouging phenomenon specific to natural disasters.

in Google, . It Could have saved you from having written a "book". Moron

[LnGrrrR]

This is the whole point...The price rise is not artificial. Its the result of a natural disaster...Not some monopolist trying to screw people over.

ter McGee

So how exactly does raising prices on suddenly scarce commodities lead to a greater ability to exit the disaster area?

[LnGrrrR]

You are right, Lets not allow the rich to buy their way out. They will be stuck right there with the poor. That is how you liberals want it right? Sure, the government will have to help those who could have bought their way out at the same time as the poor, which means they can help less poor people. But you are a liberal...you don't really give a about the poor. You just hate the rich, and if you can over the rich at the expense of a few of the poor, well then I guess you are happy.

I am not, Id like to help the most people possible in the fewest amount of time (rich or poor), without screwing over anybody.

ter McGee

The problem with your scenario is that only the rich can afford to buy their way out in your theoretical "allow gas/water/essentials prices to raise to levels where poor people can't afford it"... pretty much by definition. How are you helping out all people, in that case? Opt A: Water, gas etc is kept at an affordable level, and everyone can purchase them. Opt B: Water, gas, etc are raised to levels only the rich can afford. How does Opt B help people exit a disaster area more than Opt A? It seems that your solution doesn't change the amount of people leaving; it just shifts the type of people leaving (from FIFO to wealth based).

[LnGrrrR]

This seems like a legitimate question. So I am going to try and answer it without the sarcasm and insults I often use. Lets start with some explanation before getting into gas prices. This might be a TLDR post, but it is really gonna take that to explain. Skip to the end if you want.

Classical economic theory has often been proven wrong. Up until the 1990's economists were convinced that an increase in the minimum wage would automatically lead to an increase in unemployment. As we got better data, that simply proved to not necessarily be true. You may remember the supply curve, the demand curve, and the equilibrium point that at intersection that determines price and quan y. Set a price ceiling below the equilibrium point and all of a sudden you have a shortage. Set a price floor and you have a surplus. However, the labor market is very different than the product market. Labor is inelastic....the percentage increase in unemployment is far less than a percentage increase in the minimum wage. This is combined with the fact that their is a decrease in the marginal expense of hiring workers means that a small increase in the minimum wage can actually lead to an increase in employment. However, an incredibly large increase (or strictly binding) would still produce the same effects that classical theory predicts.

Lets take some silly number that even liberal economists wouldn't even recommend for a minimum wage. 30 dollars an hour. (Honestly about the highest you see recommended by some of the most brilliant liberal economists is around 14...and I think that is way too high.) We can all see how that would cause unemployment. My point with this tangent is that classical theory still applies to highly inelastic markets with many many variables, but when it comes to marginal increases it doesn't necessarily hold.

The product market though is far different. For the most part it is much more elastic, and compe ion is much more present. If classical theory still applies to the labor market, surely it holds in the product market which has many more of the assumptions necessary for classical theory application i.e. perfect compe ion. Now there are very few markets that meet the criteria for that assumption. Grain, corn, commodities, etc. But gasoline is pretty damn close.

There are 3 basic pricing mechanisms for gasoline prices. Sticky prices, cost based pricing, and Edgeworth price cycles and Intertemporal Price Discrimination. Sticky pricing basically means that prices rise quickly to accommodate increased demand or decreased supply, but fall slowly when the opposite happens. You are more likely to see this when you only have a few firms competing. Cost Based pricing is generally a function of implied price fixing. Basically everyone prices just above cost. This price fixing is fine because there is no implicit agreement by compe ors to price higher above cost. Besides, price wars often break out which is good for consumers. And then there are Edgeworth cycles which is a really cool thing that you don't see much in the US, but it pisses consumers off because they think they are getting screwed, when in fact it is a function of a highly compe ive model with one large firm, many small firms...and they are actually far better off.

My point is that retail gasoline is not ripping you off. They are not a monopoly. They can't be a monopoly because barriers to entry are relatively low. All three of the pricing structures are subject to supply and demand...a monopoly in a small town can't jack up prices too high because compe ion will spring up.

Now lets also differentiate between macroeconomic theory and microeconomic theory. Liberal economists, Conservative economists, and Libertarian economists often disagree when it comes to macro policy. But there is very little disagreement when it comes to micro...even the damn Austrian school economists agree and they hate math. And retail gasoline is definitely a micro phenomenon. And because of the low barriers to entry no natural monopoly exists.

So what happens when you set a price ceilings on gas? You get shortages. Look at the 1970s. We saw and experienced those shortages, and we also experienced the natural rationing process that went into them. Rationing means a longer wait to get needed supplies (longer waits mean more people in a city while a natural disaster approaches.) Shortages means not enough gas to go around to everyone. (More people are stuck in the city without the ability to get gasoline). Low prices means that people are topping off their gas tanks when they already have enough gas to leave. It means that families are taking their belongings instead of taking their neighbors and combining their funds to afford that natural increase in price resulting from the increase in demand.

The problem with so many people is that they think (jacking up the price) means businesses are taking advantage of people, when they are simply responding to an increase in demand. This a natural rationing, and it is far better than the alternative. And I have not even gotten into the black market consequences.

Ultimately, price gouging laws are absolute dog .

Sincerely,

ter McGee

Ok, I understand all this, but this doesn't speak to price gouging during a disaster. In normal times, you can go to a compe or that's selling gas for slightly less. But in a disaster, people have to get certain items... gas, water, etc. These supplies aren't affected by normal supply and demand, due to their extreme need. One can't really choose to "shop around" for the best deals in a disaster area. Regarding gas, you mentioned shortages, but given a finite supply of gas, shortages are going to occur, whether prices are raised or not. The only thing that changes is who gets to leave. With static prices, whoever gets there first, gets gas. With price gouging, only the rich people get to leave. I'd argue the first is more "fair". Let's face it, raising the price during an emergency IS taking advantage of people; they weren't prepared, now there's more demand, so you can raise your prices because supplies are more scarce (and you have them). As you noted, it's "natural" because I believe it's arguable that it's better than the alternative. In a non-disaster scenario, sure. In a disaster scenario, I don't think we should ration by "whoever can afford it escapes".

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders was decades ahead of the country on gay rights and ending the war on drugs

Most Americans now support legally allowing gay and lesbian relationships, same-sex marriage, and personal marijuana use after decades of shifting public opinion. But one Democratic candidate for president, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, was calling for many of these changes decades ago.

In a 1972 letter to a local newspaper — which was recently resurfaced by Chelsea Summers at the New Republic — Sanders wrote that he supported abolishing "all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior (adultery, sexuality, etc.)" as part of his campaign for Vermont governor:

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/7/8905905/...ugs-gay-rights

[boutons_deux]

Jeb Bush: People Need to Work Longer Hours


Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush said Wednesday that in order to grow the economy “people need to work longer hours” -- a comment that the Bush campaign argues was a reference to underemployed part-time workers but which Democrats are already using to attack him.

“My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours” and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in.”

A 2014 Gallup poll found that already many Americans employed full-time report working, on average, 47 hours a week, while nearly 4 in 10 say they work at least 50 hours a week.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jeb-bush-people-work-longer-hours/story?id=32313997

Bernie Sanders Busts Jeb Bush For Blaming Obama For His Brother W’s Failed Economy

The Democratic presidential candidate said:Well, I don’t think much of Mr. Bush’s comments and to be criticizing Obama after his brother left us an economy in which we were hemorrhaging 800,000 jobs a month when President Obama took office doesn’t make much sense to me.The truth is that Gov. Bush is wrong on a number of counts. First of all, the American people already work the longest hours of any people in a major country on Earth. Today, we have 85% of male workers working more than forty hours a week. Sixty-six percent of women workers are working more than forty hours a week. I am not quite sure how much more Gov. Bush wants our people to be working.

Needless to say, he is opposed to the overtime rule that would allow millions of workers to finally get time and a half. I’ve not heard him support raising the minimum wage to a living wage, or pay equity for women workers. So it sounds to me like it’s the same old, same old trickle-down economics which benefits the wealthy and large corporations.

Bernie Sanders is taking on the Republican frontrunner, and exposing what his agenda means for the working people of America.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/...iticus+USA+%29

JEB is one stupid mother er, just another Wall St/1%/VRWC shill.

"4% annual growth as far as the eye can see"?

Bernie's huge problem is that he speaks the truth, and myth-loving, fantasyland, exceptional God's own America HATES the truth

[Slutter McGee]

These supplies aren't affected by normal supply and demand, due to their extreme need.

I don't think you have a ing clue what supply and demand means.

ter McGee

[admiralsnackbar]

I don't think you have a ing clue what supply and demand means.

ter McGee

I don't think the quote you cherry-picked from LnGrrrR's post reflected his greater point, which was that disasters are extreme events that destabilize or temporarily shatter quotidian economic theories -- how to address that destabilization depends on one's ethical calculus and concept of government's duties/social contract. You're clearly a fan of the Austrian school and want to leave it all to the affected individuals and outside entrepreneurs to define the market. As many have already pointed out, however, this means only people of means can participate in the market once disaster-goosed extreme demand causes extreme price inflation for necessities. You also think the market will sort itself out, so why intercede? Unfortunately, disaster victims don't have time to wait for markets to stabilize. I'd go further and question whether your example of generators is all that useful or accurate -- I'm sure there were people who received them and sold them at windfall prices because they had another alternative to promote their survival, but if this was the norm, then the injection of govt-subsidized generators would have brought prices down sharply, and would further suggest that these generators weren't actually necessary in the first place (which means, by extension, that the price inflation of generators wouldn't have occurred in the first place).

[LnGrrrR]

I don't think you have a ing clue what supply and demand means.

ter McGee

You are starving and need bread. You will die without the bread. At what price will you choose not to pay? Oh, wait, any price, because you absolutely need it. "But wait, there's probably other people around with bread, who can charge lower!" In a disaster situation, it's likely there isn't anyone else around. I was stationed at Keesler after Katrina, and have been through quite a few hurricanes. It's not like the roads are empty during evacuation, and most people don't have the financial freedom to run around all over looking for better prices. Information asymmetry usually affects the consumer far more than the provider.

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders: Your cable bill is too damned high

In a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, Sanders -- along with Democratic Sens. Al Franken of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey of Massachusetts -- said American consumers are being burdened by ever-increasing monthly bills and a thicket of hidden fees. Citing lack of compe ion and increased industry consolidation, the senators say the cable and broadband landscape has devolved into a smattering of “de facto telecommunications monopolies throughout the United States.” As a result, they say, cable and Internet providers are able to stick consumers with higher prices and poor service with impunity.

The senators are asking the FCC to investigate how much Americans pay for cable and broadband services by state; how much they pay, on average, by provider; and how much city dwellers pay compared with consumers who live in rural areas.

“We need healthy compe ion to foster innovation and ensure fair prices for consumers,” the letter states. “At the very least, Americans should be able to understand the price of the product they are buying and what their neighbors are paying for the same service.”

The FCC already tracks cable prices through its Media Bureau, which puts out an annual report on average monthly bills.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/bernie-sanders-your-cable-bill-is-too-damned-high/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29

Why stop there? go after no-compe ion cellphone rip-offs