Grandma says: Just a minute…
I was reading an article by John Stossel in the Wheeling Intelligencer this morning, September 4, 2017 and immediately I heard Grandma Fannie saying, “Just a minute.” First I asked, “Who is John Stossel?” Wikipedia told me: “John Frank Stossel (born March 6, 1947) is an American consumer television personality, author and libertarian pundit, known for his career on both ABC News and Fox News.”
In the article Mr. Stossel explains why he believes price gouging is a positive aspect of capitalism during a crisis. Mr. Stossel was expressing his disappointment that Texas has laws prohibiting price gouging. He says, “Texas, a state I thought understood capitalism, punishes people who practice it.” He goes on to say, “Prices should rise during emergencies. Prices save lives. That is because prices aren’t just money – they are information.” He goes on to explain that “Price changes tell suppliers what their customers want most.” His reasoning is that if one does not raise the price everyone rushes to buy all they all of a product such as bottled water they can get. “Only the first customers get what they want…The storeowners have no incentive to risk life and limb restocking his store.” Eventually the price will drop because “entrepreneurs have an incentive to move heaven and earth to bring water to the disaster area. They soon do and the price drops again.”
One can read the entire article in the Wheeling newspaper one can google John Stossel and find many articles and You Tube videos explaining his economic theories.
When I first read this article, I could not immediately articulate a respectful argument or debate. I did immediately hear Grandma Fannie saying, “Just a moment.”
His argument does make sense if:
· All humans are self-centered and greedy. None of the research that I have read regarding the behavior of the majority of folks following an emergency supports this statement. Most folks are eager to help their neighbor.
· The average person is focused on making a profit rather than seeing to the needs of his/her family. Certainly, there are those who, if not in immediate danger themselves, obviously believe it is their right to make a profit no matter who it affects.
· The average person has the money to buy up a large supply of a product. Most studies I have read tell me that the average person is living paycheck to paycheck.
· If the price of product is raised to a level that is unaffordable the only people who can purchase it are those who have sufficient funds. They may or may not need any of the product for their use, but will hope to make even a bigger profit that the person who first decided to raise the price.
It is true that if the primary concern in an emergency is to keep a capitalist economy thriving rather than helping those in need price gouging should help that.
After Hurricane Katrina, there was some looting of stores although my understanding was that much of the looting was a reaction to mistreatment (over a period of time and during the crisis) rather than an attempt to make life harder for one’s neighbor. I am not suggesting that looting or other destructive behavior is okay but I am suggesting that in and of itself that behavior did not say much about how the average person responds during an emergency. Most of what I read following hurricane Katrina confirmed that most people were primarily concerned with helping their neighbor.
Mr. Stoffel would have us believe that capitalism depends on goods being available. He asserts goods will not available if sellers are “forbidden to raise prices when supplies are short.” This is a very pessimistic view of the average person.
It is true, in my experience, that many of us humans, have fallen prey to the beliefs that:
· Our worth is determined by how much money or goods we have. (I call this addiction – looking to something outside of ourselves to fill that void or to prove our worth.)
· If we do not consume excessively, we cannot create an economy that is sustainable over a period of time.
I happen to believe that:
· All life is intrinsically worthwhile.
· We can create not only a sustainable but a thriving economy without excess consumption of stuff. Certainly, I am not suggesting that the Soviet brand of communism was a viable solution. Under that system there was an “us” and “them,” thus reinforcing the belief that some are more deserving than others and that one could only meet one’s basic needs by mistreating one’s neighbor. As soon as it was decided or posited that all humans are deserving of equal treatment and access to goods and services, but because humanity is defined very narrowly one had set up a very cruel and failing system. This meant that a few people got to determine when someone had reached the state of “humanness” and could then be included as one of the deserving ones. As it turned out this was no different than the system we increasingly see in the United States and some other countries. A few people prospered and most just survived.
Grandma Fannie often suggested that just because one could not immediately identify what was bothering one about an argument did not mean that one should assume that the other person is right and one is wrong. She would recommend that one step back and patiently examine the argument, possibly discuss it with others, attempt to write out the assumptions being made by the person, write out one’s basic assumptions, attempt to explore the results of research about both sets of assumptions and then attempt to articulate a respectful response. Admittedly this is hard or sometimes tedious work but otherwise one will just be reacting which is not respectful or helpful to anyone.
Sometimes I read or hear an argument and I just feel a little off or confused. Something does not seem right but I cannot immediately fault the logic. Grandma Fannie’s voice in my head
says, “Just a moment.”
Thanks, Grandma Fannie.
Written September 4, 2017
I was reading an article by John Stossel in the Wheeling Intelligencer this morning, September 4, 2017 and immediately I heard Grandma Fannie saying, “Just a minute.” First I asked, “Who is John Stossel?” Wikipedia told me: “John Frank Stossel (born March 6, 1947) is an American consumer television personality, author and libertarian pundit, known for his career on both ABC News and Fox News.”
In the article Mr. Stossel explains why he believes price gouging is a positive aspect of capitalism during a crisis. Mr. Stossel was expressing his disappointment that Texas has laws prohibiting price gouging. He says, “Texas, a state I thought understood capitalism, punishes people who practice it.” He goes on to say, “Prices should rise during emergencies. Prices save lives. That is because prices aren’t just money – they are information.” He goes on to explain that “Price changes tell suppliers what their customers want most.” His reasoning is that if one does not raise the price everyone rushes to buy all they all of a product such as bottled water they can get. “Only the first customers get what they want…The storeowners have no incentive to risk life and limb restocking his store.” Eventually the price will drop because “entrepreneurs have an incentive to move heaven and earth to bring water to the disaster area. They soon do and the price drops again.”
One can read the entire article in the Wheeling newspaper one can google John Stossel and find many articles and You Tube videos explaining his economic theories.
When I first read this article, I could not immediately articulate a respectful argument or debate. I did immediately hear Grandma Fannie saying, “Just a moment.”
His argument does make sense if:
· All humans are self-centered and greedy. None of the research that I have read regarding the behavior of the majority of folks following an emergency supports this statement. Most folks are eager to help their neighbor.
· The average person is focused on making a profit rather than seeing to the needs of his/her family. Certainly, there are those who, if not in immediate danger themselves, obviously believe it is their right to make a profit no matter who it affects.
· The average person has the money to buy up a large supply of a product. Most studies I have read tell me that the average person is living paycheck to paycheck.
· If the price of product is raised to a level that is unaffordable the only people who can purchase it are those who have sufficient funds. They may or may not need any of the product for their use, but will hope to make even a bigger profit that the person who first decided to raise the price.
It is true that if the primary concern in an emergency is to keep a capitalist economy thriving rather than helping those in need price gouging should help that.
After Hurricane Katrina, there was some looting of stores although my understanding was that much of the looting was a reaction to mistreatment (over a period of time and during the crisis) rather than an attempt to make life harder for one’s neighbor. I am not suggesting that looting or other destructive behavior is okay but I am suggesting that in and of itself that behavior did not say much about how the average person responds during an emergency. Most of what I read following hurricane Katrina confirmed that most people were primarily concerned with helping their neighbor.
Mr. Stoffel would have us believe that capitalism depends on goods being available. He asserts goods will not available if sellers are “forbidden to raise prices when supplies are short.” This is a very pessimistic view of the average person.
It is true, in my experience, that many of us humans, have fallen prey to the beliefs that:
· Our worth is determined by how much money or goods we have. (I call this addiction – looking to something outside of ourselves to fill that void or to prove our worth.)
· If we do not consume excessively, we cannot create an economy that is sustainable over a period of time.
I happen to believe that:
· All life is intrinsically worthwhile.
· We can create not only a sustainable but a thriving economy without excess consumption of stuff. Certainly, I am not suggesting that the Soviet brand of communism was a viable solution. Under that system there was an “us” and “them,” thus reinforcing the belief that some are more deserving than others and that one could only meet one’s basic needs by mistreating one’s neighbor. As soon as it was decided or posited that all humans are deserving of equal treatment and access to goods and services, but because humanity is defined very narrowly one had set up a very cruel and failing system. This meant that a few people got to determine when someone had reached the state of “humanness” and could then be included as one of the deserving ones. As it turned out this was no different than the system we increasingly see in the United States and some other countries. A few people prospered and most just survived.
Grandma Fannie often suggested that just because one could not immediately identify what was bothering one about an argument did not mean that one should assume that the other person is right and one is wrong. She would recommend that one step back and patiently examine the argument, possibly discuss it with others, attempt to write out the assumptions being made by the person, write out one’s basic assumptions, attempt to explore the results of research about both sets of assumptions and then attempt to articulate a respectful response. Admittedly this is hard or sometimes tedious work but otherwise one will just be reacting which is not respectful or helpful to anyone.
Sometimes I read or hear an argument and I just feel a little off or confused. Something does not seem right but I cannot immediately fault the logic. Grandma Fannie’s voice in my head
says, “Just a moment.”
Thanks, Grandma Fannie.
Written September 4, 2017
RSS Feed