The Official Forum
Page 4 of 5 « First 23 4 5
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Japanese mizuno mask for sale (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/54554-japanese-mizuno-mask-sale.html)

Kevin Finnerty Sat Sep 12, 2009 03:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 624984)
I meant nothing about your opinion, which you are entitled to have and to express, about "price gouging."

Only about "So, if they're your beliefs or convictions, then they're valid."

More than once (this thread and the recent "do you wear a cup on the bases?" thread for example) you've seemd to imply that only your belief and conviction were valid. And, not only have you expressed your belief (agian, you're allowed to do so), you've repeated it over and over and included some disparaging remarks about others in doing so. That's the activity I'm asking you (and others) to stop.

Gotcha.

Thank you ... and a tip of the creased, black six-stitch.

briancurtin Sat Sep 12, 2009 03:25pm
Hopefully this thread keeps going and going. Lots of great content in here.

Kevin Finnerty Sat Sep 12, 2009 03:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 624979)
I have to ask, how is it gouging to sell something for what the market will bear? Is it gouging to sell my used car to a college kid for $1000, assuming that's what the market value is?

How do you define gouging?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ump153 (Post 624983)
In colloquial usage, it means simply that the speaker thinks the price too high, and it often degenerates into a term of demagoguery. Non-pejorative uses are generally in reaction to what the writer believes is an unjustified restraint on the market.[/I]
If someone says they're being grilled, it doesn't mean they are actually on a grill being cooked, but everyone who hears the term knows what is meant by it.

When too high a price is charged for something, and someone like me calls it gouging, even though the particular offense is not in keeping with the kind of activity that is commonly associated with its literal translation, it is still fairly easily determined what is being described. I also define it as gouging specifically due to its being done umpire-to-umpire.

I also attest that the what-the-market-will-bear approach to draining people of every drop you can has had rather devastating results. Look around. It does not work.

UmpJM Sat Sep 12, 2009 04:31pm
Kevin,

To my way of thinking, he wasn't "gouging".

It comes down to the diference between need and desire.

If an individual or group has temporarily (or permanently, I guess) "cornered the market" in something that other people need and charge an "excessive" price for it, to me, that is "gouging".

When somebody tries to sell something "scarce" that nobody needs, but some people "want" (some of them pretty badly, apparently) for an excessive price, I don't see anything unethical, immoral, or otherwise "unsavory" about it.

Nobody made you the "jello sheriff". Take it outside.

JM

Ump153 Sat Sep 12, 2009 05:01pm
I agree this wasn't gouging. The original poster was not the sole source or even a primary source for the mask. He was looking for an amateur umpire with more money than brains or a pro umpire who was too impatient to wait the required time to get the mask for $150.

According to him, he found one or the other.




Edited to fix a major brain fart.

Kevin Finnerty Sat Sep 12, 2009 05:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM) (Post 624999)
Kevin,

To my way of thinking, he wasn't "gouging".

It comes down to the diference between need and desire.

If an individual or has temporarily (or permanently, I guess) "cornered the market" in something that other people need and charge an "excessive" price for it, to me, that is "gouging".

When somebody tries to sell something "scarce" that nobody needs, but some people "want" (some of them pretty badly, apparently) for an excessive price, I don't see anything unethical, immoral, or otherwise "unsavory" about it.

Nobody made you the "jello sheriff". Take it outside.

JM
Geez, I thought I just explained my use of the word "gouging." You're right, there is a distinction between the common use of the term and the specific practice of overpricing a necessary commodity in a disaster.

I guess we'll just call it fleecing.

mbyron Sat Sep 12, 2009 05:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ump153 (Post 625002)
The original poster was not the soul source...
http://www.virginmedia.com/images/james_brown-gal.jpg

Ump153 Sat Sep 12, 2009 06:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 625008)
Wow. Talk about a screw up...I guess my parents should be asking the state of Oregon for their money back.:D

Thanks for the humor along with the skewering. It made the embarrassment a little more bearable.

mbyron Sat Sep 12, 2009 09:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ump153 (Post 625017)
Wow. Talk about a screw up...I guess my parents should be asking the state of Oregon for their money back.:D

Thanks for the humor along with the skewering. It made the embarrassment a little more bearable.
I didn't intend a skewering. It was just a typo. But sometimes typos can be funny...

Adam Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ump153 (Post 624983)
I was going to dig out my notes from an Econ class, but I found this first. This is very close to what they taught at Oregon:


During and immediately after crises such as natural disasters, various parties will claim that someone is price gouging. What is price gouging, anyway? How do professional economists define it?

The answer is that there is no objective definition. Economists--who specialize in price theory and the behavior of markets and can study these things ad nauseum--have no definition for it, either. In fact, economists have avoided the term as if it were a social disease. A review of all the microeconomics textbooks on Neutral Source's bookshelf reveals that none have as much as an index entry.

A skeptic might retort that this illustrates the real-world irrelevance of economics. Neutral Source believes otherwise. Rather, the concept of price gouging is irrelevant to economics.

Wikipedia defines price gouging as:

a term of variable, but nearly always pejorative, meaning, referring to a seller's asking a price that is much higher than what is seen as 'fair' under the circumstances. In precise, legal usage, it is the name of a felony that obtains in some of the United States only during civil emergencies. In less precise usage, it can refer either to prices obtained by practices inconsistent with a competitive free market, or to windfall profits. In colloquial usage, it means simply that the speaker thinks the price too high, and it often degenerates into a term of demagoguery. Non-pejorative uses are generally in reaction to what the writer believes is an unjustified restraint on the market.
This is where I was going, thanks.

Adam Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty (Post 624990)
If someone says they're being grilled, it doesn't mean they are actually on a grill being cooked, but everyone who hears the term knows what is meant by it.

When too high a price is charged for something, and someone like me calls it gouging, even though the particular offense is not in keeping with the kind of activity that is commonly associated with its literal translation, it is still fairly easily determined what is being described. I also define it as gouging specifically due to its being done umpire-to-umpire.

I also attest that the what-the-market-will-bear approach to draining people of every drop you can has had rather devastating results. Look around. It does not work.
A fair market will not drain people of every drop, nor will a smart marketeer. The what-the-market-will-bear approach works well when suppliers aren't artificially suppressed by excessive regulation.

bob jenkins Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 625056)
A fair market will not drain people of every drop, nor will a smart marketeer. The what-the-market-will-bear approach works well when suppliers aren't artificially suppressed by excessive regulation.
I think we've just about exhausted the "gouging vs. free market" debate. (Well, not exhausted it, but reached the poitn where it's likely to turn into a more-rancorous exchange). And, since the mask has been sold, I think it's time to let this thread die.

Kevin Finnerty Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 625056)
A fair market will not drain people of every drop, nor will a smart marketeer. The what-the-market-will-bear approach works well when suppliers aren't artificially suppressed by excessive regulation.
That's very, very funny.

Excessive regulation ... :D

So that's what's to blame for its obvious failure in recent years ... excessive regulation.

:D

I guess now we've truly exhausted it. Wow. Smart marketing artificially supressed by excessive regulation. That's great stuff.

Adam Mon Sep 14, 2009 08:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty (Post 625120)
That's very, very funny.

Excessive regulation ... :D

So that's what's to blame for its obvious failure in recent years ... excessive regulation.

:D

I guess now we've truly exhausted it. Wow. Smart marketing artificially supressed by excessive regulation. That's great stuff.
Kevin, I'd love to have this discussion, but as Bob is the moderator, I'm going to agree to drop this. Suffice it to say I wasn't very clear in my last post, as your post here makes it obvious that my point wasn't made well.

mbyron Mon Sep 14, 2009 08:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 625140)
Kevin, I'd love to have this discussion, but as Bob is the moderator, I'm going to agree to drop this. Suffice it to say I wasn't very clear in my last post, as your post here makes it obvious that my point wasn't made well.
Snaqs: don't expect the last word. :rolleyes:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:22pm.
Page 4 of 5 « First 23 4 5
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1