All you're doing is making the market less free. In doing so you're trusting that central planners are better arbiters of commerce than the individuals involved in the transactions and that's why it fails. People are laughing at Kamala's price control strategy but don't understand that all forms of market interference are the exact same thing.

Did your uncle get those generators directly from the factory? Did he have a distribution agreement with the manufacturer?

I didn't say he did that, I was using it as an example. He actually loaded up with water, food, clothes, and stuff that was all donated by his church. It's amazing what can be done when the government doesn't have their bull [BLEEP] in the way. 

And it's also interesting that you guys think Home Depot would just start pulling stuff off the shelves in northern states to move it to south Florida. More expense for less profit isn't how big corporations run.

Let's try a simpler example. My family is having a holiday at Disney for Labor Day weekend and I want to stay the entire week. The cost of my room is $185 per night for Friday through Tuesday. On Wednesday the price for my room jumps to $485 per night because a convention starts on Thursday going through the weekend after Labor Day. I really wanted to stay the entire week but Disney raised the price almost 275% so I have to leave Wednesday morning. Why shouldn't the government make them sell me the room for $185 instead of price gouging us? It's just not fair.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Did your uncle get those generators directly from the factory? Did he have a distribution agreement with the manufacturer?

I didn't say he did that, I was using it as an example. He actually loaded up with water, food, clothes, and stuff that was all donated by his church. It's amazing what can be done when the government doesn't have their bull [BLEEP] in the way. 

And it's also interesting that you guys think Home Depot would just start pulling stuff off the shelves in northern states to move it to south Florida. More expense for less profit isn't how big corporations run.

Let's try a simpler example. My family is having a holiday at Disney for Labor Day weekend and I want to stay the entire week. The cost of my room is $185 per night for Friday through Tuesday. On Wednesday the price for my room jumps to $485 per night because a convention starts on Thursday going through the weekend after Labor Day. I really wanted to stay the entire week but Disney raised the price almost 275% so I have to leave Wednesday morning. Why shouldn't the government make them sell me the room for $185 instead of price gouging us? It's just not fair.

Because there is no emergency forcing anyone to leave their homes.
Duh.

As for your question about home Depot, they can move their own products from store to store cheaper than anyone else can, and if they did so while keeping prices low, they would get a lot of good will from the community.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I didn't say he did that, I was using it as an example. He actually loaded up with water, food, clothes, and stuff that was all donated by his church. It's amazing what can be done when the government doesn't have their bull [BLEEP] in the way. 

And it's also interesting that you guys think Home Depot would just start pulling stuff off the shelves in northern states to move it to south Florida. More expense for less profit isn't how big corporations run.

Let's try a simpler example. My family is having a holiday at Disney for Labor Day weekend and I want to stay the entire week. The cost of my room is $185 per night for Friday through Tuesday. On Wednesday the price for my room jumps to $485 per night because a convention starts on Thursday going through the weekend after Labor Day. I really wanted to stay the entire week but Disney raised the price almost 275% so I have to leave Wednesday morning. Why shouldn't the government make them sell me the room for $185 instead of price gouging us? It's just not fair.

Because there is no emergency forcing anyone to leave their homes.
Duh.

No, that's not a reason to put laws in place to stop so called "price gouging." If you start applying additional criteria to commerce all you do is make it more difficult to engage in trade. You also give some of the most incompetent people on Earth control of the market.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You are going to offend HURRICANE.  He got really triggered last time we called her that.

No.  There's a difference between being offended and thinking something is childish.

---

You are going to offend HURRICANE.  He got really triggered last time we called her that.

No.  There's a difference between being offended and thinking something is childish.

But she is a ho. So.....

---

lolololol

https://x.com/gatewaypundit/status/18253...6SEvA&s=19

It's all theater with them and people still willingly vote for it.

---

lolololol

https://x.com/gatewaypundit/status/18253...6SEvA&s=19

It's all theater with them and people still willingly vote for it.

Could you ever see Trump doing something like this?

---

It's all theater with them and people still willingly vote for it.

Could you ever see Trump doing something like this?

No because he would never have to.  Also, I originally wrote and then erased "Could you imagine Trump or a Republican doing this?  They'd be beating him over the head with it all the way to election day and there would be crying on TV and all the theatrics."

I've probably written out and then decided why bother and then erased as many posts as my actual post count shows over the years.  My better judgement doesn't always kick in though.

---

I get economics but gouging is not the only regulation to put in place.  Perhaps there needs to be purchase limitations on such items, if that is possible to a certain extent.  Is is realistic OR can it be done, I really don't know but it could make things more difficult for people to stock up, leaving others out in the cold.

I totally get economics and can afford the many things I advocate against, especially when it comes to crisis situations like national disasters, epidemics, etc.

Regarding your uncle, I commend his business instinct but also note that those 300 generators from a store like Home Depot could have easily be transferred to local SW FL stores where the consumer could purchase them at a reasonable costs.  I'd much rather have 300 generators available to those hurricane victims at cost rather than to have uncle Teddy bring in generators and charge cost x 4 to the victims.  If gouging laws are in place, he can't hoard them, waiting to take advantage of innocent victims.  I reiterate, I do commend his business acumen

All you're doing is making the market less free. In doing so you're trusting that central planners are better arbiters of commerce than the individuals involved in the transactions and that's why it fails. People are laughing at Kamala's price control strategy but don't understand that all forms of market interference are the exact same thing.

Lol .... then allow the people to drive rent up to the market value.  A few months ago, everyone was complaining about landlords driving rent up and pushing those that can't afford the increases out of places like San Fran and other cities in the US.   What's it going to be, a free market or a market that has some controls such as limitations in crisis situations and perhaps rent increases capped at 5-10% per year?

---

All you're doing is making the market less free. In doing so you're trusting that central planners are better arbiters of commerce than the individuals involved in the transactions and that's why it fails. People are laughing at Kamala's price control strategy but don't understand that all forms of market interference are the exact same thing.

Lol .... then allow the people to drive rent up to the market value.  A few months ago, everyone was complaining about landlords driving rent up and pushing those that can't afford the increases out of places like San Fran and other cities in the US.   What's it going to be, a free market or a market that has some controls such as limitations in crisis situations and perhaps rent increases capped at 5-10% per year?

Ok, why do you think I would oppose that? The government has no business mandating prices...period.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

All you're doing is making the market less free. In doing so you're trusting that central planners are better arbiters of commerce than the individuals involved in the transactions and that's why it fails. People are laughing at Kamala's price control strategy but don't understand that all forms of market interference are the exact same thing.

Lol .... then allow the people to drive rent up to the market value.  A few months ago, everyone was complaining about landlords driving rent up and pushing those that can't afford the increases out of places like San Fran and other cities in the US.   What's it going to be, a free market or a market that has some controls such as limitations in crisis situations and perhaps rent increases capped at 5-10% per year?

As a landlord, if you capped my rent increase amount on renewal,  I simply wouldn't renew.  Tenant would need to go back through the application process and reapply at the new market rate. 

Stop letting the government be your daddy.

---

Lol .... then allow the people to drive rent up to the market value.  A few months ago, everyone was complaining about landlords driving rent up and pushing those that can't afford the increases out of places like San Fran and other cities in the US.   What's it going to be, a free market or a market that has some controls such as limitations in crisis situations and perhaps rent increases capped at 5-10% per year?

As a landlord, if you capped my rent increase amount on renewal,  I simply wouldn't renew.  Tenant would need to go back through the application process and reapply at the new market rate. 

Stop letting the government be your daddy.

As a landlord, I don't disagree (since the pendulum can swing the other way - reference 2009-2012) but have offered lower than market value terms to existing tenants.

---

As a landlord, if you capped my rent increase amount on renewal,  I simply wouldn't renew.  Tenant would need to go back through the application process and reapply at the new market rate. 

Stop letting the government be your daddy.

As a landlord, I don't disagree (since the pendulum can swing the other way - reference 2009-2012) but have offered lower than market value terms to existing tenants.

It depends on situation.  An extra $100 a month doesn't move the needle if they are good tenants. Vacancy and repairs alone wouldn't be worth losing them. However,  most tenants expect a moderate increase. It isn't an exact science. Bottom line, let the market determine rent, not the state or govt.

---

Rent control is a very bad idea. Build more units and prosecute landlords who collude to fix prices.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I have several rental properties. Both residential and commercial. I generally throughout the years only increased the rent on good tenants the amount of property tax and insurance increases. Sometimes, not even that. It has worked well for me. I always had a positive cash flow on them to begin with. I have many tenants that have been long timers and have literally purchased the properties for me. Bad tenants you ask? I kick their [BLEEP] out.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

https://youtube.com/shorts/1VkDqKDAWOc?s...chv__5IHLC

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

What does everyone think about auto insurance and home owners insurance going 2x or even 3x up in price over the past 4 years?  I assume everyone is ok with that since companies need to make profit by hitting all Florida residents for the hurricanes hitting the gulf coast .....  to me it just seems like we need to draw the line somewhere but I really don't have the answers as I don't think there is really a definitive black and white solution.

---

The Dems are just mailing it in while counting on the MSM to keep them on track. 

---

As a landlord, if you capped my rent increase amount on renewal,  I simply wouldn't renew.  Tenant would need to go back through the application process and reapply at the new market rate. 

Stop letting the government be your daddy.

As a landlord, I don't disagree (since the pendulum can swing the other way - reference 2009-2012) but have offered lower than market value terms to existing tenants.

That is a cost benefit analysis you've personally made for yourself.  You've found a good tenant.  It's a hassle for you to potentially risk months long vacancies finding a new, qualified, good tenant.  Rather than deal with that hassle, you give your existing good tenant a discount over current market rate rent to keep them happy and keep your life a little more stress free.  This is not an example of keeping prices artificially low across the board being a good thing.

---

What does everyone think about auto insurance and home owners insurance going 2x or even 3x up in price over the past 4 years?  I assume everyone is ok with that since companies need to make profit by hitting all Florida residents for the hurricanes hitting the gulf coast .....  to me it just seems like we need to draw the line somewhere but I really don't have the answers as I don't think there is really a definitive black and white solution.

Homeowner's insurance is tightly regulated.  All rate and policy changes are reviewed by a regulator and there is a public option competing with the for-profit providers.
Jason Garcia has been all over reporting the good and bad of the situation.  One thing he reported a few years back was that the private insurers were all required to get a certain minimum amount of reinsurance, regardless of if they were a big or small insurer.  And for whatever reason at the time, state farm was the only game in town for that dollar value and rating of reinsurance.  The effect was that even though customers thought there were choices, all of the choices they did see were basically state farm at the end of the day.  It's an example of how minor tweaks to well intentioned regulations can screw over the little guy in favor of the guys with more lobbyists.
On the other hand, auto insurance is loosely regulated.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.