Price gouging?!What in the world is price gouging? Well, price gouging is when someone in a time of need such as a natural disaster buys a much-needed item, transports it to the place where the natural disaster happened, and sales it for twice as much as they paid for it or more. Or in other words, when someone is stupid enough to stoop so low as to make people already having a hard time have an even harder time.Cause that extra charge of money could very well be what the buyer needs to keep food in their family’s bellies.
Why do people price gouge?People often price gouge when there is a natural disaster, and they want to help but also want to get some gain.Or they never really had that high of standards, so they were just trying to get money instead of helping people. Or possibly they saw that people needed something and were like “I want to help, but I’m going to go about it my way.”It could be that they saw the opportunity and let their high moral standards slide far enough to price gouge.Or they saw the opportunity
…show more content…
Stores during natural disasters have to raise the price of goods, so they can keep supplies coming in for the people who need it. But when stores get their prices way up there it sometimes gets hard for people with less money to buy the necessities.Some people have good reasons to charge the crazy prices that are of price gouging. For starters, they could only have enough to get them by, and so they decided that they would buy something that someone needed and take it to the people for more money than they paid for it. It’s one thing to price gouge because you actually need the money, but it is a complete other to price gouge just because you want some extra money.So there are times when it seems like it’s okay to price gouge but isn’t buying something to give to someone more beneficial to your
All different ethical theories can look at the same problem and come to different conclusions. Even philosopher’s such as Singer and Arthur understand and view ethical values differently. Peter Singer who uses the utilitarian theory believes that wealthy people should give to the degree that the wealthy person now someone in need themselves. John Arthur believes those in need or those suffering are only entitled to the help of the wealthy person if that person agrees to help, and that the property rights of the wealthy person declines the amount that Singer believes people should. People should help other people. I believe all people deserve the right to receive assistance and to not help those people would be morally wrong. However, I do not believe that the help that we are morally obligated to give should come at the cost of our own well-being.
There are many examples of this in the book. The first example of this is at the truck station in chapter 15 when the restaurant owner and waitress give the family bread at a discounted rate, and candy two for a penny when it is actually nickel candy. The truck drivers then leave large tips to the waitress. Neither the truck driver nor the restaurant owner and waitress are very rich but they are generous anyway. In chapter seventeen the person at the car dump gives Tom and Al things for way discounted rates. Ma Joad is also an example of this. The Joads are poor and yet they give what little they have to the children who need it. They also stay and help the Wilsons when it just slowed them down. Another example is when the small land owner that Tom first gets work warns them of the plot of the Farmer's Association to raid the government camp. The clerk in the company store in chapter twenty-four is also generous, lending Ma ten cents so that she can get sugar for the coffee.
The Severe Demand makes an accusation of selfishness as someone who does not meet the Severe Demand is not giving enough consideration to other people’s interests in comparison to their own. According to Singer’s basic argument, as long as you are able to donate more money to aid agencies without significantly reducing your own quality of life in the process, then you are morally obligated to do so, but one of the main arguments against this claim is that it does not take into consideration other people’s interests.
Charity handouts did not necessarily help feed a poor family, but aimed to “... produce most beneficial results to [the] community” (Shi 60). This meant that the wealthy didn’t directly give citizens money, but built free public utilities. Among these free services were libraries and and centers for scientific research. Without a doubt, these buildings do not help put food on the table. They do, however, create a sense of hope for educational and social improvement for the working class.
Setting prices too high would discourage purchasing and setting prices too low negatively affects revenue. While several pricing strategies exist, the use of a value-based pricing system, as implemented at Cabela’s, offers an optimal strategy that meet both customer expectations and company requirements.
Through the eyes of the prosperous, a lack of wealth indicates a fault in character, while their own success is the product of self-control. Paul Buchheit, who analyzed seven different psychological studies in his article titled “Ways the Poor Are More Ethical Than the Rich,” found that “ample evidence exists to show a correlation between wealth and unethical behavior, ...wealth and a lack of empathy for others, and…wealth and unproductiveness” (Buchheit). The relationship between wealth and poor character implies that when people become rich, they start caring more about maintaining their money supply and less about the well-being of others. As wealth increases, generosity, integrity, modesty, and other positive characteristics diminish. Paul Buchheit also noted that “low-income Americans spend a much higher percentage of their income on genuine charitable giving, [with] about two-thirds of ‘charitable’ donations from the rich go[ing] to their foundations and alma maters” (Buchheit). This proves that the wealthy are generally self-absorbed because a large proportion of them, despite having an abundance of money, refrain from devoting it to those in need. When donations are made, it’s only for their own personal benefit. Because the wealthy are programmed to be self-centered, they fail to serve others with their money and instead serve
...are extraordinarily wealthy. Even though the wealthy are trying to do good by donating money, in reality, the wealthy are simply giving away their money to people who do not necessarily need it, according to Thoreau.
The law of demand tells us that "Quantity demanded rises as price falls, other things constant, or alternatively, quantity demanded falls as price rises, other things constant (McGraw 2004). The XBOX 360 phenomenon that took place in 2005 is a good example of this economic principle at work. Microsoft's XBOX 360 gaming console was released into the U.S. market on November 22nd 2005. The release came after a great deal of advertising and media hype that ensured that the demand for the product would outweigh the supply. Quite simply, there were more consumers wanting to purchase the product than there was product available. The retail price for the gaming system with a hard drive was $399. Many consumers, however, paid a great deal more than the $399 sticker price to acquire the system. On the morning of the U.S. release, retailers across the nation sold out of the product within just a few hours of opening their doors to consumers. In the weeks that followed however, many consumers purchased the unit from sellers on on-line auction sites and even from individuals in parking lots for as much as $1500. The reason for this was that the supply was significantly less than the demand for the product. In some cases, parents who wanted to ensure that their children received and XBOX 360 for Christmas in 2005 were willing to pay well over retail for the hard-to-acquire system. In other cases, video gaming enthusiasts wanted to be among the first individuals to own and play the system. News reports across the nation showed footage of people lining up days ahead of November 22nd in order to secure a place in line at retailers that would have the product available on the release date.
Price gouging is increasing the price of a product during crisis or disaster. The price is increased due to temporal increase in demand while supply remains constrained. In many jurisdictions, price gauging is widely considered as immoral and is illegal. However, from a market point of view, price gouging is a correct outcome of an efficient market.
Sheffet, Mary Jane. "The Supreme Court And Predatory Pricing." Journal Of Public Policy & Marketing 13.1 (1994): 163-167. Business Source Complete. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
The cost of an item is predominantly the reason why someone would get the item. No one would want to
Have you ever overpaid for something? I think we all have. Your money—practically wasted. Luckily, I can teach you how to put an end to the anguish and regret you feel when you find your wallet and your shopping bag practically empty. By taking advantage of promotions, shopping second-hand, and comparing prices, you can prevent yourself from making the mistake of blindly overpaying.
wanting to give more than what they have. moral character of the rich and the poor and
...mpare price and ask them whet ether they can get the same product cheaper. Another major factor that greater influences other to increase expenses and should be avoided are credit cards. Credit cards can make someone feel like they have a lot of money to spend however all that debt is piling up while you are forgetting to pay.
Every consumer has a unique way of measuring benefits versus costs and will sometimes pay for higher quality items and other times buy the low costs items, depending on which has the highest value to them.