The difference is that the premise of the article is the price gouging doesn't exist. My posts are directly on point, because they stand for the exact opposite of the article's premise.
"Anyone, and I mean anyone, including SOLO posters, who expects or demands that the oil companies not raise their prices (or moderate their price raises) during a crisis is operating not on the basis of compassion and benevolence, but on the same evil premise as the looters in New Orleans who took not just food and medicine (which is forgiveable, as long as an effort is made to repay it), but also appliances and the like."
For clarity's sake, that 'aint me.
"But by trying to keep the profit mechanism and supply-and-demand in operation during the crisis, they are NOT :"gouging." Anyone who does not understand this needs to take Economics 101 and should shut up until they do."
That's not my position, never has been, and I agree with you.
"Price gouging is not a mythological concept; it is bad business practice. Price gouging is different than having to raise prices to keep your margins where they need to be."
YAY! Someone else gets the distinction I've been trying to make!
Yours was a short post, and as you requested, I re-read it. Same reaction. Sometimes, circumstances put you in a position, NOT just to raise your prices to keep your margins where they ought to be, NOT even to raise your prices to a point that will really make you a killing, but instead, put you in a position to demand the ridiculous, but the other bloke is in such a position that he MUST accede to any demand you make.
SO here's a crass hypothetical for you. You, your wife, your child are stranded in the desert. Let's call him Rick, a hypothetical Objectivist of your mindset. After 2 days in the desert, they come upon a guy in a hut. Let's call him Ricky, another hypothetical Objectivist of your stripe.
Ricky will allow Rick and his family some water and shelter, since they are already getting ill from lack of water and sun exposure. But the conditions are these: He wants all of their money. They agree. He wants all of their jewelry. They agree. He executes a bill of sale for their $400,000 home, and they agree to sign it. He wants to screw Rick's wife in front of the entire family. It is a tough decision, but the child is almost dead from exposure. They reluctantly and tearfully agree. Then, he wants to sodomize Rick. And rape the child. So their choice is death or utter humiliation, at a cost to Ricky of literally nothing. (He doesnt pay by the cup-full for his wanter, nor does his property taxes go up or down).
Well, hell, if they agree, then there's no breach of ethics here, right? Rick has the demand, Ricky the supply, and no one is being forced into anything, right? Are you so myopic that you cant see something wrong with this picture?
Contrast it with Ricky offering the family food and shelter for $500.00 per night, to sleep on the floor, when the going hotel rate is abhout $100 per night, and charging them $20 for a phone call for a rescue. That's fine.