npts2020

That seems like it would be logical but what in this election have you noticed to be logical? Personally, I would choose a third party but Americans don't realize there are third parties any more than they can tell you what the real record of any party or candidate is. If you remember the "Jay Walking" segments Leno used to do on the Tonight Show or Jordan Klepper's "Fingering the Pulse" on the Daily Show, the idiocy being made fun of is all too commonplace. It's kind of like a person drowning 50 meters offshore and a would-be rescuer having two ropes, one 20 meters long and another 10 meters long. Which rope do they use? Or should they spend time looking for a rope actually adequate for the task? Joe Biden has only been President for less than 4 years of an almost 50 year political career. If you like I can compile a list of some Senators and Representatives who have done so. The fact that he is the first President to do so (and only after being in the middle of a close election campaign) indicates (to me, anyway) just how strongly Democrats in leadership support unions... I can find articles chronicling how great Donald Trump is, too. Can you give me an example or two in your opinion of how Biden has supported unions?

He is talking about current Democratic Party leadership. What have Democrats done to promote unions? AFAIK the auto workers strike during the most recent election was the first time Joe Biden ever showed up on a picket line. In addition, he supported NAFTA (even though people like Ross Perot described exactly what would happen) and the failed Trans Pacific Partnership. I am only using Biden as an example because his record is far from unique amongst Democrats. Then you have the mass media, who constantly tells voters there is only 2 choices for President regardless of their qualifications or policy positions so where are voters going when they feel like one party hasn't been helping them?

And living in Pennsylvania, I saw more tv ads telling me Harris is going to raise my taxes. Why people believe one source over another seems to have more to do with repetition than it does substantiation. Digging into matters deep enough to separate reality from projection takes actual time and energy, something a large percentage of the voting population appears unwilling/unable to do. One example (of many I could cite), is that none of the Trump supporters I talk with about "energy independence" realize the US is producing more oil than any country in the history of the planet or that we are one of the biggest exporters of oil (#4 actually) in the world (OTOH only China imports more oil than the US but the US is still a net exporter). Also, few of them seem to give any weight to the argument that we need to stop using fossil fuels ASAP (for reasons anyone frequenting this forum already know about; climate change, finite supply, environmentally destructive to obtain, etc) rather than increasing the use of them. That brings me to the denizens of this forum, some of the most intelligent and grounded individuals I get to interact with, who don't seem to understand that we are not a majority (maybe not even a plurality) of Americans. There is a reason why a great (award winning) series like "Cosmos" never reaches 2,000,000 viewers but "American Idle" can get over 38,000,000 viewers on a good night. I would bet the majority of people here reading this would rather spend their time watching the former than the latter but that is just the impression I get from the short 15 years of being a member here. In general, I think we would rather talk about the state of the world or the latest scientific discovery than who is dating who or yesterday's football game. That's why we bother participating in this forum instead of spending the time watching the latest viral Tik-Tok video. Unfortunately, when I leave my closest circle of friends or this forum, unless I specifically bring up a topic, the conversations seem to be mere politeness and rarely increase my understanding of the world around me and I would expect (but could be wrong) this to be commonplace among not only our members but all people. If true, it means most of the information considered by many (if not most) individual to be "factual" comes from mass media, especially tv. Because of the problems with mass media, enumerated (not pushing for real answers, unequal treatment of candidates, etc) by others in this thread, is why I thought Trump would win (even though I still thought he would lose the popular vote). Ms. Harris sealed the deal when a dissatisfied electorate is told that she wouldn't have done anything different from the actions that caused (in the minds of many of those voters, anyway) that dissatisfaction.

Printing money only increases inflation if the money supply grows faster than the pool of goods and services.

Caucuses are actual party meetings of party members to choose a candidate and articulate a platform rather than just voting at a polling place. Until about 50 years ago, caucuses were how virtually every state picked their preferred candidate and even now some states still use it. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-states-have-caucuses.html US elections are notoriously complicated because every state and territory has its own rules about running them.

Evolution only describes a process of change. Why do you think it has/should have any goal or aim? What is the goal or aim of fusion and fission? Or plate tectonics and glaciation? Or thermodynamics and physics? Or any other physical event(s) and explanation(s) thereof.

Most of the Amish I know fit into this category

Because the evidence has shown that rape isn't wrong. What do you suppose the likelihood is of anyone ever coming up with such evidence, however? Sometimes? When in the past several centuries has any religion been at the forefront of innovation of any kind? Not sure what scienceism is.

I have read every word in this thread and looked at all of the links. If you can please repost the place where I missed price gouging being in reference to anything other than after a disaster or market disruption, it would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I can only assume that you believe the question to be answered by only applying the term to those situations and it not being valid in any other context.

If true, then why will one change their beliefs when presented with better evidence while the other will not?

So since the question has been answered, price gouging can only occur after a disaster or market disruption. Got it.

Ok, let's put this into perspective. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a chart that compares crude oil price with gas price over enough time but here is a chart of crude oil prices since 1946 in 2023 dollars. https://inflationdata.com/articles/inflation-adjusted-prices/historical-oil-prices-chart/ Note when crude oil prices peaked at the end of 1979 at around $160/barrel and remained above $100 for a couple of years and cost for the past 2 years, mostly between $65-$80/barrel Here is a chart of gasoline prices since 1929 in 2022 dollars so should be close enough for purposes of illustration https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/average-gas-prices-through-history/ Note that gas prices in 1979 peaked at $4.25/gallon (and stayed that way for a couple of years prompting the "windfall profits tax" mentioned by swansont above) and even though the more recent price at the pumps reached nearly $5/gallon we can still use the current (according to AAA) price of $3.20 for comparison If we compare when crude prices sustained $120 (or about $2.86/gallon of crude) price of gas c1980 gasoline was $4.25 IOW 67% of the cost, with today (I'll be very generous and use the $80/barrel and $3.20 gas figures) which works out to 60%of the cost. According to these guys https://ethanolrfa.org/media-and-news/category/news-releases/article/2023/02/new-university-study-ethanol-cuts-gas-prices-by-77-cents-per-gallon , Ethanol actually reduces the cost of a gallon of gas (even if it also reduces its energy content and has other drawbacks) and since unleaded and leaded gas cost about the same to produce (according to The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1985/12/29/end-nears-for-leaded-gasoline-and-for-bargain-fuel-prices/de18ff9b-00f0-45d3-8539-b4df60d0e3c2/ ) they will not be a consideration for me in this discussion. Also, if anyone can show me that other costs are significantly different between the times under consideration, I will take that into account. What this shows is that oil companies are making approximately the same dollars per gallon (even with the figures significantly skewed in their favor) because of that higher percentage markup. My apologies for using this example since there are many similar ones but the question (even if you disagree with the figures presented) still remains unanswered is it price gouging? If not, at what point does it become price gouging? I understand this is a difficult thing to quantify but it seems to me quantification must be attempted before any reasonable discussion about a remedy can take place.

It is my mistake, oil was actually just over$100/barrel but the point remains that oil companies are charging for more now with a greatly reduced price of crude. Except there is one major difference. AFAIK no significant portion of the US population supports this or your other example, whereas we supposedly support capitalism And I would argue that capitalism IS antisocial.

Virtually all of these laws are only applicable to the aftermath of some kind of disaster or emergency, however. What about increases every month or year? During the oil crises of the 1970's, crude oil reached over $150 a barrel yet prices at the gas pump never exceeded $1/gallon in most places. Today, oil is about half the 1970's price and we are paying over $3/gallon. Are oil companies price gouging and if they are, is anyone doing anything about it?

Great, then explain to me how trying to discern reality by following the evidence is indoctrination (as the term is commonly used).

Well you don't seem to show it. Imagine there are 2 people. The first one will modify their beliefs as new and better evidence comes to light, the second is willfully ignorant and will not change their beliefs regardless of any evidence presented. Which one is indoctrinated?

Ok, so how much is price gouging? 10% more than normal? 50%? 200%? 1,000%? If I had the foresight and means to acquire something in short supply, who are you to tell me I am price gouging if people will pay it? It seems to me I should be congratulated for being a good enough capitalist to maximize my profits.

Having laws is all well and good but they have to actually be enforced and in a timely manner. In the US, they seem to be rarely enforced and when they are, it generally takes years of litigation before there is any conclusion to the matter, by which time the monopolist usually has had long enough to make up for any penalties imposed. IMO that makes the current (US) system closer to that unfettered ideal than to than to the kind of ideal that ought control capitalism enough to benefit everyone. In an ideal world, this would happen but it doesn't seem to apply to the majority of citizens in the US. For example, one of the things people complain about the price of is cereal. All of the big producers (General Mills, Kelloggs, and Post) raised prices significantly over the past couple of years while most small producers' prices barely budged yet General Mills, Kelloggs and Post remain the top cereal makers, by far. This is even with many generics being virtually the same as what they sell. Well, the "simplistic label" I am trying to get to the bottom of is exactly what is "price gouging"? It seems to me, there are very few things in life one can't do without or find an alternative for so why pay a price for something if you feel you are being "gouged"?

Competition is an interesting concept when it comes to capitalism. Wouldn't getting rid of competition so you can maximize profits be what a good capitalist should strive for?

At least those knowing anything about dark matter and dark energy admit that and are willing to accept evidence to the contrary when found, unlike those who believe invisible pink unicorns are responsible for everything in the universe...

Even if you are granted the notion that most atheists think the same way about anything, I don't suppose it is possible that after eliminating invisible pink unicorns as being the cause of everything in the universe, that evolution might be the best explanation for the way things are. Don't most people believe in what they think is the most plausible narrative of a topic?

That's the beauty of typing, you can't be interrupted by irrelevancies, shouted down, or not heard. Furthermore, one has time to fully consider and review what is being "said" before actually "saying" it.

This was said on another thread, "We’ve seen many recent examples of companies price-gouging because they were prioritizing their own interests." It doesn't matter who it was because I have heard the same or similar statements from many people, both on and off of this forum. The question is, "How in a supposedly capitalist society can there be such a thing as price-gouging?" I thought the whole principle of capitalism is that greed is the best motivator and you should charge whatever the market will bear?

Flux??? Isn't that the stuff you use for welding?

It seems like you are trying to describe a maglev system which doesn't even require supercooling to lift the object in question, only certain materials.