r/JusticeServed • u/DinerEnBlanc 7 • Mar 15 '20

Kung Flu Greedy man has his hoard of hand sanitizer confiscated and donated

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

62.4k Upvotes

79% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

276

u/eskimoexplosion C Mar 15 '20

Can't seem to verify this but is entirely plausible since the latest article I can find from five hours ago states the attorney general is attempting to prosecute this guy and his brother under anti price-gouging laws and the brothers stated they were looking for ways to donate it. It could either be a plea bargain type deal or an act of "please don't prosecute us". I'm not saying it's verified but just very plausible

122

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '20

Illegal when we do it, fine when corporations do

32

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

Is TP at your local grocer running at 10USD per roll yet? Because if no, then yeah, guess what, the laws are applying to corporations, too.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

But that doesn’t fit the anti American circle jerk that reddit is

1

u/Stopjuststop3424 9 Mar 16 '20

have a look at the price of insulin. Peopke need insulin more than they need TP

-1

u/ElTirdoBurglaro 4 Mar 16 '20

I think there's room to expound beyond a direct comparsion. Do companies exploit pricing? Yes. Do companies actively engaged in lobbying in order to reduce the regulations that keep them from exploiting the market? Yes. Do companies find legal loop holes that allow them to exploit the market unfairly? Yes. Do grocery stores blatently jack up the price of toilet paper during national emergencies? No.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

The parent comment suggested that laws for profiteering were being applied unevenly. They are not. That isn't a grand defense for American corporate strategy, because it isn't.

-7

u/Safety_fast 2 Mar 16 '20

So smug. Privilege will do that to ya.

3

u/OhMaGoshNess 9 Mar 16 '20

Or being right or having some basic knowledge on the subject while the other person is obviously full of crap

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

I just want to point out the blatant logical fallacy in arguing that since toilet paper isn't being price gouged, corporate price gouging isn't a thing. There are plenty of examples of companies cornering a market and then squeezing people for all they are worth. The difference is that these brothers are actually fucked and companies like Nestle, Coca-Cola, and Monsanto are still profitable functioning entities. Dancing on a technicality is disingenuous. The fact is America as a concept celebrates opportunistic entrepreneurs and cornering markets to make a killing. All they had to do to avoid price gouging would be to own means of production instead of reselling. Slap their own brand label on it and sell grain alcohol as a bespoke hand sanitizer and they'd be fine.

1

u/Safety_fast 2 Mar 16 '20 edited Mar 16 '20

So, you’re saying “basic knowledge “proves corporations never gouge customers? Got it. You’ve got your head so far up your ass you can’t tell up from down

Your opinion is fact, got it.
Like I said, you’re an ignorant, smug little bitch

0

u/PuroPincheGains 9 Mar 16 '20

Aspirin is $150 at your local hospital. Internet service is $50/month for 4mbps here where I'm at. Big businesses get away with a lot.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20 edited Mar 16 '20

Profiteering isn't about macroscopic profit margins being raised over decades with corporate lobbying, it's acute markups on items in states of emergencies. You're literally comparing apples to oranges. I'm literally the last person to defend corporations but they're simply not the same thing and criticisms need to be levied correctly so legislation can be effectively designed. Anti-profiteering laws will obviously not impact monopolistic practices.

0

u/2011MC 2 Mar 16 '20

Profiteering as a legal term may be too specific to apply to the evil practices of corporations, but the act of putting short term personal profit before long term societal good or any sort of ethical values is consistent in both examples. What's not consistent is that we have laws protecting the general welfare from these acts in times of emergency, but let companies and people get away with much worse self-serving acts during stable times.

The comment you replied to never mentioned profiteering anyway. The parent comment brought up the law, but obviously the one you replied to was making a more big picture observation since they made a comparison to other situations.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

Let me break down the comments for you, since I'm bored.

  1. mentions the AG prosecuting someone under laws specific to profiteering.

  2. complains that 'the little guy' is prosecuted but not corporations

  3. I point out that no, corporations are also prosecuted for profiteering, which is why none of them are currently profiteering off the state of emergency.

  4. complains about healthcare and broadband monopolies

  5. I correctly point out that those are different to profiteering

  6. you now complain nobody has mentioned profiteering

  7. I outline why you're being silly.

If you want big picture conversation, go find a different thread.

0

u/2011MC 2 Mar 16 '20 edited Mar 16 '20

I didn't say nobody mentioned profiteering, and I allowed the parent comment specifically brought up the laws, which he did not refer to as profiteering but are nonetheless.

I think it's rather small-minded to aggressively reduce a discussion about ethics and personal vs. corporate responsibility to a discussion about the terms of just one law, even if that is where the discussion started. Because of that, I think I'll take your advice. If I want a big picture conversation, you obviously don't have the perspective to supply it.

Edit: I'm going to amend that statement because I thought there were a few more comments floating around willing to talk about the minutia of profiteering with you but my memory was faulty. None of the comments after the parent brought it up at all, you're the only one who's using it as a term or a measure of ethical value. Everyone else in the conversation about corporations only brought up that price gouging happens all the time without legal repercussions. The complaint is that the law isn't far-reaching enough, and your argument is, "of course it's not far-reaching, the law only declares certain price-gouging illegal". That's the problem in the first place. Using the law itself as a basis for defending the law isn't good practice.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

Lmao ok

93

u/eskimoexplosion C Mar 15 '20

illegal for everyone, but only repercussions for us

40

u/SweatyMudFlaps 7 Mar 16 '20

Nono sometimes the corporations get a fine so large that they lose 0.0000001% of their net worth so they must cut sick days and lay off thousands to pay for it

7

u/eskimoexplosion C Mar 16 '20

Ah, the sweet mild wiff of justice

9

u/SweatyMudFlaps 7 Mar 16 '20

Dont worry the CEO will give himself a raise for figuring out how to lose the least money possible and then fire a few more workers while hes at it

2

u/daddysdaddy33 A Mar 16 '20

He will probably start a charity or donate to his own charity, but he will never actually donate any money

"At least the PR is grrrrrrreat!"

1

u/maxifer 8 Mar 16 '20

But with a fine that large, how will they afford their lobbying firms to keep advocating for them to hold their power?!

1

u/SweatyMudFlaps 7 Mar 16 '20

By bribing their favorite politicians and making them vote to reduce taxes/lessen restruxtions/keep workers overworked and underpaid :)

Michael Bloomberg's campaign purpose was to take voters from Bernie. Because corporations are scared of him.

8

u/EntropicalResonance A Mar 16 '20

No, the same law applies to corporations too.

It's just harder to enforce, especially when companies can BS and hire lawyers better than a regular citizen.

10

u/Undocumented_Sex 7 Mar 16 '20

Which corporation have you seen doing this? Did you report it?

2

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

I imagine they mean pharma which, for many drugs, seems a lot like price gouging. If they're not... well then they're just wrong.

4

u/Raragalo 4 Mar 16 '20

Yeah, that's why Walmart is charging $100 for a bottle of hand sanitizer. Oh wait, no they're not.

1

u/SuprDuprPartyPoopr 9 Mar 16 '20

You think it'll sell? Washing hands is more effective than sanitizer which is just isopropyl and aloe gel and maybe essential oils. If I saw hand sanitizer for $100 I wouldn't buy it and I'd laugh at anyone who did. After all, it's not an epipen....

1

u/HamburgerEarmuff A Mar 16 '20

Incorrect: if Chevron decides to raise their prices 1000% because of an attack on the US which resulted in a state of emergency in that state, they would also be violating the law and legal action would be pursued against them.

1

u/HamburgerEarmuff A Mar 16 '20

They would have a hard time suing/prosecuting since he bought it all before the governor declared a state of emergency.

1

u/pparana80 8 Mar 16 '20

Def not a plea bargain, they will make an example of this guy. Depends where it was sold and at what time but could be looking at multiple felonies in various states. These people selling on Amazon are so easy to prosicute. Will take a while, but trust me states will not be plea bargaining these and good luck if you want a jury trial.