Talk:Price gouging/Archives/2018

Opposition of laws against price gouging

There's a section on opposition to laws against price gouging, giving the reasoning behind this opposition. It'd be nice if there were a section on support for such laws and the reasoning behind supporting them, written in the same style as the opposition section, e.g. "Supporters of anti-price gouging laws also claim that ...". Blargg (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No, the solution is to delete the entire paragraph with the silly pro and con. Not supported by facts or citations, and it has been deleted. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

reference No.5. is a dead link. twice. (both the original and the archive links are dead.))

reference number 5. is a dead link. it is two dead links (both the archived one and the original one). (these are those: http://tobyspeople.com/anthropik/2005/12/thesis-18-peak-oil-may-lead-to-collapse/  ; https://web.archive.org/web/20120422050956/http://tobyspeople.com/anthropik/2005/12/thesis-18-peak-oil-may-lead-to-collapse/ )

and also it seems to never have been a reliable reference for encyclopedic use. please delete both the reference and the sentence in the article that is (not) backed up by this reference. that sentence would have needed a clarification anyway. (its this one: "Proponents of laws against price gouging assert that it can create an unrealistic psychological demand that can drive a non-replenishable item into extinction.")176.63.176.112 (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC).

I deleted that sentence. It was pure nonsense and didn't have a valid citation anywhere. Just a silly, poorly-worded opinion that doesn't belong here. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)