countries that make the most from taxes

evince said:
it fucked the sick people huh


what if all drug owners did it?
Click to expand...

you said excessive profit trashes the economy. you said nothing about a certain number of sick people. Two very different subjects.

What if all drug makers charged excessive rates? What do you think would happen? Depends on how good their drugs are right and how much demand there would be for them.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging#Laws_against_price_gouging




Laws against price gouging[edit]

In the United States, laws against price gouging have been held constitutional[4] at the state level as a valid exercise of the police power to preserve order during an emergency, and may be combined with anti-hoarding measures. Exceptions are prescribed for price increases that can be justified in terms of increased cost of supply, transportation or storage. Statutes generally give wide discretion not to prosecute: in 2004, Florida determined that one-third of complaints were unfounded, and a large fraction of the remainder were handled by consent decrees, rather than prosecution. Proponents of laws against price gouging assert that it can create an unrealistic psychological demand that can drive a non-replenishable item into extinction.[5] As of 2008, laws against price-gouging have been enacted in 34 states. Price-gouging is often defined in terms of three criteria listed below:[6]
1.Period of emergency: The majority of laws apply only to price shifts during a time of disaster.
2.Necessary items: Most laws apply exclusively to items which are essential to survival.
3.Price ceilings: Laws limit the maximum price that can be charged for given goods.

A prevalent concern surrounding price gouging is that it exploits consumers. Supporters of anti-price gouging laws argue that it is morally wrong for sellers to take advantage of buyer’s vulnerability and increased demand. Opponents argue that buyers are not coerced to take part in this exchange, and they voluntarily agree to pay the seller’s asking price
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act



Sherman Antitrust Act


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search






Sen. John Sherman (R–OH), the principal author of the Sherman Antitrust Act.


Scale of justice 2.svg


Competition law


Basic concepts

History of competition law
Monopoly Coercive monopoly
Natural monopoly

Barriers to entry
Herfindahl–Hirschman Index
Market concentration
Market power
SSNIP test
Relevant market
Merger control


Anti-competitive practices

Monopolization
Collusion Formation of cartels
Price fixing
Bid rigging

Product bundling and tying
Refusal to deal Group boycott
Essential facilities

Exclusive dealing
Dividing territories
Conscious parallelism
Predatory pricing
Misuse of patents and copyrights


Enforcement authorities and organizations

International Competition Network
List of competition regulators

This box: view ·
talk ·
edit


The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act,[1] 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7) is a landmark federal statute in the history of United States antitrust law (or "competition law") passed by Congress in 1890. Passed under the presidency of Benjamin Harrison, it prohibits certain business activities that federal government regulators deem to be anti-competitive, and requires the federal government to investigate and pursue trusts.

In the general sense, a trust is a centuries-old form of a contract whereby one party entrusts its property to a second party. These are commonly used to hold inheritances for the benefit of children, for example. The specific sense from 19th Century America used in the law refers to a type of trust which combines several large businesses for monopolistic purposes - to exert complete control over a market - though the law addresses monopolistic practices even if they have nothing to do with this specific legal arrangement.[2] In most countries outside the United States, antitrust law is known as "competition law."

The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply.[3] "Innocent monopoly", or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is perfectly legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses. (European competition law extends beyond this, to the protection of competitors, at the expense of consumers and overall efficiency.[4])

Over time, the Act has also been used more broadly, to oppose the combination of entities that could potentially harm competition, such as monopolies or cartels
 
evince said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act



Sherman Antitrust Act


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search






Sen. John Sherman (R–OH), the principal author of the Sherman Antitrust Act.


Scale of justice 2.svg


Competition law


Basic concepts

History of competition law
Monopoly Coercive monopoly
Natural monopoly

Barriers to entry
Herfindahl–Hirschman Index
Market concentration
Market power
SSNIP test
Relevant market
Merger control


Anti-competitive practices

Monopolization
Collusion Formation of cartels
Price fixing
Bid rigging

Product bundling and tying
Refusal to deal Group boycott
Essential facilities

Exclusive dealing
Dividing territories
Conscious parallelism
Predatory pricing
Misuse of patents and copyrights


Enforcement authorities and organizations

International Competition Network
List of competition regulators

This box: view ·
talk ·
edit


The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act,[1] 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7) is a landmark federal statute in the history of United States antitrust law (or "competition law") passed by Congress in 1890. Passed under the presidency of Benjamin Harrison, it prohibits certain business activities that federal government regulators deem to be anti-competitive, and requires the federal government to investigate and pursue trusts.

In the general sense, a trust is a centuries-old form of a contract whereby one party entrusts its property to a second party. These are commonly used to hold inheritances for the benefit of children, for example. The specific sense from 19th Century America used in the law refers to a type of trust which combines several large businesses for monopolistic purposes - to exert complete control over a market - though the law addresses monopolistic practices even if they have nothing to do with this specific legal arrangement.[2] In most countries outside the United States, antitrust law is known as "competition law."

The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply.[3] "Innocent monopoly", or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is perfectly legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses. (European competition law extends beyond this, to the protection of competitors, at the expense of consumers and overall efficiency.[4])

Over time, the Act has also been used more broadly, to oppose the combination of entities that could potentially harm competition, such as monopolies or cartels
Click to expand...

post 47
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top