This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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 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)