What's wrong with PRICE-GOUGING? during a DISASTER or any other time?

[coloradoatheist]

Yes, this is why people who bought their houses in the 1970s for a tenth of what they sell for now always refuse the markup and sell way below what the market will offer them.

Nah, that's just selling at the going rate in normal circumstances. Pretty much the opposite of price gouging.

But why? Exorbitant house prices prevents all people from having shelter.

It was a lot of people who did that during the run up from 2000 to 2007 that caused the financial crisis.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Indeed. Arguably, markets for essentials should be suspended for the duration of the emergency and essentials rationed per capita and/or need. Vendors would be compensated later at the going rate.

Except price changing is a rationing mechanism and one that has other positive side benefits too.

Not per capita or need, the benefits of which I'd argue outweigh those of per dollar rationing in a life threatening emergency.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Nah, that's just selling at the going rate in normal circumstances. Pretty much the opposite of price gouging.

But why? Exorbitant house prices prevents all people from having shelter.

It was a lot of people who did that during the run up from 2000 to 2007 that caused the financial crisis.

I don't accept either premise.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except price changing is a rationing mechanism and one that has other positive side benefits too.

Not per capita or need, the benefits of which I'd argue outweigh those of per dollar rationing in a life threatening emergency.

Not quite. Because you will need a central administration (extremely slow) to make the decisions on how to ration things. You will get lines and delays and no mechanism for other parties to get involved and help.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But why? Exorbitant house prices prevents all people from having shelter.

It was a lot of people who did that during the run up from 2000 to 2007 that caused the financial crisis.

I don't accept either premise.

It came because a lot of individual people where all looking out for their self interest and getting the most for their house. People weren't complaining at the time when they were using their house as an ATM or quickly upgrading their houses.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Not per capita or need, the benefits of which I'd argue outweigh those of per dollar rationing in a life threatening emergency.

Not quite. Because you will need a central administration (extremely slow) to make the decisions on how to ration things. You will get lines and delays and no mechanism for other parties to get involved and help.

Nope, I've personally seen it done locally and efficiently.

 

[ksen]

The twisted world of stunted minds that see suffering human beings as prey. Libertarians and capitalists are sociopathic predators at heart.

The issue is what happens when there isn't enough to go around. The issues that occur are how do you make sure people have a chance to get it. How do you prevent people who don't need it from taking it from people who do. And how do you get it so things are quickly restored.

There is enough to go around. Some will just need to be shippped in from other locations.

 

[skepticalbip]

The “good” is getting supplies, food and water to those who need it. Those who bring in supplies, water and food and make a profit doing it are doing “good”. Those who bring in supplies, food and water and distribute it freely are also doing “good” and are compassionate. Those who do nothing to help while condemning charging for necessities don’t give a shit about the victims and are only virtue signaling.

 

[Canard DuJour]

I don't accept either premise.

It came because a lot of individual people where all looking out for their self interest and getting the most for their house. People weren't complaining at the time when they were using their house as an ATM or quickly upgrading their houses.

Then it's hardly comparable to a life threatening natural disaster. Whether that was cause, symptom or one of several symptoms is irrelevant.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Not quite. Because you will need a central administration (extremely slow) to make the decisions on how to ration things. You will get lines and delays and no mechanism for other parties to get involved and help.

Nope, I've personally seen it done locally and efficiently.

And we've seen times where it makes things highly inefficient. Long lines in Dallas gas stations are an example of rationing inefficiency.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Nope, I've personally seen it done locally and efficiently.

And we've seen times where it makes things highly inefficient. Long lines in Dallas gas stations are an example of rationing inefficiency.

Not really. That's just an inevitable consequence of the physical delivery mechanism, not per capita v per dollar rationing. Allowing some billionaire to take the lot would be less efficient while per capita rationing with the vendor compensated later would be more efficient.

 

[ronburgundy]

The “good” is getting supplies, food and water to those who need it. Those who bring in supplies, water and food and make a profit doing it are doing “good”.

That presumes that they actually "bring in supplies" to people who otherwise would not have access to them. This is often NOT the case. Often, the supply is already there, and raising the price merely means it becomes less available to many who need it. And, often the gougers cut off the normal supply people would otherwise have access to and hoard the supply so they can charge more. This includes widespread "competitive" practices that amount to nothing more than using the economic and political power to leverage other suppliers out of the market to eliminate consumer options.

And even when they actually do "bring in" an increase supply that they didn't already choke off, all the "good" lies in bringing it to those who need it. Zero of the "good" lies in taking everything you can from desperate people in exchange. That is "bad" to any decent person. And since the price gouging guarantees that many who need the good won't get any of what you "brought", it isn't something that anyone who was trying to do any good or cared about supplying that need would do. It means that the "good" effects of their actions were unintended accidents while the bad and harm was deliberate. Since morality is more about intended consequences than the actual net consequences, the net result in moral terms is that they are scumbags.

 

[ronburgundy]

Nope, I've personally seen it done locally and efficiently.

And we've seen times where it makes things highly inefficient. Long lines in Dallas gas stations are an example of rationing inefficiency.

Are you referring to the gas lines in Dallas last week that were 100% due to the glorious "free" market and zero to do with rationing?

Those lines were caused by free market corporate media manufacturing panic-for-profit by lying about a fictional gas shortage that didn't exist, combined with consumers assuming a coming price gouge based upon "free market" actions by gas company's in past crises.
Any actual gas shortage was short term and local, and caused entirely by this "free market" caused panic.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The “good” is getting supplies, food and water to those who need it. Those who bring in supplies, water and food and make a profit doing it are doing “good”.

That presumes that they actually "bring in supplies" to people who otherwise would not have access to them. This is often NOT the case. Often, the supply is already there, and raising the price merely means it becomes less available to many who need it. And, often the gougers cut off the normal supply people would otherwise have access to and hoard the supply so they can charge more. This includes widespread "competitive" practices that amount to nothing more than using the economic and political power to leverage other suppliers out of the market to eliminate consumer options.

And even when they actually do "bring in" an increase supply that they didn't already choke off, all the "good" lies in bringing it to those who need it. Zero of the "good" lies in taking everything you can from desperate people in exchange. That is "bad" to any decent person. And since the price gouging guarantees that many who need the good won't get any of what you "brought", it isn't something that anyone who was trying to do any good or cared about supplying that need would do. It means that the "good" effects of their actions were unintended accidents while the bad and harm was deliberate. Since morality is more about intended consequences than the actual net consequences, the net result in moral terms is that they are scumbags.

But you are also forgetting the incentives that the increased price does. It discourages people from buying things needless so it keeps the item on the shelf. It also encourages the shop owner to brave the elements to stay open and long term stay in business.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And we've seen times where it makes things highly inefficient. Long lines in Dallas gas stations are an example of rationing inefficiency.

Are you referring to the gas lines in Dallas last week that were 100% due to the glorious "free" market and zero to do with rationing?

Those lines were caused by free market corporate media manufacturing panic-for-profit by lying about a fictional gas shortage that didn't exist, combined with consumers assuming a coming price gouge based upon "free market" actions by gas company's in past crises.
Any actual gas shortage was short term and local, and caused entirely by this "free market" caused panic.

Except there are price gouging laws and people were told to report it. Yes people will buy things when they worry about shortages but if prices rise to meet that demand than the lines shorten and it punishes people who buy things for just the sake of hoarding when they don't need to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To be fair to ksen, look how well government mandated low prices are working in Venezuela.

And it's not like economics could predict what will happen when the government sets a price below the price which would equilibrate supply and demand.

Toilet paper is a luxury in life that we can live without.

That's a shitty thing to say!

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Those who do nothing to help while condemning charging for necessities don’t give a shit about the victims and are only virtue signaling.

If you refuse to look at the problem of overcharging for those necessities, then sure. You're being willfully ignorant.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm all in favor of buyers setting the proportion of the product price the seller must pay in taxes. If they say nothing is due from the seller then the buyer is on the hook for services and benefits provided by the various levels of government.

Are you talking about sales tax? I used to think the seller was responsible, and though I understood (or at least thought I understood) the confusion as why so many people thought incorrectly, I was ultimately the one that was mistaken--a hard to pill to swallow, that one. At any rate, my new view is that the buyer is the one responsible.

No. Seriously. I think the buyer should formally indicate the proportion of the agreed price the seller should pay to the government at the time of transaction. Something that obviously isn't in the books right now.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm all in favor of buyers setting the proportion of the product price the seller must pay in taxes. If they say nothing is due from the seller then the buyer is on the hook for services and benefits provided by the various levels of government.

Huh? How does the buyer know what is needed when it's easier for the seller to know and add it to every POS exchange?

Actually the consumer, rightly named, is recipient of most services and provider of most labor. It should be the consumer who makes the tax determination rather than some elected, primarily government, administrative group which is playing this need against that want for staying in power purposes.

Just as the seller and employer determines a price which permits her to make profit or have services in competition so should the buyer and employee determine what are her needs form society and labor to survive in competition with others. We are talking about willing participants here aren't we?

I've always felt the mediator, government, is very lax in constraining either wage or tax attrition screwing the consumer on both ends. Placing the authority for taxing should be from individuals who should pay no taxes. rather consumers should determine how much of gross product is spent for necessary services and guide the government in taking it in the marketplace.

Yes the serf should tax the landlord since she knows best the costs of not being provided necessities.

 

[skepticalbip]

Huh? How does the buyer know what is needed when it's easier for the seller to know and add it to every POS exchange?

Actually the consumer, rightly named, is recipient of most services and provider of most labor. It should be the consumer who makes the tax determination rather than some elected, primarily government, administrative group which is playing this need against that want for staying in power purposes.

Just as the seller and employer determines a price which permits her to make profit or have services in competition so should the buyer and employee determine what are her needs form society and labor to survive in competition with others. We are talking about willing participants here aren't we?

I've always felt the mediator, government, is very lax in constraining either wage or tax attrition screwing the consumer on both ends. Placing the authority for taxing should be from individuals who should pay no taxes. rather consumers should determine how much of gross product is spent for necessary services and guide the government in taking it in the marketplace.

That is damned confusing. Are you saying that the seller should set his selling price that will give him the profit they need to stay in business then the buyer determines how much more they want to pay, as taxes, for the purchase?