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

[PyramidHead]

I wonder if there could be another way to signal that various necessities are needed in a certain area? I don't know, something like a massive fucking hurricane that floods thousands of homes? Do you really think everybody was just sitting around not knowing what to do until Walmart started selling 12-packs of Dasani for $80?

But the resources, except for a few charities that have some, aren't just sitting in a magical warehouse somewhere waiting for a disaster. They have to be diverted from other places and used that way. 7/11 will have to say, hey Denver can have a few boxes of water this week and we'll ship them to 7/11 in Houston. But to make that change it's going to cost more to both places, so they need to raise prices to compensate for the change of inventory. Being able to know that they can sell those bottles of water at a higher price in Houston as very much an incentive for 7/11 to send them there instead of Denver.

You're making it so much more complicated by introducing incentives. If there is water, basic food stuffs, batteries, etc., any and all distributors of these products could just take whatever they were planning on charging 7000% for and give it away for free. If more supplies are needed, the government can ship them to wherever they need to go. The incentive being that people will die if they don't. After the storm clears, all the affected distributors would just bill the government and get a check. We aren't talking about caviar and champagne here. We can afford it. Just replace the store charging exorbitant prices for basic necessities with simply giving it to people and making sure everybody is covered. Whatever way they would ration things has to be at least a thousand times better than doing so on the basis of income.

 

[ksen]

Price gouging causes or feeds panic buying. Rationing would alleviate that.

 

[Canard DuJour]

The comment to which you ostensibly reply stands in response. Relying on that mechanism is probably the least humane and efficient means of disaster relief, and not even helpful where better means are implemented.

where we differ is seeing humane, and it applies to even more than just price gouging, but economics in general.

Not really. What appertains during a natural disaster dosn't appertain every day.

One side sees having 1000 packages of bottled water as being more humane even if it costs more, than having 10 packages give in need.

Then that "side" is arguing against a rather absurd and obvious straw man.

 

[RavenSky]

Those high prices are signals for other resources to deliver those products down there. So resources will be diverted to that area that weren't normally there to bring down the prices and serve the needs. Price gouging goes on for very short times because of the signaling it sends. Both sides overexaggerate the issues as suggest with Venezuela but the short term price increases don't have the big harmful effects either.

I wonder if there could be another way to signal that various necessities are needed in a certain area? I don't know, something like a massive fucking hurricane that floods thousands of homes? Do you really think everybody was just sitting around not knowing what to do until Walmart started selling 12-packs of Dasani for $80?

cr;jq

 

[coloradoatheist]

But the resources, except for a few charities that have some, aren't just sitting in a magical warehouse somewhere waiting for a disaster. They have to be diverted from other places and used that way. 7/11 will have to say, hey Denver can have a few boxes of water this week and we'll ship them to 7/11 in Houston. But to make that change it's going to cost more to both places, so they need to raise prices to compensate for the change of inventory. Being able to know that they can sell those bottles of water at a higher price in Houston as very much an incentive for 7/11 to send them there instead of Denver.

You're making it so much more complicated by introducing incentives. If there is water, basic food stuffs, batteries, etc., any and all distributors of these products could just take whatever they were planning on charging 7000% for and give it away for free. If more supplies are needed, the government can ship them to wherever they need to go. The incentive being that people will die if they don't. After the storm clears, all the affected distributors would just bill the government and get a check. We aren't talking about caviar and champagne here. We can afford it. Just replace the store charging exorbitant prices for basic necessities with simply giving it to people and making sure everybody is covered. Whatever way they would ration things has to be at least a thousand times better than doing so on the basis of income.

A lot of the items that do go up in price aren't things the government can easily bring in like water. Look at the airlines charging five times for flights, or plywood. But since people will pay that $1K to get out of there, have you offered to drive down there and drive people out of safety for free? Or much would it take for you to drive down there and uber someone out?

- - - Updated - - -

Price gouging causes or feeds panic buying. Rationing would alleviate that.

Rationing too would put in in people's minds to hoard and cause a panic. At least gouging does disincentive people for not try to hoard things.

 

[fast]

Are there any people here equating a mere sudden price increase with price gouging? It seems to me that although price gouging implies a price increase, there's more to price gouging than just a sudden price increase. With price gouging, there is intentionality ... a conscious effort to sock it to others financially, especially while particularly disadvantaged due to extraordinary circumstances like a natural disaster.

For example, if gas price goes from a reasonably stable price of about $2 a gallon and spikes far up to near $6 a gallon as a a hurricane looms, that would seem to meet a necessary condition of price gouging (the sudden and substantial spike in price); however, that price flux alone doesn't appear to be a sufficient reason to conclude what we should refer to as actual price gouging. Why? Because there's more to price gouging than such price increase. What? The intentions of those raising the price. If there is an excessive unnecessary increase beyond what supply and demand brings (such as a purposeful intent to take advantage of the negative consequences precipitated by a disaster). For instance, if the reason for finding gas being sold at $10 a gallon is most customers cannot get to other nearby gas stations because of closed roads due to the disaster, then that's an instance of more than just an increase in price but also an instance of price gouging.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If there were adequate supplies being shipped in there would be no market for price gouging. If price gouging exists it's evidence that the other methods aren't working. And it also shows a simple means of preventing it--ship in enough supplies.

Why would a good capitalist want to prevent, or decrease the amount of, price gouging?

FEMA should be shipping in the supplies.

- - - Updated - - -

No. We are looking deeper, not just at the surface of what feels good.

It's true that sociopaths don't care about feeling good because they don't have human emotions.

Which unironically helps them to be good capitalists.

The problem is you are making decisions based on emotion that look good in the short run but produce a bad result in the big picture.

- - - Updated - - -

Haha, leave it to sociopaths to bring up Venezuela when the topic is price gouging during a natural disaster.

You guys are great!

The point is Venezuela is the result of the sort of price controls you want.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If there were adequate supplies being shipped in there would be no market for price gouging. If price gouging exists it's evidence that the other methods aren't working. And it also shows a simple means of preventing it--ship in enough supplies.

Absolutely, therefore the more humane and efficient solution is to ship in adequate relief rather than relying on sociopaths exploiting desperate circumstances. Failure to implement efficient, humane relief does not excuse price gouging.

Hence this is all rather beside the point. Price gouging typically happens with resources in situ before said relief arrives and does nothing to expedite it. Until then, distribution per capita and/or need is more efficient and humane.

Of course they should ship in adequate relief. In practice, though, they simply don't have the capability. Nobody is willing to fund such services at the level needed to react fast enough to major disasters, let alone the double situation we are now facing.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Conservatives and Libertarians aren't willing to fund such services at the level needed to react fast enough to major disasters, let alone the double situation we are now facing.

Fify

 

[fromderinside]

Nobody is willing to fund such services at the level needed to react fast enough to major disasters, let alone the double situation we are now facing.

Conservatives and Libertarians aren't willing to fund such services at the level needed to react fast enough to major disasters, let alone the double situation we are now facing.

Fify

God fobids we fund such services at the level needed to react fast enough to major disasters, let alone the double situation we are now facing.

Fifyfy

 

[dismal]

Price gouging causes or feeds panic buying. Rationing would alleviate that.

Yes, of course, nothing works better than rationing X to get people to calm down about getting X.

And it's not like real world experience would suggest rationing rewards the wrong people and creates black markets.

Again, we can just look at Venezuela (and everywhere else it has been tried ever) to observe the prosperity created by government dictating prices below that which will equilibrate supply and demand.

 

[ksen]

Price gouging causes or feeds panic buying. Rationing would alleviate that.

Yes, of course, nothing works better than rationing X to get people to calm down about getting X.

In a disaster situation it helps more than price gouging. With rationing you don't have to worry about there being nothing for you and your family. With rationing sociopathic opportunists can't buy out the supply to resell at a 3000% markup putting the goods out of the price reach of people that need those goods.

And it's not like real world experience would suggest rationing rewards the wrong people and creates black markets.

"Wrong people" . . . you mean those dirty poors?

Again, we can just look at Venezuela (and everywhere else it has been tried ever) to observe the prosperity created by government dictating prices below that which will equilibrate supply and demand.

Like clockwork.

 

[fromderinside]

Again, we can just look at Venezuela ...

Venezuela? That place has never been an example of anything beyond the consequences of greed, both personal and national. Personal leading up to Chavez and national since.

Others like Cuba before and after Castro. Or Russia before and after collapse or Brazil or Argentina about every three years or Rome before and after the Huns or America before and after the market crash in '29 and again before and after Trump .....

What's your point, do you have a point, dismal?

 

[Canard DuJour]

Absolutely, therefore the more humane and efficient solution is to ship in adequate relief rather than relying on sociopaths exploiting desperate circumstances. Failure to implement efficient, humane relief does not excuse price gouging.

Hence this is all rather beside the point. Price gouging typically happens with resources in situ before said relief arrives and does nothing to expedite it. Until then, distribution per capita and/or need is more efficient and humane.

Of course they should ship in adequate relief. In practice, though, they simply don't have the capability. Nobody is willing to fund such services at the level needed to react fast enough to major disasters, let alone the double situation we are now facing.

Total. Nonsense.

Gov't might or might not have sufficient resources depending on the scale of the disaster. Where they have not, the problem is ruined or inaccessible infrastructure i.e. lack of helicopters, amphibious craft, trained guys etc - not anything grocers and retailers in neighbouring states have, which a currency issuing gov't could always acquire or sequester anyway.

The price signalling thing is hit and miss in normal times and irrelevant in the kind of circumstances you're on about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Conservatives and Libertarians aren't willing to fund such services at the level needed to react fast enough to major disasters, let alone the double situation we are now facing.

Fify

Liberals aren't, either.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course they should ship in adequate relief. In practice, though, they simply don't have the capability. Nobody is willing to fund such services at the level needed to react fast enough to major disasters, let alone the double situation we are now facing.

Total. Nonsense.

Gov't might or might not have sufficient resources depending on the scale of the disaster. Where they have not, the problem is ruined or inaccessible infrastructure i.e. lack of helicopters, amphibious craft, trained guys etc - not anything grocers and retailers in neighbouring states have, which a currency issuing gov't could always acquire or sequester anyway.

The price signalling thing is hit and miss in normal times and irrelevant in the kind of circumstances you're on about.

Remember the Gator Navy? Getting in wasn't the problem.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Remember the Gator Navy? Getting in wasn't the problem.

Even with no idea what you're on about, I can confidently predict that it doesn't support your contention and probably isn't even relevant.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Fify

Liberals aren't, either.

If you look at the data on budgets, it's the liberals who are more for spending on infrastructure, emergency preparation and social services. That spending would be even more if it weren't for unnecessary wars that we get into while still maintaining a surplus or whatever you call it. Take hurricane katrina, for example, it could be seen from previous budgets that democrats proposed much higher spending on levees and so forth while republicans slashed those proposals. Now, if we weren't involved in useless wars at the time, the proposed numbers would be even higher. Whether that meets your specific, arbitrary criteria of ending a need for whatever, it would certainly greatly help during disasters to be more prepared because of proper funding.

 

[skepticalbip]

Liberals aren't, either.

If you look at the data on budgets, it's the liberals who are more for spending on infrastructure, emergency preparation and social services. That spending would be even more if it weren't for unnecessary wars that we get into while still maintaining a surplus or whatever you call it. Take hurricane katrina, for example, it could be seen from previous budgets that democrats proposed much higher spending on levees and so forth while republicans slashed those proposals. Now, if we weren't involved in useless wars at the time, the proposed numbers would be even higher. Whether that meets your specific, arbitrary criteria of ending a need for whatever, it would certainly greatly help during disasters to be more prepared because of proper funding.

No contest. Certainly liberals are much more in favor of spending other people's money than conservatives and libertarians. But I thought Loren was talking about not enough people willing to spend their own money to help.

 

[Elixir]

Certainly liberals are much more in favor of spending other people's money than conservatives and libertarians. But I thought Loren was talking about not enough people willing to spend their own money to help.

Well of course, since rethuglicans are bent on giving all the money to themselves. Once they succeed, spending other people's money isn't very lucrative for them.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Remember the Gator Navy? Getting in wasn't the problem.

Even with no idea what you're on about, I can confidently predict that it doesn't support your contention and probably isn't even relevant.

But for a lot of the things that can be price gouged, the government would not be in a position to prevent it. Water and food, yes, but not everything. Airlines raising their prices to compensate for everyone wanting to leave the state by air. The gas lines in Dallas where the government can't just ship in enough gas to meet the increase in demand. Hurricane preparation supplies too.

Raising prices solves a lot of problems, the only problem with it is the questionable moral issue.