re: "Price Gouging" during a disaster: Good or Bad

Stephen Dubner's explanation....

quote:

---

Assume for a moment that every store tripled the price of water as soon the shortage became evident. How outraged would you be? How outraged shouldyou be? Or, perversely, do you think stores should have charged even more, perhaps 10 times the normal amount for a bottle of water?

How you answer these questions probably depends on when you got to the store (and/or whether you have studied economics). If you arrived in time to buy as much water as you wanted, you were probably a bit ticked off to pay triple, but still grateful you got your water. If the bottled water was all gone by the time you arrived, you probably wish the store had charged 10 times the normal amount. That high price would have acted as a brake against all the unnecessary hoarding that happened before you got to the store, and there would have been some water left for you.

---

Is it better that 1 person has access to a case of water at normal market price and 3 people have no water or is it better that all 4 people have water at a higher expense?

quote:

---

It's more about thinking outside the box as to whether it leads to a wider distribution of scarcities.

---

How can it do that if you're shrinking the customer base due to overpricing???

Not a lot of people can afford a new Bugatti.... a hell of a lot more people can afford a used 98 civic

Not a lot of people can afford a case of water at $100

A lot more people can afford a case of water at $15

Set quotas per customer based on stock and at regular price... business still makes their money, and more people can have access to critical goods

I'm pro-market and love capitalism, but in a major crisis, be respectful of those in need

I don't give a frick if you want to gouge prices for shite like a TV or a toaster. But when it comes to water I'm not a fan and I support laws in place to protect the consumer from shite like that in regards to essential things of life during a crisis

quote:

---

or is it better that all 4 people have water at a higher expense?

---

This is based on if all 4 can afford it?

Let's hurry up, I got to go watch football.

quote:

---

Is it better that 1 person has access to a case of water at normal market price and 3 people have no water or is it better that all 4 people have water at a higher expense?

---

This argument is so stupid in practice, particularly at the extremes. You're not allocating resources to those who need it the most, you're allocating resources to those who can afford it.

quote:

---

How can it do that if you're shrinking the customer base due to overpricing???

Not a lot of people can afford a new Bugatti.... a hell of a lot more people can afford a used 98 civic

Not a lot of people can afford a case of water at $100

A lot more people can afford a case of water at $15

Set quotas per customer based on stock and at regular price... business still makes their money, and more people can have access to critical goods

I'm pro-market and love capitalism, but in a major crisis, be respectful of those in need

---

The same 6 people in favor of this want you to remove "feelings" and "morality." They just want you to look at it from the purely financial perspective in which in their case plays into their hand and is very much true.



However, that dog won't hunt in the real world.

quote:

---

I'm pro-market and love capitalism, but in a major crisis, be respectful of those in need

---

You are not getting it.

In a scarcity situation, those without means will be arse out with price controls anyway because those with means will purchase more than they need in a crises situation. Price gouging puts downward pressure on the consumption of scarcities.

quote:

---

The discussion isn't whether gouging is moral or ethical. It's more about thinking outside the box as to whether it leads to a wider distribution of scarcities.

---

On basic necessities, it doesn't.

Hell, why not charge $1000 for a case of water, that way only the people who absolutely need it in a life and death situation can have plenty available. Who cares if they can't afford it. You may not sell a single case, and people may die of thirst, but you're just protecting the supply for those who need it even more.

quote:

---

I'd rather allocate resources to 100 people that can afford it than to the first ten assholes that show up and are able to hoard-buy everything at the artificial lower price.

---

I love the scenario where we can raise the prices to whatever we want to charge, but we can't limit the amounts per consumer.

Come on, be practical. One unit per person, perhaps.

At the end of the day, I don't believe price gouging should be illegal. I think the court of public opinion should be educated on those who price gouge, and they'll decide the ultimate fate of that business.