Why? Because they try to solve a "problem" (massive price increases) that is in reality a solution to the actual problem (drastic increase in demand with no increase in supply, quite the opposite!)

The only tesult of these laws is that things get worse. It's the ultimate example of unintended consequences, yet it happens time after time after time until you just want to scream!

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/11/16/after-the-hurricane-a-su...

Why? Because they try to solve a "problem" (massive price increases) that is in reality a solution to the actual problem (drastic increase in demand with no increase in supply, quite the opposite!)

The only tesult of these laws is that things get worse. It's the ultimate example of unintended consequences, yet it happens time after time after time until you just want to scream!

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/11/16/after-the-hurricane-a-su......

Exactly. It's the same problem as the minimum wage, except in reverse. Instead of shortages, with the minimum wage, there is an oversupply (which we call unemployment).

Pretty much all of our economic problems come from politicians thinking that their laws will override the laws of economics.

Price gouging laws may suck economically, but price gouging sucks morally, and anybody who does it should be hanged by the neck until dead.

Price gouging laws may suck economically, but price gouging sucks morally, and anybody who does it should be hanged by the neck until dead.

I disagree completely. The example of gas prices in New Jersey after Sandy shows why "gouging" is simply a name for doing what is required of the situation. Rapidly rising prices do two very important things:

1. It forces people to conserve.
2. It greatly incentivizes others to send more supply to that area.

This is exactly what you want to happen in case of an emergency like Sandy. You wouldn't need cops to devote time to guarding gas stations, there wouldn't be massive lines. There wouldn't be stations totally out of gas. Hotel rooms would be available. Stores would still have food on the shelves, etc.

It is because "price gouging" is the only rational economic solution that it is thus the only truly moral solution as well. Anything else makes the situation worse, which is immoral IMHO.

Price gouging laws may suck economically, but price gouging sucks morally, and anybody who does it should be hanged by the neck until dead.
_________________

So you kind of believe that the folks who kept enough of an inventory to cover emergencies, because they felt that they could serve the community and themselves by being able to cover an emergency -- can't recover the investment and take the risk to carry the excess inventory?

Make no mistake there will be gougers who just get lucky, but ruling out the above really makes no sense at all

On the other hand, I was in an area that had gouging from this storm, and I will not be frequenting their businesses.

Price gouging laws may suck economically, but price gouging sucks morally, and anybody who does it should be hanged by the neck until dead.

*PLONK*

lowstudent wrote: On the other hand, I was in an area that had gouging from this storm, and I will not be frequenting their businesses.

There you go. You know in your gut that price gouging is wrong.

There you go. You know in your gut that price gouging is wrong.
__________________________

No I know that the places that were gouging were doing it out of sheer luck.

The pizzaria, which was the only place that had a generator, and was charging a few dollars extra and posted why? I will go back there. But I did not list the exceptions

The Ace hardware a locally owned chain affiliate charging a fortune for gas cans? Well, they lost a customer, it is a value judgement.

I think they have the right to do as they please, and it is not wrong on a lawful basis. I also do not hang out with bigots, though I think it is perfectly legal to be one.

I think it is more stupid than wrong, when I can avoid it, I do not do business with the stupid.

I think they have the right to do as they please, and it is not wrong on a lawful basis. I also do not hang out with bigots, though I think it is perfectly legal to be one.

I think it is more stupid than wrong, when I can avoid it, I do not do business with the stupid.

I disagree. It is wrong on "a lawful basis." In other words, it's illegal. It just isn't wrong on a *moral* basis. There is nothing wrong with trading with another person on a completely voluntary basis. Both parties will only enter into the transaction if they both feel that they will benefit, and that includes if the seller is "price gouging" (i.e. charging what is justified by the supply and demand conditions of the market).

Of course the buyer will benefit even more from the trade if the price is lower, but this is not a justification for forcing the seller to benefit *less* from the trade.

"Price gouging" is moral because it is based on completely voluntary transactions. Price gouging *laws*, however, are completely immoral. They are coercion against peaceful citizens. Coercion is immoral and should be stopped.

lowstudent wrote: I think it [price gouging] is more stupid than wrong, when I can avoid it, I do not do business with the stupid.

That's a better way of putting it.

MadCapitalist wrote: "Price gouging" is moral because it is based on completely voluntary transactions.

Picture this:

Disaster has struck an area.

There's only one physician in a neighborhood of 10,000 people.

Triage is what usually occurs, but the physician is amoral.

He will assist only those who have the most money and will pay him cash.

Hardly "voluntary" and, in my opinion, morally wrong.

Disaster has struck an area.

There's only one physician in a neighborhood of 10,000 people.

Triage is what usually occurs, but the physician is amoral.

He will assist only those who have the most money and will pay him cash.

Hardly "voluntary" and, in my opinion, morally wrong.

That's a bit different due to the oath they take, but basically it's the same thing. His services just came into huge demand, there's limited supply... "price gouging" is simply the market's version of triage. It's allocating a precious resource in the most efficient manner possible.

What is he supposed to do, not eat, not sleep, not go to the bathroom just so he can treat every person that comes to his door? He has a right to his possessions too, a right to the fruits of his labor greater than any need anyone else has.

I think they have the right to do as they please, and it is not wrong on a lawful basis. I also do not hang out with bigots, though I think it is perfectly legal to be one.

I think it is more stupid than wrong, when I can avoid it, I do not do business with the stupid.

I disagree. It is wrong on "a lawful basis." In other words, it's illegal. It just isn't wrong on a *moral* basis.

If it is wrong on a lawful basis, then the law is wrong on a moral basis.

MadCapitalist wrote: "Price gouging" is moral because it is based on completely voluntary transactions.

Picture this:

Disaster has struck an area.

There's only one physician in a neighborhood of 10,000 people.

Triage is what usually occurs, but the physician is amoral.

He will assist only those who have the most money and will pay him cash.

Hardly "voluntary" and, in my opinion, morally wrong.

100% voluntary. Possession of an MD degree and medical license does not strip a person of his human rights. He is morally and legally completely within his rights to pack up his bags and take himself and his family out of the disaster area.

If he chooses to offer his services to others, regardless of the conditions he puts on that service, it is clearly to the benefit of those who choose to meet those conditions. And those who do not choose to do so are no worse off than they would be if he packed up and left.

I don't object to businesses charging the same price after a disaster that they charged before it. I think you don't lose your right to your normal rate just because something unusual happened. But you don't have the right to extra benefits because of a circumstance you did not create, and that's what raising prices after a disaster is.

But you don't have the right to extra benefits because of a circumstance you did not create, and that's what raising prices after a disaster is.
______________________

So you believe a company say with, excess Apples when the next batch comes in and the price comes down should be able to force their customers to pay more since it is fair?

Or if a station has gas in its' tanks when the price craters, they should be able to force their customers to pay more? Not sure how you make them come but there can be a mechanism developer I am sure.

I know here, the smart businesses went with the loyalty issue over the bucks. It will be interesting to see how it plays out

But letting the price float makes the most sense. Say if gas stations had been allowed to price according to demand -- we would not have had idiots topping off their tanks when they were half filled and creating lines for everyone, and others buying fuel in cans to leave around just in case in the face of an emergency.

Demand and price actually have a function IMO

I don't object to businesses charging the same price after a disaster that they charged before it. I think you don't lose your right to your normal rate just because something unusual happened. But you don't have the right to extra benefits because of a circumstance you did not create, and that's what raising prices after a disaster is.

No, it's not. At all.

Gasoline is Tge example given in the link provided, and a good one. Gas trucks can't get through (either at all or in the same amounts) to deliver more supply. Lots if people are suddenly using more gas to leave the area. Lots of help is coming, their vehicles need gas. Demand goes way up while supply goes down... and you demand that prices remain the same?

The results are plain to see: long lines and stations running out of fuel. And "price gouging" still happens. People were filling up 2.5 gallon gascontainers then turning around and selling them at $50. So the black market was selling gas at $20/gallon while the white market was selling at under $4/gallon. When the stations ran out of gas you still had to pay the "gouging" prices. Why? Because the market always wins. It has to, or else there is utter chaos. All the anti-gouging laws did was impoverish the station owners while enriching black market operators.

The real victims? The gas station owners who were deprived of their livelihoods because politicians prevented it based on a flawed view of the market. If the station owners could have charged $8/gallon the lines would have been shorter, their supplies would have lasted longer (until they could be resupplied, and I guarantee those trucks are charging more to resupplied them, are they supposed to eat that cost? Will the politicians reach into their own wallets to compensate the station owners for their state-imposed losses?)

This applies to everything that is in short supply from hotel rooms to food, water, medicine, etc. Thieir supply and demand are GREATLY affected!

If I owned a store in those areas and I couldn't raise prices I'd shut the stores, lock it down and arm up to defend against looters. Why should I destroy my livelihood in order to appease anti-market zealots? Good intentions don't pay the bills, profits do.

warrl wrote: 100% voluntary. Possession of an MD degree and medical license does not strip a person of his human rights. [...] If he chooses to offer his services to others, regardless of the conditions he puts on that service, it is clearly to the benefit of those who choose to meet those conditions. And those who do not choose to do so are no worse off than they would be if he packed up and left.

If you or your loved one were denied critical care (triage) because, in the circumstances described, such care went to the highest bidder, not the most criticallty stricken, I doubt you would blithely conclude, "Oh, well, supply and demand worked efficiently. My dying daughter didn't receive care because my neighbor's broken nose was more economically important to a physician merely exercising his human rights."

warrl wrote: 100% voluntary. Possession of an MD degree and medical license does not strip a person of his human rights. [...] If he chooses to offer his services to others, regardless of the conditions he puts on that service, it is clearly to the benefit of those who choose to meet those conditions. And those who do not choose to do so are no worse off than they would be if he packed up and left.

If you or your loved one were denied critical care (triage) because, in the circumstances described, such care went to the highest bidder, not the most criticallty stricken, I doubt you would blithely conclude, "Oh, well, supply and demand worked efficiently. My dying daughter didn't receive care because my neighbor's broken nose was more economically important to a physician merely exercising his human rights."

No, I would not put it in those terms.

But I also would not assert that I had a moral or legal right to enslave the physician and require him to serve in a manner of my choosing, without regard to his consent.

Or even to restrict him to serve either in a manner of my choosing or not at all.

The doctor has a right to refuse to serve one patient, and accept another, on such basis as HE chooses. I also have a right to patronize one willing doctor rather than another, on such basis as I choose.

If you or your loved one were denied critical care (triage) because, in the circumstances described, such care went to the highest bidder, not the most criticallty stricken, I doubt you would blithely conclude, "Oh, well, supply and demand worked efficiently. My dying daughter didn't receive care because my neighbor's broken nose was more economically important to a physician merely exercising his human rights."

No, I would not put it in those terms.

People who are anti-freedom certainly come up with the most absurd and unlikely rationalizations of why we shouldn't be free, don't they?