5 ms·
> they have to be allocated somehow There's a proven algorithm to allocate scarce resources without price-gouging. That algorithm is called "first-come-first-
by panarky 9y ago
> they have to be allocated somehow
There's a proven algorithm to allocate scarce resources without price-gouging.
That algorithm is called "first-come-first-served-with-quantity-limits".
- varjag 9y agoThis is the best algorithm to emerge a black market. Then you can have both first-come-first-served AND price gouging!
- whyaduck 9y agoGiven the existing laws, stores engaging in price gouging essentially are a black market. You don't stop trying to manage a disaster just because there's no perfect solution.
- varjag 9y agoNo, that's simply 'market'. It becomes black only when you outlaw it in an attempt to enforce perceived fairness† but not backing the supply side. [†] we can argue long and hard about morality of "first to grab wins" vs "deepest pockets win", but let's agree in most societies neither is seen as a virtue.
- bwighthunter 9y agoI doubt its as efficient. People will still buy as much as they can and then turn and sell their surplus. Unless you can accurately gauge their need, which is requires way more work. "Price gouging" will allow the most efficient utilization of goods. While they likely will price out the less wealthy, the goods will help more people in general. This doesn't even address the infrastructure and politics behind setting prices and managing limits. Changing price is faster, easier, and more efficient. It also leaves out the political power involved. Someone in charge of setting limits probably gets to makes sure they, their family and friends all get resources before anyone else. You just trade the power of wealth for political power. This in my mind becomes a trade off between helping the most people, and having less bias (because politics) towards who you help.