4 ms·

It's the stores inability or unwillingness to charge a higher market price that allows the hoarder to buy all that water. When you shame pricing based on marke

It's the stores inability or unwillingness to charge a higher market price that allows the hoarder to buy all that water. When you shame pricing based on market realities, known entities like grocery stores don't do it but unknown entities like random guy down the street will take advantage of the opportunity. And chances are he won't be paying taxes on his profit either. And if somehow you are successful at stopping higher prices from being paid, you take all the profit out of rushing resources to the disaster zone. You can even reduce the flow of resources BEFORE the storm hits. People also may not realize how scarce a resource is or will be in the price stays as low as it usually is. Prices SHOULD be going up when a storm is imminent. High prices greatly increase the chances that products will be available even when scarce. And prices that are too low for market realities ensure shortages. I, for one, would rather pay a higher price than not have access to the resource at all. Prices serve useful functions in the marketplace and we benefit most when everybody understands that. We'd be far better off if we let the market function and instead give victims extra cash to get what they need.

whyaduck 9y ago
It's the store's unwillingness to do the obvious thing and limit sales of water given the sharp rise in demand in the face of a life threatening disaster. Resources aren't rushed to disaster areas in response to profits - they're rushed in response to the disaster. See FEMA, USRC, etc.
- stretchwithme 9y ago
  Stores compete with each other. While it might be great if retailers limit what people can buy, they have to punish themselves to do it. So it's not a very useful expectation. And, no, resources aren't rushed to disaster areas if those that have to expend extra effort to do so will simply be punished. I'd rather rely on those who've been delivering everything efficiently already than wait for the government to do it. It's not clear to me that government doing this costs us less. Most of the cost is hidden away in the federal budget. At least when I am paying a high price for gas, I am paying for the actual cost of getting it to me, including paying for logistics.

whyaduck 9y ago

It's the store's unwillingness to do the obvious thing and limit sales of water given the sharp rise in demand in the face of a life threatening disaster. Resources aren't rushed to disaster areas in response to profits - they're rushed in response to the disaster. See FEMA, USRC, etc.

stretchwithme 9y ago
Stores compete with each other. While it might be great if retailers limit what people can buy, they have to punish themselves to do it. So it's not a very useful expectation. And, no, resources aren't rushed to disaster areas if those that have to expend extra effort to do so will simply be punished. I'd rather rely on those who've been delivering everything efficiently already than wait for the government to do it. It's not clear to me that government doing this costs us less. Most of the cost is hidden away in the federal budget. At least when I am paying a high price for gas, I am paying for the actual cost of getting it to me, including paying for logistics.