3 ms·

Cmon, your "Atlas Shrugged" level hypothetical is way off of the IMO quite reasonable US implementation summarized on wikipedia[1]. Yes, hoarding can be very ba

by Faark 8y ago

Cmon, your "Atlas Shrugged" level hypothetical is way off of the IMO quite reasonable US implementation summarized on wikipedia[1]. Yes, hoarding can be very bad and thus laws will reflect that. Capitalism & markets are great, but have failure modes we have to be aware of. Emergency situations exhibit many of those and thus it can be beneficial to temporarily suspend usual markets and capitalism on some levels. You cant make an informed purchase decision with no time, information, nothing to trade or a combination of all of those factors. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging#Laws_against_price_gouging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging#Laws_against_pri...

sokoloff 8y ago
Wasn’t a hypothetical, but based on actual event. See the quote from the Texas AG in the article here: https://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-attorney-general-warns-price-gouging-aftermath-harvey/story?id=49503480 https://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-attorney-general-warns-price... If you were a shop owner faced simultaneously with increased inbound costs, constrained supply, utility interruptions, your own family and home to be concerned with, and that threat from the AG, would you sell anything to anyone? To anyone over 65? Why not just close up shop until the situation passes and hunker down at home protecting your own family? I’d probably do the latter rather than risk the fines. Does that make people better off? In a survival situation, suppressing the price signal suppresses the clearest signal for consumers not to over-buy, especially for goods that can be traded for other needed supplies. $99/case for water the day after a hurricane might very well be the “optimal” price until the soda/beer companies can switch over to bottling (canning) water to the affected area. Keep it at $18-20/case and the first 5 customers will rationally buy it all, because that checks that concern off their list. It doesn’t even require them to be misanthropes, just providing for and protecting their families. Worst case, water becomes available quicker than they thought and no harm to them other than they bought $100 worth of water for $100.

by Faark 8y ago

sokoloff 8y ago

Wasn’t a hypothetical, but based on actual event. See the quote from the Texas AG in the article here: https://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-attorney-general-warns-price-gouging-aftermath-harvey/story?id=49503480 https://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-attorney-general-warns-price... If you were a shop owner faced simultaneously with increased inbound costs, constrained supply, utility interruptions, your own family and home to be concerned with, and that threat from the AG, would you sell anything to anyone? To anyone over 65? Why not just close up shop until the situation passes and hunker down at home protecting your own family? I’d probably do the latter rather than risk the fines. Does that make people better off? In a survival situation, suppressing the price signal suppresses the clearest signal for consumers not to over-buy, especially for goods that can be traded for other needed supplies. $99/case for water the day after a hurricane might very well be the “optimal” price until the soda/beer companies can switch over to bottling (canning) water to the affected area. Keep it at $18-20/case and the first 5 customers will rationally buy it all, because that checks that concern off their list. It doesn’t even require them to be misanthropes, just providing for and protecting their families. Worst case, water becomes available quicker than they thought and no harm to them other than they bought $100 worth of water for $100.