5 ms·

In one system, water is apportioned according to ability and willingness to spend, and the supply goes up as sellers arrive to take advantage of high prices. Pe

In one system, water is apportioned according to ability and willingness to spend, and the supply goes up as sellers arrive to take advantage of high prices. People also don't waste water they don't need (e.g. for washing) even if they have the money; they sell it. In the other system, water is apportioned according to who can get to the store faster, and supply never goes up because nobody has a reason to restore it. People use drinking water for washing if they have it, because it's not like you can sell it anyway. In both scenarios the is significant inequity (whether by money or ability to get to a store fast and fight/negotiate for water). But overall, many more people suffer in scenario 2. This is obvious given all the suboptimal water use in scenario 2. It's hard for me to understand why you'd prefer a scenario where obviously more people suffer.

fzeroracer 8y ago
What about people that literally can't afford to spend? In disaster areas with price gouging the people that pay the premiums are the rich and more well-off. The poor and those often most affected by hurricanes not only can't afford the gouging, but they also suffer the most by price gouging. If a poor family only has $500 to their name and has to spend $100 to buy water just to survive, they've blown 20% of their total networth just to survive. A middle-class family spending $100 of 15,000 is far more likely to not be affected. It's hard for me to understand how many people on HN can't fathom that price gouging affects the people most hurt by disasters. I don't care if price gouging means you'd gather up more supplies and head to a disaster zone because you're still taking drastic advantage of the poor for personal profit. Countries like Japan don't pull this same shit, so it's too bad that we rationalize our greed as being 'for the greater good'.
- solveit 8y ago
  The choice isn't between spending 20% of their net worth on water and getting it at usual prices. The choice is between spending 20% and not getting any water at all.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Which is why gouging is evil.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  The bizarre libertarian point of view that you are arguing with says that poor people have the freedom to not be poor, and should be happy to sell all of their earthly possessions so a hero selling $100 bottles of water can be compensated for his bravery. We all have a moral duty to use our franchise as citizens to keep these points of view out of government.
- repiret 8y ago
  But we have that problem as a capitalist society with or without “price gouging”. And we have a solution for that problem too – charities and the government giveaway or subsidize essentials for people who can’t afford them. If we allow the price of water to rise when supply is constrained, people who can afford the higher prices will use water more conservatively and board less, and people will still give it away to those who can’t afford to buy it. But people won’t have to wait in line all day to get their ration of water, and there will be incentives to create temporary channels to improve the supply of water even if those channels couldn’t be supported by the normal price of water.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Your scenario is completely wrong given that most places will put limits on how much you can buy. And you say you're making fewer people suffer; I say you're disproportionately forcing the poor to take the brunt of the suffering.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  If there was a limit, I'd immediatelly gather my whole extended family (15 persons) and send them to every store to buy as much as possible.
yongjik 8y ago
Are you seriously defending price gouging because otherwise those selfish Hurricane victims will waste precious water. ಠ_ಠ

fzeroracer 8y ago

What about people that literally can't afford to spend? In disaster areas with price gouging the people that pay the premiums are the rich and more well-off. The poor and those often most affected by hurricanes not only can't afford the gouging, but they also suffer the most by price gouging. If a poor family only has $500 to their name and has to spend $100 to buy water just to survive, they've blown 20% of their total networth just to survive. A middle-class family spending $100 of 15,000 is far more likely to not be affected. It's hard for me to understand how many people on HN can't fathom that price gouging affects the people most hurt by disasters. I don't care if price gouging means you'd gather up more supplies and head to a disaster zone because you're still taking drastic advantage of the poor for personal profit. Countries like Japan don't pull this same shit, so it's too bad that we rationalize our greed as being 'for the greater good'.

solveit 8y ago
The choice isn't between spending 20% of their net worth on water and getting it at usual prices. The choice is between spending 20% and not getting any water at all.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Which is why gouging is evil.
Spooky23 8y ago
The bizarre libertarian point of view that you are arguing with says that poor people have the freedom to not be poor, and should be happy to sell all of their earthly possessions so a hero selling $100 bottles of water can be compensated for his bravery. We all have a moral duty to use our franchise as citizens to keep these points of view out of government.
repiret 8y ago
But we have that problem as a capitalist society with or without “price gouging”. And we have a solution for that problem too – charities and the government giveaway or subsidize essentials for people who can’t afford them. If we allow the price of water to rise when supply is constrained, people who can afford the higher prices will use water more conservatively and board less, and people will still give it away to those who can’t afford to buy it. But people won’t have to wait in line all day to get their ration of water, and there will be incentives to create temporary channels to improve the supply of water even if those channels couldn’t be supported by the normal price of water.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

Your scenario is completely wrong given that most places will put limits on how much you can buy. And you say you're making fewer people suffer; I say you're disproportionately forcing the poor to take the brunt of the suffering.

TomMarius 8y ago
If there was a limit, I'd immediatelly gather my whole extended family (15 persons) and send them to every store to buy as much as possible.

yongjik 8y ago

Are you seriously defending price gouging because otherwise those selfish Hurricane victims will waste precious water. ಠ_ಠ