4 ms·

It might have been better to set a maximum allowed price per unit rather than to make the supply evaporate. To be clear, I think what a lot of these vendors we

It might have been better to set a maximum allowed price per unit rather than to make the supply evaporate. To be clear, I think what a lot of these vendors were doing was just immoral. I've been buying these masks for years for our shop. Normal pricing is in the range of $12 for a box of 20 (or something like that). I would allow a 2x to 3x premium and that's that. I don't have an issue with someone who has an inventory that might be very difficult to replenish getting a reasonable premium. That's OK. When people take an item like this and use an emergency to charge $50 for a $0.50 product, well, that's just wrong.

sneak 7y ago
Why is it wrong? No one is forced to buy it. The only people buying it are ones who consent to that price—same as any other transaction. How can someone be a victim if they want to engage in the trade, and explicitly chose to do so?
- zaarn 7y ago
  If someone is in a personal emergency, even if it's just perceived, that they need to protect themselves against a virus, their consent is no longer freely given. It's coerced consent, not by the seller, but by circumstances. In plenty of european countries, price gouging is illegal for that reason. You can't charge what you want, especially in situations like this.
  - sneak 7y ago
    No third party has any business telling the first and second that they can’t transact at a price to which they both agree (or threatening them with violence if they ignore them and do anyway). Governments that do so are infringing upon their rights. All this feel-good sort of law does is make the thing that they feel they need, which would otherwise be expensive, now be totally unavailable. That doesn’t benefit the buyer or the seller, and in fact makes the situation worse for the buyer who it supposedly wished to protect: it just makes some busybody who is not even party to the transaction feel good about themselves. There’s no such thing as “coerced by the circumstances”. We all need to enter into transactions to not die; we buy food, water, medical care even outside of emergencies. Sometimes those things are expensive due to supply and demand. This instance is no different.
    - zaarn 7y ago
      If a doctor were to ask a patient for 100k$ or they won't do a life saving operation, then the patients consent is fabricated. Their need for a life saving operation is the third party. I think you misunderstood what I mean by third party; it's not necessarily a person, legal or natural, interfering with the transaction, it can be a force of nature, circumstances and many other things. It won't go away because you don't like it. And yes, there is such things as "coerced by circumstances", see above example. Normally, when you buy food, water or medical care you're not in a life threatening situation or perceived or real emergency. If you are then you cannot give informed and free consent, simple as that.
- robomartin 7y ago
  > Why is it wrong? Mine was not an absolute legal opinion but rather a moral/ethical observation. > The only people buying it are ones who consent to that price—same as any other transaction. Of course, and I agree 100%. That said, the act of taking advantage of an emergency situation is, I would hope you agree, morally wrong. When might high pricing be OK? Well, one example is if someone, through great trouble, was able to purchase a supply of a much-needed item at a high price and wishes to make a profit. If they paid 25x normal price and that, plush shipping, their time, packaging, taxes, whatever, is their cost basis, it might very well be OK for them to sell that item at 50x normal price. Context is always important. > How can someone be a victim if they want to engage in the trade, and explicitly chose to do so? I never said anyone was a victim.

sneak 7y ago

Why is it wrong? No one is forced to buy it. The only people buying it are ones who consent to that price—same as any other transaction. How can someone be a victim if they want to engage in the trade, and explicitly chose to do so?

zaarn 7y ago
If someone is in a personal emergency, even if it's just perceived, that they need to protect themselves against a virus, their consent is no longer freely given. It's coerced consent, not by the seller, but by circumstances. In plenty of european countries, price gouging is illegal for that reason. You can't charge what you want, especially in situations like this.
- sneak 7y ago
  No third party has any business telling the first and second that they can’t transact at a price to which they both agree (or threatening them with violence if they ignore them and do anyway). Governments that do so are infringing upon their rights. All this feel-good sort of law does is make the thing that they feel they need, which would otherwise be expensive, now be totally unavailable. That doesn’t benefit the buyer or the seller, and in fact makes the situation worse for the buyer who it supposedly wished to protect: it just makes some busybody who is not even party to the transaction feel good about themselves. There’s no such thing as “coerced by the circumstances”. We all need to enter into transactions to not die; we buy food, water, medical care even outside of emergencies. Sometimes those things are expensive due to supply and demand. This instance is no different.
  - zaarn 7y ago
    If a doctor were to ask a patient for 100k$ or they won't do a life saving operation, then the patients consent is fabricated. Their need for a life saving operation is the third party. I think you misunderstood what I mean by third party; it's not necessarily a person, legal or natural, interfering with the transaction, it can be a force of nature, circumstances and many other things. It won't go away because you don't like it. And yes, there is such things as "coerced by circumstances", see above example. Normally, when you buy food, water or medical care you're not in a life threatening situation or perceived or real emergency. If you are then you cannot give informed and free consent, simple as that.
robomartin 7y ago
> Why is it wrong? Mine was not an absolute legal opinion but rather a moral/ethical observation. > The only people buying it are ones who consent to that price—same as any other transaction. Of course, and I agree 100%. That said, the act of taking advantage of an emergency situation is, I would hope you agree, morally wrong. When might high pricing be OK? Well, one example is if someone, through great trouble, was able to purchase a supply of a much-needed item at a high price and wishes to make a profit. If they paid 25x normal price and that, plush shipping, their time, packaging, taxes, whatever, is their cost basis, it might very well be OK for them to sell that item at 50x normal price. Context is always important. > How can someone be a victim if they want to engage in the trade, and explicitly chose to do so? I never said anyone was a victim.