4 ms·

Right - instead they just get a reputation for not having items in stock when you really need them.

npunt 7y ago
I think you're missing the point - if there's a big arbitrage opportunity through price gouging, there will be even less stock in stores.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  No, my point is that if the stores raised prices they wouldn't be cleared out for arbitrage or hoarding. You seem to think it's possible to eliminate all resale markets, and thus eliminate the arbitrage opportunity. Ignoring the fact that hoarding would still exist, I would say such a thing is essentially impossible. Which makes the only way to eliminate the price difference (supply and demand curves held static) to have the store raise prices.
  - hdjejdjd 7y ago
    Life isn't a textbook example. People like you are so intellectually boring, like you don't have the curiosity to have figured out the mankiw isn't reality. You have an answer for everything and understand nothing.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      I'm sorry, what? Do you have a response, or only ad hominem attacks?
      - anigbrowl 7y ago
        An understanding of the difference between simplistic textbook examples with a lot of constraints, and the real world. Please, read some scholarly economics papers, not just textbooks or ideological treatises. Actual economists are acutely aware of the messiness of the real world, the imperfection of their models, and the complexity of feedback loops and multi-agent interactions.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        I think I need to repeat this: I'm sorry, what? Do you have a response, or only ad hominem attacks?
        anigbrowl 7y ago
        If you do, then it's because you are choosing to posture. There were no ad hominem attacks in my post, but an explanation of what was missing from your perspective and exhortation to broaden it with some specific suggestions.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        Your suggestion was "read a few papers". Not "this part of what you're saying is wrong, and why", not "look at this paper that makes X argument", not anything of that sort - just "only someone who doesn't understand anything could possibly think that, so I won't rebut anything". Incidentally, I think the consensus among economists that price gouging laws are bad is pretty strong, so I'm not even sure what sources you're suggesting I read. Econlib [0] has a piece on this, particularly on a survey of economists done by the University of Chicago Booth School. I'd expect their opinions on banning resale to be similar. 0: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/09/a_poll_of_econo.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/09/a_poll_of_econo.htm...
        anigbrowl 7y ago
        I'm not your personal tutor, nor am I obliged to gain your approval. The Chicago school is famous for having a particular and extremely ideological point of economic view, and the blog you're quoting loudly announces its own firmly libertarian credentials.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        You're right, you're not my personal tutor. Nor are you obliged to gain my approval. But when saying "you're wrong", a "why" is generally required to convince anyone - not just myself, but also anyone else reading the thread. Yes, the Chicago school is biased. So is Econlog. But I was under the impression that their survey selection wasn't. If we're bringing up ideological biases though, the fact that your profile starts with "Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism" might be relevant to this discussion about economics... (And I would say that this is not an ad hominem attack, since it's directly relevant)
  - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
    > my point is that if the stores raised prices they wouldn't be cleared out for arbitrage or hoarding. There’s another version of this that goes: stores raise prices and are cleared out for hoarding and arbitrage. What is the price for masks that will alleviate panic and / or greed?
    - pishpash 7y ago
      The price they were selling for on eBay? Because you could get them.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
        For a limited time perhaps.
  - npunt 7y ago
    I see you point. It is possible to significantly reduce resale markets by going after price-gougers though. It doesn't have to be perfect to have the intended effect, and the threat of being busted is usually enough to push it to the edges. This assumes a certain level of law & order though, so in areas with thriving black markets the effect lessens. Similarly, it's possible to reduce hoarding by putting a limit sold per customer. Not perfect, but helps. Hoarding definitely happens, but only certain goods are really things people realistically hoard. There's another argument I'm not seeing brought up, but one that is key to the argument. The reason why we tend to have laws and regulations around situations where people are desperate is a moral obligation. These laws and regulations acknowledge the vulnerability of people in these situations - we are not homo economicus when our lives or those of our loved ones are on the line. In the case of price gouging, it disproportionately affects the poor. I'm seeing a lot of comments coming from a place of privilege, where people see the upside of higher prices (more stock for them) and not the downsides (a person goes to the store to get some and cannot afford them). I understand the different points being made, however this is hardly the first time this type of thing has happened or been debated.
    - tomp 7y ago
      > In the case of price gouging, it disproportionately affects the poor. I'm all for more solidarity, but this statement, at face value, is pure oppressive communism. Being wealthy should give you certain privileges, otherwise there's no point in even trying to be better / smarter / more skilled / more productive! Obviously we can argue whether or not any specific intervention should, or should not, affect people differently based on wealth (e.g. I imagine many people would be quite angry if there were traffic lanes for wealthy people, though they seem to be OK with it at airports), but your comment isn't arguing why this specific instance should be equally distributed (health & wellbeing generally isn't, even in EU "socialized medicine" countries - and that's a good thing too, because then the rich can afford to fund new research, drugs & medical procedures).
      - Can_Not 7y ago
        I think it's hilarious that your argument against communism (which nobody even suggested) is that it "oppresses" you by getting in the way of you being an authoritarian.
jbay808 7y ago
You're not wrong. But the people in charge of the retail stores are not being irrational about this. They know what will cause their reputation to take a hit, and what won't.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Also possible that they know what will cause the eyes of the government to turn in their direction - anyone price gouging in a crisis must be evil, after all. And of course the first store to start doing this will get media attention, amplifying the negative impacts...
  - oblio 7y ago
    > Also possible that they know what will cause the eyes of the government to turn in their direction - anyone price gouging in a crisis must be evil, after all. And of course the first store to start doing this will get media attention, amplifying the negative impacts... I'm guessing you're trying to be snarky with this bit? > anyone price gouging in a crisis must be evil, after all That's kind of text definition of "evil". Taking advantage of people panicking. Pragmatic, probably rich by the end of the thing, but still evil.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      I think following supply and demand curves - whether that be Uber's surge pricing, gasoline during a power outage, lifesaving medicine outside of a crisis, or rent in SF - isn't evil. Evil would be denying those goods to someone based on their race/gender/age. Or taking action to prevent more of the good from being made/delivered - which you might notice anti-price-gouging laws do.

I think you're missing the point - if there's a big arbitrage opportunity through price gouging, there will be even less stock in stores.

DuskStar 7y ago
No, my point is that if the stores raised prices they wouldn't be cleared out for arbitrage or hoarding. You seem to think it's possible to eliminate all resale markets, and thus eliminate the arbitrage opportunity. Ignoring the fact that hoarding would still exist, I would say such a thing is essentially impossible. Which makes the only way to eliminate the price difference (supply and demand curves held static) to have the store raise prices.
- hdjejdjd 7y ago
  Life isn't a textbook example. People like you are so intellectually boring, like you don't have the curiosity to have figured out the mankiw isn't reality. You have an answer for everything and understand nothing.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    I'm sorry, what? Do you have a response, or only ad hominem attacks?
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      An understanding of the difference between simplistic textbook examples with a lot of constraints, and the real world. Please, read some scholarly economics papers, not just textbooks or ideological treatises. Actual economists are acutely aware of the messiness of the real world, the imperfection of their models, and the complexity of feedback loops and multi-agent interactions.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        I think I need to repeat this: I'm sorry, what? Do you have a response, or only ad hominem attacks?
        anigbrowl 7y ago
        If you do, then it's because you are choosing to posture. There were no ad hominem attacks in my post, but an explanation of what was missing from your perspective and exhortation to broaden it with some specific suggestions.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        Your suggestion was "read a few papers". Not "this part of what you're saying is wrong, and why", not "look at this paper that makes X argument", not anything of that sort - just "only someone who doesn't understand anything could possibly think that, so I won't rebut anything". Incidentally, I think the consensus among economists that price gouging laws are bad is pretty strong, so I'm not even sure what sources you're suggesting I read. Econlib [0] has a piece on this, particularly on a survey of economists done by the University of Chicago Booth School. I'd expect their opinions on banning resale to be similar. 0: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/09/a_poll_of_econo.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/09/a_poll_of_econo.htm...
        anigbrowl 7y ago
        I'm not your personal tutor, nor am I obliged to gain your approval. The Chicago school is famous for having a particular and extremely ideological point of economic view, and the blog you're quoting loudly announces its own firmly libertarian credentials.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        You're right, you're not my personal tutor. Nor are you obliged to gain my approval. But when saying "you're wrong", a "why" is generally required to convince anyone - not just myself, but also anyone else reading the thread. Yes, the Chicago school is biased. So is Econlog. But I was under the impression that their survey selection wasn't. If we're bringing up ideological biases though, the fact that your profile starts with "Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism" might be relevant to this discussion about economics... (And I would say that this is not an ad hominem attack, since it's directly relevant)
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
  > my point is that if the stores raised prices they wouldn't be cleared out for arbitrage or hoarding. There’s another version of this that goes: stores raise prices and are cleared out for hoarding and arbitrage. What is the price for masks that will alleviate panic and / or greed?
  - pishpash 7y ago
    The price they were selling for on eBay? Because you could get them.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
      For a limited time perhaps.
- npunt 7y ago
  I see you point. It is possible to significantly reduce resale markets by going after price-gougers though. It doesn't have to be perfect to have the intended effect, and the threat of being busted is usually enough to push it to the edges. This assumes a certain level of law & order though, so in areas with thriving black markets the effect lessens. Similarly, it's possible to reduce hoarding by putting a limit sold per customer. Not perfect, but helps. Hoarding definitely happens, but only certain goods are really things people realistically hoard. There's another argument I'm not seeing brought up, but one that is key to the argument. The reason why we tend to have laws and regulations around situations where people are desperate is a moral obligation. These laws and regulations acknowledge the vulnerability of people in these situations - we are not homo economicus when our lives or those of our loved ones are on the line. In the case of price gouging, it disproportionately affects the poor. I'm seeing a lot of comments coming from a place of privilege, where people see the upside of higher prices (more stock for them) and not the downsides (a person goes to the store to get some and cannot afford them). I understand the different points being made, however this is hardly the first time this type of thing has happened or been debated.
  - tomp 7y ago
    > In the case of price gouging, it disproportionately affects the poor. I'm all for more solidarity, but this statement, at face value, is pure oppressive communism. Being wealthy should give you certain privileges, otherwise there's no point in even trying to be better / smarter / more skilled / more productive! Obviously we can argue whether or not any specific intervention should, or should not, affect people differently based on wealth (e.g. I imagine many people would be quite angry if there were traffic lanes for wealthy people, though they seem to be OK with it at airports), but your comment isn't arguing why this specific instance should be equally distributed (health & wellbeing generally isn't, even in EU "socialized medicine" countries - and that's a good thing too, because then the rich can afford to fund new research, drugs & medical procedures).
    - Can_Not 7y ago
      I think it's hilarious that your argument against communism (which nobody even suggested) is that it "oppresses" you by getting in the way of you being an authoritarian.

jbay808 7y ago

You're not wrong. But the people in charge of the retail stores are not being irrational about this. They know what will cause their reputation to take a hit, and what won't.

DuskStar 7y ago
Also possible that they know what will cause the eyes of the government to turn in their direction - anyone price gouging in a crisis must be evil, after all. And of course the first store to start doing this will get media attention, amplifying the negative impacts...
- oblio 7y ago
  > Also possible that they know what will cause the eyes of the government to turn in their direction - anyone price gouging in a crisis must be evil, after all. And of course the first store to start doing this will get media attention, amplifying the negative impacts... I'm guessing you're trying to be snarky with this bit? > anyone price gouging in a crisis must be evil, after all That's kind of text definition of "evil". Taking advantage of people panicking. Pragmatic, probably rich by the end of the thing, but still evil.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    I think following supply and demand curves - whether that be Uber's surge pricing, gasoline during a power outage, lifesaving medicine outside of a crisis, or rent in SF - isn't evil. Evil would be denying those goods to someone based on their race/gender/age. Or taking action to prevent more of the good from being made/delivered - which you might notice anti-price-gouging laws do.