3 ms·

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

by 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.

by npunt 7y ago

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.