5 ms·

>The guy buying up all the masks and reselling them for 10x the price is price gouging. He doesn't make anything. The guy buying up all the masks and reselling

>The guy buying up all the masks and reselling them for 10x the price is price gouging. He doesn't make anything. The guy buying up all the masks and reselling them for 10x the price is making availability, which is highly important in a crisis.

treden 7y ago
He's capturing availability, the manufacturer made the availability. There is no value-adding middle man role with a 10x value here (well value to anyone other than the middle man).
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  There's none available to purchase at the old, lower price. So he's providing value to me, someone who wishes to buy one.
  - MisterBastahrd 7y ago
    Because he bought them all. This is why, in states where disasters are probable due to natural issues (hurricanes, earthquakes), price gouging is a crime. Not only is it a crime, but it is one where there is full bi-partisan support for the continuance of the law. If you want to put a smile on the face on someone suffering from calamity, first help them, and then arrest the bastard who tried to profit off of it. The first smile will be gentle and gracious, and the second will be of pure glee.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      If the gouger actually bought them all then you have a monopoly, which is a different problem. The gauger, instead, bought some. So did many other people. The difference is he's willing to sell his. That's the value to me he's providing. Could you retry your analysis with this corrected information?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - MisterBastahrd 7y ago
        Doesn't matter if he bought all or some. If he is attempting to profit off of a disaster, he will be seeing a fine or jail time in plenty of states.
        Chris2048 7y ago
        Should for-profit grave-digging be illegal too?
        MisterBastahrd 7y ago
        The fun thing about a lot of people dying is that the government will take care of the bodies for you. Try another strawman tactic, my dude. That one missed the mark.
        Chris2048 7y ago
        A strawman is an irrelevant argument, but this one is perfectly relevant: A grave-digger makes money in the event of death, it needn't be during an epidemic, "my dude" (or whatever patronising, PA phrase you prefer) If people shouldn't profit off disaster, why profit from any misfortune?
        Consultant32452 7y ago
        I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about whether or not a price gouger provides the service of making some product available on the market, albeit at a higher price. I feel that fact is indisputable and I personally find that valuable. You seem focused on whether or not you consider this action of making something available to me is moral/legal. That's a different question altogether. One which I'm explicitly not commenting on.
        7y ago
    - valuearb 7y ago
      Hoarders aren’t selling theirs, he is. If he didn’t exist, more hoarders would have critical supplies.
    - opo 7y ago
      >...The first smile will be gentle and gracious, and the second will be of pure glee. What kind of smile is there when there is nothing to buy at any price? Before all these laws, in natural disasters there used to be marginal producers (people with a pickup truck etc) who would load up on some supplies like ice etc. and bring them to the area that was hit to make a quick profit. When the electricity is out and someone wants $12 a bag for ice it would anger you if you just want to keep your drinks cold, but you would think it is a bargain if that way you can keep your insulin chilled. https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2007/Mungergouging.html https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2007/Mungergouging....
      - MisterBastahrd 7y ago
        There are tons of people out there who will handle these things for their communities without expecting an exorbitant amount of money. Your scenario is also completely different from someone trying to buy up the existing supply so that he can gouge people.
        opo 7y ago
        >...There are tons of people out there who will handle these things for their communities without expecting an exorbitant amount of money. The article I linked too was the personal experience of an economist who was in Raleigh after a hurricane hit the area. As he writes: >...The problem for Raleigh residents was all about price, at that point. The prices of all the necessities that I wanted to use to “preserve, protect, or sustain” my own life shot up to infinity. Within a day after the storm, there were no generators, ice, or chain saws to be had, none. But that means that anyone who brought these commodities into the crippled city, and charged less than infinity, would be doing us a service. There were not tons of people bringing supplies into the city. The state had to actually beg other states and the federal government for supplies. In the long run, high profits during a shortage also mean that suppliers in general will be incentivized to keep a larger stockpile of things that have a good shelf-life since they know they will be able to make good money the next time there is a shortage (more than the storage costs). If you are going to literally make it illegal to try this, then you better have a government be willing to spend its tax dollars on creating a stockpile rather than spending money on more immediate things that are more likely to get votes. (We've now seen that all the talk of the national stockpile the federal government supposedly had was greatly exaggerated.) For these reasons, a majority of economists are opposed to 'price gouging' laws. For example see http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/price-gouging/ http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/price-gouging/
  - birdyrooster 7y ago
    Right and yet most everyone in this thread can agree that it wouldn’t be the most prudent use of it when there are other lives more at risk than yours.
    - birdyrooster 7y ago
      It’s likely people forget what economy was even for. It doesn’t exist solely to serve itself, well I suppose it could if you are a true masochist, but instead a means to an end: health, happiness, freedom, etc
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      In reality I have not gone out and purchased overpriced goods. I'm wearing a cloth mask when I go out. In the hypothetical, you have no idea whose life is more at risk. And the central planners who want to implement price fixing, purchasing quotas, etc. do not have much if any more insight than you.
- sk5t 7y ago
  Watch out of you'll end up in a debate about whether and how HFT and front-running are good for the Main Street investor...
  - koheripbal 7y ago
    I don't think anyone defends front-running. It's illegal in various forms for good reasons. A _manufacturer_ charging more is not _front-running_.
jcranmer 7y ago
The guy buying up all the masks and reselling them is likely buying them in similar markets to the people who he will be selling them to eventually. His net effect is likely going to be doing diddly squat to the availability.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  None are available to purchase at the old, lower price, because demand at the old price outpaced production. The higher price drives some consumers out of the market, meaning there are still some for sale.
  - jbay 7y ago
    Demand at the old price from people who bought them to resell at the new price?
    - tristor 7y ago
      Mostly, because the guy buying them all up to resell at 10x the price is a scumbag just like ticket scalpers, except worse because whether you pay $500 or $200 to get a ticket to a rock concert won't potentially kill you. The availability is primarily negatively impacted because of hoarders and gougers.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      Do you believe that, absent price gougers, I would be able to walk into Home Depot, CVS, Walmart, etc. and buy some N95 masks for my personal use? I don't think that's likely, so wherever you were heading with that is irrelevant. I want to be clear I'm intentionally separating two things. The gouger is making product available on the market where otherwise there would be none. The higher price discourages hoarders or others with lower needs. This is clearly a valuable service that some, perhaps many, are willing to pay for. I feel like these are indisputable facts. There is a separate topic of moralizing about the issue, whether or not you think the gouger is a bad actor or whatever. You can keep going on about that, but I won't address it because I don't care about your feelings regarding my personal health.

treden 7y ago

He's capturing availability, the manufacturer made the availability. There is no value-adding middle man role with a 10x value here (well value to anyone other than the middle man).

Consultant32452 7y ago
There's none available to purchase at the old, lower price. So he's providing value to me, someone who wishes to buy one.
- MisterBastahrd 7y ago
  Because he bought them all. This is why, in states where disasters are probable due to natural issues (hurricanes, earthquakes), price gouging is a crime. Not only is it a crime, but it is one where there is full bi-partisan support for the continuance of the law. If you want to put a smile on the face on someone suffering from calamity, first help them, and then arrest the bastard who tried to profit off of it. The first smile will be gentle and gracious, and the second will be of pure glee.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    If the gouger actually bought them all then you have a monopoly, which is a different problem. The gauger, instead, bought some. So did many other people. The difference is he's willing to sell his. That's the value to me he's providing. Could you retry your analysis with this corrected information?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - MisterBastahrd 7y ago
      Doesn't matter if he bought all or some. If he is attempting to profit off of a disaster, he will be seeing a fine or jail time in plenty of states.
      - Chris2048 7y ago
        Should for-profit grave-digging be illegal too?
        MisterBastahrd 7y ago
        The fun thing about a lot of people dying is that the government will take care of the bodies for you. Try another strawman tactic, my dude. That one missed the mark.
        Chris2048 7y ago
        A strawman is an irrelevant argument, but this one is perfectly relevant: A grave-digger makes money in the event of death, it needn't be during an epidemic, "my dude" (or whatever patronising, PA phrase you prefer) If people shouldn't profit off disaster, why profit from any misfortune?
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about whether or not a price gouger provides the service of making some product available on the market, albeit at a higher price. I feel that fact is indisputable and I personally find that valuable. You seem focused on whether or not you consider this action of making something available to me is moral/legal. That's a different question altogether. One which I'm explicitly not commenting on.
        7y ago
  - valuearb 7y ago
    Hoarders aren’t selling theirs, he is. If he didn’t exist, more hoarders would have critical supplies.
  - opo 7y ago
    >...The first smile will be gentle and gracious, and the second will be of pure glee. What kind of smile is there when there is nothing to buy at any price? Before all these laws, in natural disasters there used to be marginal producers (people with a pickup truck etc) who would load up on some supplies like ice etc. and bring them to the area that was hit to make a quick profit. When the electricity is out and someone wants $12 a bag for ice it would anger you if you just want to keep your drinks cold, but you would think it is a bargain if that way you can keep your insulin chilled. https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2007/Mungergouging.html https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2007/Mungergouging....
    - MisterBastahrd 7y ago
      There are tons of people out there who will handle these things for their communities without expecting an exorbitant amount of money. Your scenario is also completely different from someone trying to buy up the existing supply so that he can gouge people.
      - opo 7y ago
        >...There are tons of people out there who will handle these things for their communities without expecting an exorbitant amount of money. The article I linked too was the personal experience of an economist who was in Raleigh after a hurricane hit the area. As he writes: >...The problem for Raleigh residents was all about price, at that point. The prices of all the necessities that I wanted to use to “preserve, protect, or sustain” my own life shot up to infinity. Within a day after the storm, there were no generators, ice, or chain saws to be had, none. But that means that anyone who brought these commodities into the crippled city, and charged less than infinity, would be doing us a service. There were not tons of people bringing supplies into the city. The state had to actually beg other states and the federal government for supplies. In the long run, high profits during a shortage also mean that suppliers in general will be incentivized to keep a larger stockpile of things that have a good shelf-life since they know they will be able to make good money the next time there is a shortage (more than the storage costs). If you are going to literally make it illegal to try this, then you better have a government be willing to spend its tax dollars on creating a stockpile rather than spending money on more immediate things that are more likely to get votes. (We've now seen that all the talk of the national stockpile the federal government supposedly had was greatly exaggerated.) For these reasons, a majority of economists are opposed to 'price gouging' laws. For example see http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/price-gouging/ http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/price-gouging/
- birdyrooster 7y ago
  Right and yet most everyone in this thread can agree that it wouldn’t be the most prudent use of it when there are other lives more at risk than yours.
  - birdyrooster 7y ago
    It’s likely people forget what economy was even for. It doesn’t exist solely to serve itself, well I suppose it could if you are a true masochist, but instead a means to an end: health, happiness, freedom, etc
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    In reality I have not gone out and purchased overpriced goods. I'm wearing a cloth mask when I go out. In the hypothetical, you have no idea whose life is more at risk. And the central planners who want to implement price fixing, purchasing quotas, etc. do not have much if any more insight than you.
sk5t 7y ago
Watch out of you'll end up in a debate about whether and how HFT and front-running are good for the Main Street investor...
- koheripbal 7y ago
  I don't think anyone defends front-running. It's illegal in various forms for good reasons. A _manufacturer_ charging more is not _front-running_.

jcranmer 7y ago

The guy buying up all the masks and reselling them is likely buying them in similar markets to the people who he will be selling them to eventually. His net effect is likely going to be doing diddly squat to the availability.

Consultant32452 7y ago
None are available to purchase at the old, lower price, because demand at the old price outpaced production. The higher price drives some consumers out of the market, meaning there are still some for sale.
- jbay 7y ago
  Demand at the old price from people who bought them to resell at the new price?
  - tristor 7y ago
    Mostly, because the guy buying them all up to resell at 10x the price is a scumbag just like ticket scalpers, except worse because whether you pay $500 or $200 to get a ticket to a rock concert won't potentially kill you. The availability is primarily negatively impacted because of hoarders and gougers.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    Do you believe that, absent price gougers, I would be able to walk into Home Depot, CVS, Walmart, etc. and buy some N95 masks for my personal use? I don't think that's likely, so wherever you were heading with that is irrelevant. I want to be clear I'm intentionally separating two things. The gouger is making product available on the market where otherwise there would be none. The higher price discourages hoarders or others with lower needs. This is clearly a valuable service that some, perhaps many, are willing to pay for. I feel like these are indisputable facts. There is a separate topic of moralizing about the issue, whether or not you think the gouger is a bad actor or whatever. You can keep going on about that, but I won't address it because I don't care about your feelings regarding my personal health.