6 ms·

You know what's way more effective at stopping gas hoarding so it's available for someone who really wants/needs it? Doubling the price per gallon. Anti-price g

by tbihl 5y ago

You know what's way more effective at stopping gas hoarding so it's available for someone who really wants/needs it? Doubling the price per gallon. Anti-price gouging laws caused the shortage, just like with toilet paper and PPE last year.

jackson1442 5y ago
A price increase that effectively stops people from hoarding gas would be equally as effective at stopping people who need gas from affording it.
- tbihl 5y ago
  Addressing legitimate problems of hardship can be dealt with from the other end, by channeling resources to those people. In the mean time, higher prices mean that supply isn't interrupted, and for the vast majority of people that means that you don't fill up your car and your wife's car and your lawnmower and a 55gal drum, because it's not worth it. You just skip a few trips and let your gas tank get below half a tank. And if you were wrong about thinking you could hold out, you can still buy gas because it's not sitting in your neighbor's new gas cans in his garage. We shouldn't have widespread shortages for the sake of theoretical people whose existences are structured around 5 gallon commutes and razor thin margins tied with no lines of credit to float a week of double gas expenses.
  - upbeat_general 5y ago
    By “theoretical people” I think you’re referring to a very sizable portion of the population.
  - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
    The people who would be hurt by such an increase, absent already-in-place assistance, constitute the vast majority of people. And, unfortunately, nobody is helped by "can be dealt with" -- the policies to prevent their pain, and to prevent disadvantaged folks from being disproportionately impacted by such an increase, need to be in place before the increase. The reason, which is likely apparent to both of us and everyone reading this, is that such assistance would likely never be put in place, and the only help ordinary folks will have in the event of such an increase is wishful thinking.
    - fsckboy 5y ago
      > The people who would be hurt by such an increase, absent already-in-place assistance, constitute the vast majority of people. and so you suggest hurting the vast majority of people even more? That's right, your suggested approach of keeping artificially-low-prices-that-allow-hoarding leads to zero gas at the pumps, and zero gas at the pumps hurts the vast majority of people very directly and very effectively. Allowing prices to float higher in a shortage solves the allocation problem for scarce resources by ensuring that people think twice about how they use it, while keeping it available. Ignoring that the resource is scarce not only doesn't solve anything, it makes the problem worse.
      - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
        >and so you suggest hurting the vast majority of people even more? 1. More people are hurt by price gouging of products with inelastic demand than hurt by limiting the price increase. 2. A completely floating gas price disproportionately affects disadvantaged folks who have no alternative, even when there are no outages. I mean, I totally agree with OP, there's a straightforward solution: set up a government program that insulates people from the effects of a floating price proportionately to how disadvantaged they are, and then, after that, let the gas price float. That way we get your idea without hurting anyone! Win-win.
  - CleaveIt2Beaver 5y ago
    What crazypants world do you live in where the vast majority of people have all that excess, but the poor are in the minority?
- WalterBright 5y ago
  You can't buy gas that isn't there. Anti-gouging laws simply result in no gas available.
  - foerbert 5y ago
    And rationing can address that problem. These complex issues are never so simple.
    - nickff 5y ago
      Then you get a black market... it's almost a cobra effect.
      - foerbert 5y ago
        Sure. I'd guess it still adds enough friction to help result in a better distribution of goods in the end. The time, effort, and (legal) risk you are willing to take to acquire something should correlate decently with how much you really need those goods.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      Rationing makes simple things complex. For example, rationing assumes that everyone has exactly the same need. Trying to fix that is hopelessly complicated.
      - foerbert 5y ago
        I don't see how that's an argument against anti-price gouging laws though. It's not like price gouging solves that problem. Fundamentally a shortage is just never going to give perfect results. Even simplistic rationing is at least relatively fair and can ensure at least a base level of availability. For the major necessities this can be pretty reasonably accounted for to ensure nobody suffers from some extreme deprivation. It also lets you at least put some somewhat predictable cap on how fast resources are going out. Allowing price gouging doesn't let you predict much of anything, and I'm not sure it even slows the outflow given the uncertainty of these situations.
- fsckboy 5y ago
  > A price increase that effectively stops people from hoarding gas would be equally as effective at stopping people who need gas from affording it. no, your statement is false. Hoarding cheap gas results in zero gas at the pump, and that is MORE effective at stopping people who need it than high prices do. That's right, market pricing solves allocation problems that your misguided approach creates.
devwastaken 5y ago
Price of gold and silver is at its peak and people are buying it more than ever convinced it will somehow become extinct. The people who have money to hoard gas are also the people who have the money to hoard gas at double the price. These are not individuals with any knowledge of economics - theyre not doing it for trade, they're doing it out of belief.
- brobdingnagians 5y ago
  We have to wait and see if future results justify current actions, when the action is preparation for some future event. It is only in hindsight that we can truly point out if someone's risk/reward calculation for the future was flawed. I'm not buying gold, but the odd thing is that Russian and Chinese central banks are. I would assume those people know a thing or two about economics. I'm curious to see what the future holds.
  - Scoundreller 5y ago
    Why would Russia and China central banks buy gold? They’re already the #3 and #1 producing countries world-wide.
    - brobdingnagians 5y ago
      Because their central banks are concerned about stability of international currencies [1]. A central bank is in a good position to use gold, whereas most individuals aren't. [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-russian-and-chinese-central-banks-will-keep-buying-gold-2019-09-13 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-russian-and-chinese-ce...
- roenxi 5y ago
  > The people who have money to hoard gas are also the people who have the money to hoard gas at double the price. But then the outcome would not have changed, the people who hoard will be worse off, the people who produce a valuable commodity will be better off and there is incentive for people to contingency plan and have gas reserves for when things get tight. That is a strict improvement. Plus, you're probably being overly pessimistic - people will stop hoarding once the price gets high enough. The shelves would not be bare. > These are not individuals with any knowledge of economics - theyre not doing it for trade, they're doing it out of belief. The people with knowledge of economics don't have much of an advantage though, do they? When has an official body ever been banging the drum before a major crisis issuing panicked warnings? Every crisis it turns out all the people held up as experts had grossly misread the situation. People with knowledge of economics often get bowled under by people with a knowledge of politics or of statistics when it comes to trading.
jhanschoo 5y ago
I disagree that a higher price will dissuade hoarders from hoarding; you've just validated their notion that gas is getting more valuable and more scarce. See: deflation.

by tbihl 5y ago

jackson1442 5y ago

A price increase that effectively stops people from hoarding gas would be equally as effective at stopping people who need gas from affording it.

tbihl 5y ago
Addressing legitimate problems of hardship can be dealt with from the other end, by channeling resources to those people. In the mean time, higher prices mean that supply isn't interrupted, and for the vast majority of people that means that you don't fill up your car and your wife's car and your lawnmower and a 55gal drum, because it's not worth it. You just skip a few trips and let your gas tank get below half a tank. And if you were wrong about thinking you could hold out, you can still buy gas because it's not sitting in your neighbor's new gas cans in his garage. We shouldn't have widespread shortages for the sake of theoretical people whose existences are structured around 5 gallon commutes and razor thin margins tied with no lines of credit to float a week of double gas expenses.
- upbeat_general 5y ago
  By “theoretical people” I think you’re referring to a very sizable portion of the population.
- ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
  The people who would be hurt by such an increase, absent already-in-place assistance, constitute the vast majority of people. And, unfortunately, nobody is helped by "can be dealt with" -- the policies to prevent their pain, and to prevent disadvantaged folks from being disproportionately impacted by such an increase, need to be in place before the increase. The reason, which is likely apparent to both of us and everyone reading this, is that such assistance would likely never be put in place, and the only help ordinary folks will have in the event of such an increase is wishful thinking.
  - fsckboy 5y ago
    > The people who would be hurt by such an increase, absent already-in-place assistance, constitute the vast majority of people. and so you suggest hurting the vast majority of people even more? That's right, your suggested approach of keeping artificially-low-prices-that-allow-hoarding leads to zero gas at the pumps, and zero gas at the pumps hurts the vast majority of people very directly and very effectively. Allowing prices to float higher in a shortage solves the allocation problem for scarce resources by ensuring that people think twice about how they use it, while keeping it available. Ignoring that the resource is scarce not only doesn't solve anything, it makes the problem worse.
    - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
      >and so you suggest hurting the vast majority of people even more? 1. More people are hurt by price gouging of products with inelastic demand than hurt by limiting the price increase. 2. A completely floating gas price disproportionately affects disadvantaged folks who have no alternative, even when there are no outages. I mean, I totally agree with OP, there's a straightforward solution: set up a government program that insulates people from the effects of a floating price proportionately to how disadvantaged they are, and then, after that, let the gas price float. That way we get your idea without hurting anyone! Win-win.
- CleaveIt2Beaver 5y ago
  What crazypants world do you live in where the vast majority of people have all that excess, but the poor are in the minority?
WalterBright 5y ago
You can't buy gas that isn't there. Anti-gouging laws simply result in no gas available.
- foerbert 5y ago
  And rationing can address that problem. These complex issues are never so simple.
  - nickff 5y ago
    Then you get a black market... it's almost a cobra effect.
    - foerbert 5y ago
      Sure. I'd guess it still adds enough friction to help result in a better distribution of goods in the end. The time, effort, and (legal) risk you are willing to take to acquire something should correlate decently with how much you really need those goods.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Rationing makes simple things complex. For example, rationing assumes that everyone has exactly the same need. Trying to fix that is hopelessly complicated.
    - foerbert 5y ago
      I don't see how that's an argument against anti-price gouging laws though. It's not like price gouging solves that problem. Fundamentally a shortage is just never going to give perfect results. Even simplistic rationing is at least relatively fair and can ensure at least a base level of availability. For the major necessities this can be pretty reasonably accounted for to ensure nobody suffers from some extreme deprivation. It also lets you at least put some somewhat predictable cap on how fast resources are going out. Allowing price gouging doesn't let you predict much of anything, and I'm not sure it even slows the outflow given the uncertainty of these situations.
fsckboy 5y ago
> A price increase that effectively stops people from hoarding gas would be equally as effective at stopping people who need gas from affording it. no, your statement is false. Hoarding cheap gas results in zero gas at the pump, and that is MORE effective at stopping people who need it than high prices do. That's right, market pricing solves allocation problems that your misguided approach creates.

devwastaken 5y ago

Price of gold and silver is at its peak and people are buying it more than ever convinced it will somehow become extinct. The people who have money to hoard gas are also the people who have the money to hoard gas at double the price. These are not individuals with any knowledge of economics - theyre not doing it for trade, they're doing it out of belief.

brobdingnagians 5y ago
We have to wait and see if future results justify current actions, when the action is preparation for some future event. It is only in hindsight that we can truly point out if someone's risk/reward calculation for the future was flawed. I'm not buying gold, but the odd thing is that Russian and Chinese central banks are. I would assume those people know a thing or two about economics. I'm curious to see what the future holds.
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  Why would Russia and China central banks buy gold? They’re already the #3 and #1 producing countries world-wide.
  - brobdingnagians 5y ago
    Because their central banks are concerned about stability of international currencies [1]. A central bank is in a good position to use gold, whereas most individuals aren't. [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-russian-and-chinese-central-banks-will-keep-buying-gold-2019-09-13 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-russian-and-chinese-ce...
roenxi 5y ago
> The people who have money to hoard gas are also the people who have the money to hoard gas at double the price. But then the outcome would not have changed, the people who hoard will be worse off, the people who produce a valuable commodity will be better off and there is incentive for people to contingency plan and have gas reserves for when things get tight. That is a strict improvement. Plus, you're probably being overly pessimistic - people will stop hoarding once the price gets high enough. The shelves would not be bare. > These are not individuals with any knowledge of economics - theyre not doing it for trade, they're doing it out of belief. The people with knowledge of economics don't have much of an advantage though, do they? When has an official body ever been banging the drum before a major crisis issuing panicked warnings? Every crisis it turns out all the people held up as experts had grossly misread the situation. People with knowledge of economics often get bowled under by people with a knowledge of politics or of statistics when it comes to trading.

jhanschoo 5y ago

I disagree that a higher price will dissuade hoarders from hoarding; you've just validated their notion that gas is getting more valuable and more scarce. See: deflation.