3 ms·

Theres a term for this kinda of "supply and demand" profiteering and its called price gouging and its explicitly illegal in many states so in times of emergency

Theres a term for this kinda of "supply and demand" profiteering and its called price gouging and its explicitly illegal in many states so in times of emergency so you aren't suddenly getting absurd %1000 percent up charges buying basic necessities before a hurricane. https://www.ncsl.org/financial-services/price-gouging-state-statutes#:~:text=Price%20gouging%20refers%20to%20when,or%20other%20state%20of%20emergency https://www.ncsl.org/financial-services/price-gouging-state-....

mediaman 4y ago
There's an alternative view on what some call "price gouging." The idea is that the market is providing a strong incentive for you to figure out how to get bottled water to the disaster zone. This is wildly unpopular: people view it as capitalists profiteering off a disaster. And it's true, they are. In response, people demand prohibition of price gouging. But the result is a lack of product availability. For example, one study linked anti-gouging laws with limited product availability during the pandemic. [1] To take the example of the increase in costs of goods leading to a hurricane: there is a risk that the hurricane will veer off path, and all the extra goods will just sit, unbought. The anticipation of high prices causes vendors to logistically stage larger quantities of goods to the market. Mandated 'normal' prices lead to scarcity. So ultimately we're left with a choice: do we prevent price gouging, and content ourselves with lack of product knowing that nobody made an 'unfair' dollar? Or do we let price gouging happen, knowing it'll result in better product availability and reduce hoarding? [1] http://journal.apee.org/index.php?title=Parte1_2020_Journal_of_Private_Enterprise_Vol_35_No_4_Winter http://journal.apee.org/index.php?title=Parte1_2020_Journal_...
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
  In a non-psychopathic society, a bunch of benevolent counterforces kick in during a tragedy. People who have extra water share it with those who need it, and people who have extra seats in their car let others in with them. There will always be those who view all scenarios where demand vastly outstrips supply as an opportunity to be exploited for money, no matter how tragic the situation. I personally can't imagine charging people money to get in the car with me if they're trying to escape a gunman, and I like to think most people are the same. These laws are based on that assumption (regardless of whether or not it holds true in practice).

mediaman 4y ago

There's an alternative view on what some call "price gouging." The idea is that the market is providing a strong incentive for you to figure out how to get bottled water to the disaster zone. This is wildly unpopular: people view it as capitalists profiteering off a disaster. And it's true, they are. In response, people demand prohibition of price gouging. But the result is a lack of product availability. For example, one study linked anti-gouging laws with limited product availability during the pandemic. [1] To take the example of the increase in costs of goods leading to a hurricane: there is a risk that the hurricane will veer off path, and all the extra goods will just sit, unbought. The anticipation of high prices causes vendors to logistically stage larger quantities of goods to the market. Mandated 'normal' prices lead to scarcity. So ultimately we're left with a choice: do we prevent price gouging, and content ourselves with lack of product knowing that nobody made an 'unfair' dollar? Or do we let price gouging happen, knowing it'll result in better product availability and reduce hoarding? [1] http://journal.apee.org/index.php?title=Parte1_2020_Journal_of_Private_Enterprise_Vol_35_No_4_Winter http://journal.apee.org/index.php?title=Parte1_2020_Journal_...

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
In a non-psychopathic society, a bunch of benevolent counterforces kick in during a tragedy. People who have extra water share it with those who need it, and people who have extra seats in their car let others in with them. There will always be those who view all scenarios where demand vastly outstrips supply as an opportunity to be exploited for money, no matter how tragic the situation. I personally can't imagine charging people money to get in the car with me if they're trying to escape a gunman, and I like to think most people are the same. These laws are based on that assumption (regardless of whether or not it holds true in practice).