3 ms·
Here are some more thoughts from people far smarter than me: Tyler Cowen: "I agree gouging should not be illegal" [1] Paul Krugman: [On Uber's 7x surge pricin
by tvladeck 13y ago
Here are some more thoughts from people far smarter than me:
Tyler Cowen: "I agree gouging should not be illegal" [1]
Paul Krugman: [On Uber's 7x surge pricing during horrible snowstorms in New York] "This makes a lot of sense from a rational economic point of view" [2]
[1] http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2003/09/more_on_price_g.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2003/09/mor...
[2] http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/uber-and-the-macro-wars/?_r=0 http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/uber-and-the-mac...
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago"A rational economic point of view" means that you value your personal cash flow (including factors like long-term customer goodwill, admittedly) over other concerns, which is what I already said. If someone gives you a magic button that kills one random stranger and then turns into a $100 bill, the rational economic decision is to press it. You're not scoring any points here.
- tvladeck 13y agoNo, Krugman is making the point (in his whole blog post) that price "gouging" allocates resources in the best possible way, and that our emotional response to it sometimes confounds this "first best" outcome. Which is actually a good description of the debate we're having here (on the broader thread). You keep saying "your personal cash flow" as if I or Krugman or others actually do make a buck off selling services to those in distress. I work in climate policy; I don't sell anything. You seem to think it's not even possible for me to actually, really, think that our natural, emotional responses to price "gouging" does us a disservice. I don't have anything to gain except a world that works a bit better.