Pretty sure it is illegal and any company taking advantage of other peoples misfortunes during a natural disaster should be harshly penalized or shut down altogether.
Pretty sure it is illegal and any company taking advantage of other peoples misfortunes during a natural disaster should be harshly penalized or shut down altogether.
I think Jamal will determine the price of their butt hole when they go to jail.
Answer: free.
CoolHat wrote:
Pretty sure it is illegal and any company taking advantage of other peoples misfortunes during a natural disaster should be harshly penalized or shut down altogether.
What are you basing that on?
This isn't a case of "what will the market bear", it is straight up price gouging. I live in FL, and hotel rooms that went for $50 per night jumped to $199.99 today. There are gas stations on the easy coast charging $7 - $8.88 per gallon for gas. This is pure and simple gouging.
After storm coverage, price gouging is the big story on the local news.
funny wrote:
This isn't a case of "what will the market bear", it is straight up price gouging. I live in FL, and hotel rooms that went for $50 per night jumped to $199.99 today. There are gas stations on the easy coast charging $7 - $8.88 per gallon for gas. This is pure and simple gouging.
After storm coverage, price gouging is the big story on the local news.
Those seem like very reasonable prices in the current environment. Anything less and you'd encourage overconsumption of scarce resources in the emergency.
CoolHat wrote:
Pretty sure it is illegal and any company taking advantage of other peoples misfortunes during a natural disaster should be harshly penalized or shut down altogether.
Let's say you're a contractor in Wisconsin and you don't have a lot of work to do in the next two months. You see the hurricane in Florida and you know people will need a LOT of workers with a log of material to rebuild quickly.
All the raw materials in Florida will vanish quickly.
Now you could take a risk, go to the lumber store, spend $50,000 of your own money and fill your truck and a trailer with as much construction material it will hold... and drive down to Florida knowing you will be working in a place that may not have even have a working toilet, and knowing you will be sleeping in your truck for two months, knowing law enforcement may be sketchy and that your stuff may be stolen, working away from your family.
But then some politician says that they WILL NOT allow price gouging, and you will have to charge the same rate you would charge for working in Wisconsin, and if you try to price gouge you will be arrested.
Who needs that headache, why take the risk, why suffer the discomfort, why go into hostile territory where they are telling you they don't want you there.
Laws against price gouging reduce the number of people willing to work, which leaves more people homeless for a longer period of time. As usual, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
DiscoGary wrote:
why go into hostile territory where they are telling you they don't want you there.
Because by trying to offer a service at 4 times the going rate you are giving a swift kick in the nuts to people who have already taken a pretty big hit.
I'm okay with a slight price increase due to increased demand, but sometimes it gets ridiculous (like $8 a gallon gas). You can say you are trying to protect from people hoarding, but that also comes with the handy side-effect of increased profits at the expense of people who desperately need to get out.
Blah Blah. wrote:
jjjjjj wrote:raise the price and some people will not get what they need.
Don't raise the price and a greater number of people will not get what they need.
+1 exactly
FitzyXC wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:why go into hostile territory where they are telling you they don't want you there.
Because by trying to offer a service at 4 times the going rate you are giving a swift kick in the nuts to people who have already taken a pretty big hit.
I'm okay with a slight price increase due to increased demand, but sometimes it gets ridiculous (like $8 a gallon gas). You can say you are trying to protect from people hoarding, but that also comes with the handy side-effect of increased profits at the expense of people who desperately need to get out.
Price caps = rationing, and everyone gets less
The pricing mechanism is the most efficient way to make sure valuable resources get to where they are needed the most. Any attempt to mess with the pricing mechanism results in a negative outcome. Just ask the Soviet economists who were put in charge of running their economy.
Those people you are trying to protect with price caps are being hurt by the price caps.
Read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. He covers this with perfect clarity.
FitzyXC wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:why go into hostile territory where they are telling you they don't want you there.
Because by trying to offer a service at 4 times the going rate you are giving a swift kick in the nuts to people who have already taken a pretty big hit.
I'm okay with a slight price increase due to increased demand, but sometimes it gets ridiculous (like $8 a gallon gas). You can say you are trying to protect from people hoarding, but that also comes with the handy side-effect of increased profits at the expense of people who desperately need to get out.
You can't sell what you don't have, tho, right?
If you don't raise prices, what keeps a private citizen from buying up everything in the store and selling it for HIS own profit?
You cannot screw with the economy like that.
Lol "the handy side effect of increased profits". It is called capitalism. Stores in this situation face a greater risk of theft, storm damage, and insurance deductibles. Why shouldn't they be rewarded for facing that risk?
Price gouge all you want on food and gas. Why? Because if you live in FL you should have spare gas and spare food because, truly, a hurricane is not an emergency, it is something that people should be expected to be prepared for more than 1 week in advance.
You can't stockpile lodging,for example, so you could argue such things should have some protections.
I would agree completely if the tax code protected people at the same level as businesses. Let people write off the cost of food, lodging, transportation (all costs to live) or remove write-offs for businesses. When one player (businesses) in the market benefit from the government subsidies (gas, food, ect) but doesn’t want the regulation associated they are leaches and parasites on our economy.
I'm from New Jersey, and I saw firsthand the effects of anti-price gouging laws after Hurricane Sandy. Lines for certain gas stations were miles long. Yes, miles. Why? Because lots of gas stations were out of commission and so everyone was going to the few that were still operating. But what really aggravated the situation were emergency price caps on gas prices. So the price of gas didn't rise to meet demand, and as a result you had thousands of people stocking up on gas to last them until the situation returned to normal. If prices had been allowed to rise with demand, that wouldn't have happened because the high price would have disincentivized people from hoarding. Some people would have chose to bike to work instead of drive, others would have decided to use public transportation or car pool. Instead, people took advantage of artificially low prices and continued going about their business as normal.
Now some people in this thread have raised the objection that higher prices means that some people can't afford to buy gas (to use the current example). That's totally true, but 4 hour lines to buy gas also make it so that people can't get it. Same thing if some people hoard food and water and so the local grocery store runs out and some people are shit out of luck. The only way around it is to have the government ration everything, but there's no way for them to fairly and quickly apportion these goods according to everyone's varying needs. Sure, they could say "everyone gets x amount", but some people need 2x, or 3x, or 4x, and so on. Others might not need any. So you get an extremely inefficient and unfair distribution of resources. This is exactly what happened to the soviet planners and, incidentally, exactly what happened in the 1970s when the government tried to ration gas.
The simplest solution is: let people charge what they want, and consumers will alter their behavior accordingly. It does not result in massive lines, it does not rely on an extremely slow and cumbersome bureaucratic apparatus, and it does not result in a wildly inefficient distribution of resources. And yes, people will suffer, people will struggle to get the goods they need. But they will regardless of which solution we choose. The goal is to choose the solution that minimizes this suffering, and anti-price gouging laws fail in that regard.
Big tool, this isn't a repeat situation that free market economy requires to be efficient. The next time a guy pts a gun to your head and asks for your wallet, Id like you to explain to him that you're going to take your business elsewhere
Writing from the great beyond wrote:
Big tool, this isn't a repeat situation that free market economy requires to be efficient. The next time a guy pts a gun to your head and asks for your wallet, Id like you to explain to him that you're going to take your business elsewhere
A guy with a gun to your head is not at all comparable to increased prices on gas and lodging.
bigtool05 wrote:
I'm from New Jersey, and I saw firsthand the effects of anti-price gouging laws after Hurricane Sandy. Lines for certain gas stations were miles long. Yes, miles. Why? Because lots of gas stations were out of commission and so everyone was going to the few that were still operating. But what really aggravated the situation were emergency price caps on gas prices. So the price of gas didn't rise to meet demand, and as a result you had thousands of people stocking up on gas to last them until the situation returned to normal. If prices had been allowed to rise with demand, that wouldn't have happened because the high price would have disincentivized people from hoarding. Some people would have chose to bike to work instead of drive, others would have decided to use public transportation or car pool. Instead, people took advantage of artificially low prices and continued going about their business as normal.
Now some people in this thread have raised the objection that higher prices means that some people can't afford to buy gas (to use the current example). That's totally true, but 4 hour lines to buy gas also make it so that people can't get it. Same thing if some people hoard food and water and so the local grocery store runs out and some people are shit out of luck. The only way around it is to have the government ration everything, but there's no way for them to fairly and quickly apportion these goods according to everyone's varying needs. Sure, they could say "everyone gets x amount", but some people need 2x, or 3x, or 4x, and so on. Others might not need any. So you get an extremely inefficient and unfair distribution of resources. This is exactly what happened to the soviet planners and, incidentally, exactly what happened in the 1970s when the government tried to ration gas.
The simplest solution is: let people charge what they want, and consumers will alter their behavior accordingly. It does not result in massive lines, it does not rely on an extremely slow and cumbersome bureaucratic apparatus, and it does not result in a wildly inefficient distribution of resources. And yes, people will suffer, people will struggle to get the goods they need. But they will regardless of which solution we choose. The goal is to choose the solution that minimizes this suffering, and anti-price gouging laws fail in that regard.
^This, plus the post name "Invisible Hand Bitch Slap" above have restored my faith in humanity.
The laws of economics are very similar to the laws of physics.
Those who obey the laws and know how they work will be richly rewarded.
Those who try to disobey them or don't know how they work will be harshly punished ... and your "intentions" won't matter one stinking bit.
DiscoGary wrote:
bigtool05 wrote:I'm from New Jersey, and I saw firsthand the effects of anti-price gouging laws after Hurricane Sandy. Lines for certain gas stations were miles long. Yes, miles. Why? Because lots of gas stations were out of commission and so everyone was going to the few that were still operating. But what really aggravated the situation were emergency price caps on gas prices. So the price of gas didn't rise to meet demand, and as a result you had thousands of people stocking up on gas to last them until the situation returned to normal. If prices had been allowed to rise with demand, that wouldn't have happened because the high price would have disincentivized people from hoarding. Some people would have chose to bike to work instead of drive, others would have decided to use public transportation or car pool. Instead, people took advantage of artificially low prices and continued going about their business as normal.
Now some people in this thread have raised the objection that higher prices means that some people can't afford to buy gas (to use the current example). That's totally true, but 4 hour lines to buy gas also make it so that people can't get it. Same thing if some people hoard food and water and so the local grocery store runs out and some people are shit out of luck. The only way around it is to have the government ration everything, but there's no way for them to fairly and quickly apportion these goods according to everyone's varying needs. Sure, they could say "everyone gets x amount", but some people need 2x, or 3x, or 4x, and so on. Others might not need any. So you get an extremely inefficient and unfair distribution of resources. This is exactly what happened to the soviet planners and, incidentally, exactly what happened in the 1970s when the government tried to ration gas.
The simplest solution is: let people charge what they want, and consumers will alter their behavior accordingly. It does not result in massive lines, it does not rely on an extremely slow and cumbersome bureaucratic apparatus, and it does not result in a wildly inefficient distribution of resources. And yes, people will suffer, people will struggle to get the goods they need. But they will regardless of which solution we choose. The goal is to choose the solution that minimizes this suffering, and anti-price gouging laws fail in that regard.
^This, plus the post name "Invisible Hand Bitch Slap" above have restored my faith in humanity.
Thanks :-)
sad story wrote:
There is no such thing as "price gouging." The term was invented by anti-capitalists to vilify something they don't like, but that there is nothing morally wrong with. Look at what happens in countries with price controls on food an other basic necessities and see what kind of results happen when politicians try to defy the laws of supply and demand.
You are incorrect that it has nothing morally wrong with it.
Supply and demand does not need any controls on it, unless the suppliers lack a moral compass. Sadly, many do lack one, so something needs to be done. I am not sure what it is, however.
MIMITW wrote:
sad story wrote:There is no such thing as "price gouging." The term was invented by anti-capitalists to vilify something they don't like, but that there is nothing morally wrong with. Look at what happens in countries with price controls on food an other basic necessities and see what kind of results happen when politicians try to defy the laws of supply and demand.
You are incorrect that it has nothing morally wrong with it.
Supply and demand does not need any controls on it, unless the suppliers lack a moral compass. Sadly, many do lack one, so something needs to be done. I am not sure what it is, however.
I still think the free market wins in the end.
My dad told me a story once about a Huddle House(?) in MS that stayed open during a huge blizzard that knocked out power to the whole region. The owners of this Huddle House decided to give away whatever they could, and essentially fed the community for the better part of a week until power came back on. The community never forgot the family's generosity, and made sure that the HH and the owner was constantly busy.
On the other hand, it isn't hard to imagine someone going the other route and gouging the hell out of the region. They may make a tidy profit in the short run, but would likely get run out of town once the power comes back on.
Good old fashioned human interaction will handle the situation better than legislation.
What is the threshold that separates a "hobbyjogger" from a "sub-elite" runner?
BREAKING: Leonard Korir not going to Paris! 11 Universality athletes get in ahead of him!
Do "running influencers" harm the competitive nature of the sport?
Hicham El Guerrouj is back baby! Runs Community Mile in Oxford
Caitlin Clark thinks she can beat Eagles draft pick Cooper Dejean in 1 on 1