Not much of a free market if you can't shop around, it seems to me.

And why do you suggest that I free myself of emotional reasoning? I'm human, Mr. Spock.

I agree man. It's only the true scum that own a computer or smartphone when there are billions of people without adequate food or basic supplies. You could help dozens of people if you went without this tiny luxury, truly change their lives, but instead you choose to hoard your money so you can post on 2p2. True scum.

There is a different between free market and price gouging. Is it too terrible to make only 50% of what the max. If you already make 5 million do you really need to go ahead and try to squeeze 10 million. What we are teach in economic is to maximize profit but what they should teach is to maximize happiness.

I have given a lot of money to charity and to people in need. Close to 6 figures if not a little above 6. Lol at comparing me who have just enough to people who hoard their money. I do my part to help.
Also having a computer and smartphone is a way to be productive and give back to society with information. Or to gain knowledge for oneself. How is that selfish. If you learn a new skill with the technology you can teach other.

It's amazing how many people think feelings and "right and wrong" somehow just magically override everything else, even things that can't be overridden.

Putting a price cap on bottled watered doesn't magically make more bottled water appear.

There's a shortage of bottled water. There is very high demand for it and very low supply of it. As such, a select few people are going to get it and a bunch of people aren't. The default allocation method for who gets it and who doesn't is the price.

People who don't get the water get angry at this and demand the allocation method be outlawed.

The fundamental problem still exists. There are way more people who want bottled water than there is water available. A new allocation method must arise and a new set of people will be left without, and they'll be mad.

As the NYT article so accurately points out, increased prices promote conservation of valuable scarce resources and discourage/prevent hoardings supplies of it.

It's one of the most harmful delusions alive. Worse than the most evil philosophies.

Envy >>>>>> greed in terms of harm done

People who applaud and encourage envy and busybody moralizing ("it's wrong to keep money you earned via creating wealth in voluntary transactions if it's above X!") are some of the most disgusting and destructive people alive. Ironically, they think they're moral and decent when they're actually the scum of the earth.

It's fascinating that such basic human psychological flaws have trapped entire generations of a billion+ people in poverty and oppression and misery, such as in communist China for 3 decades, or the USSR.

That is not true, if you charge too much. It's disproportional. While the rich can afford and get enough and live a very comfortable life instead of sharing and living a modest life. If you charge too much the poor might not get enough to survive. In short do not hoard will solve the problem. Do you really think it's fair someone can consume more than they need while people are in dire need?

[QUOTE=ToothSayer;52839922]It's one of the most harmful delusions alive. Worse than the most evil philosophies.

Envy >>>>>> greed in terms of harm done

People who applaud and encourage envy and busybody moralizing ("it's wrong to keep money you earned via creating wealth in voluntary transactions if it's above X!") are some of the most disgusting and destructive people alive. Ironically, they think they're moral and decent when they're actually the scum of the earth.

It's fascinating that such basic human psychological flaws have trapped entire generations of a billion+ people in poverty and oppression and misery, such as in communist China for 3 decades, or the USSR.

I never said charging a fair price in normal circumstance is bad, price gouging in disaster leaves a bad taste. Thing is do you have to get max value everytime? Can you not be generous and leave some money on the table for the needy?

Are you that unselfaware, that completely unaware of how poor much of the world is, that you don't realize you do this exact thing every ****ing day?

Unbelievable.

Oh and the above is exactly what the early buyers do in emergencies when price gouging is illegal. They hoard. And unlike the shopkeeper, who merely puts prices up, they make it completely unavailable. It's not the rich hoarding, it's the average person. Increased prices discourage this selfish behavior.

This is where you mistaken me, I never said increasing price is bad, I just said price gouging is terrible. obvious I do not mean just the rich hoarding, I meant everyone who hoards is terrible, but it's the rich that hoard the most if you can not see.
Like I said if you already make 5 million and everyone can have a part but instead can make 10million but will price some people out. You going for max value?

Lol you do not even know me, how do you know I consume more than I need?
Just because I post on 2p2 I consume more than I need?
If you see what I am living on right now. I guarantee you will not say that. Yes I am bless that I have JUST enough to survive.

So where is the flaw in the following:

I sell widgets for $10 apiece. One widget is very necessary. Two would be nice but not that important. Poor people buy one from me. Rich people buy two or three.

There is a disaster that wipes out my town's widgets. I can provide just one to every resident and they will all pay me twenty bucks including the poorer people. But if I charge $50 I can still sell them all because the rich people will buy them out.

The disaster unexpectedly helps me a lot if I charge $50, barely hurts the rich, and makes the poor suffer. How does the laws of supply and demand in this particular case, not mitigated by the government, make for the greater good.

Economic does not always work in dire situations. People are too blind to profit in this day and age. The almighty dollar is the most important part of life. People need to start waking up.

You have zero evidence for this claim. Economics seems to work better than any alternative imo. Take the guy driving generators down to Katrina hit areas. The government ****ed it up badly. Charities weren't providing enough of them. An enterprising individual seeking profit made it happen. How many would there be if such people weren't thrown in jail for their trouble?
You've created a hypothetical monopoly that doesn't exist in the real world, that's what wrong...in your scenario widgets are so rare and unobtainable that only one guy sells them. This doesn't happen in the real for any needed supplies in an emergency - not water (ultra abundant with alternatives), not gas, not food, not anything really. Your hypothetical just doesn't exist and it doesn't apply to anything.

The closest you'd get is drugs, like Martin Shkreli was doing. But that's an artificial government monopoly created through patents and expensive licensing/approval. Not something that the free market created.

the heck you talking about, you think there are an abundance of gas water or, food in a disaster? Even if there is a handful of sellers there is not enough to go around if there are hoarders is point. Charging full price so some people can not afford what they need?

No one said being envious is good, I do not understand this point. Both are negative, envy and greed

Right, so there is not enough to go around. How do you solve this problem?

1. Let those who come first - the young, the fit, the mobile, the hoarders, get the stuff, some of which is resold on the black market, and the rest can go **** themselves

2. Ration somehow according to need? But how do you determine need? There is no possible way to do this. Nor is there a way to stop hoarders/black market sellers going shop to shop and buying up. Only price can ration and prevent black market hoarding.

Your way is the worst of both worlds. People miss out even more (in terms of total number missing out), there is very strong incentive for black market hoarding, while at the same time legitimate businesses and entrepreneurs have no reason to bring in outside supply through creative means or stocking up beforehand, as there is a legal barrier stopping them being compensated for their extra risk and effort.

It's so ****ing dumb and harmful to people. And you propose this method while screaming at the top of your lung about morality. It'd be comical if you didn't hurt real people with your ideology.

Also, to a first approximation, people with money are more deserving than poor people to receive what they want.

Why? They are, to a first approximation, those that have best satisfied human wants and sacrificed their own needs for others. People with money are, to a first approximation, those that have done the most to increase the wealth of others. Who better or more deserving to get scarce commodities in a time of disaster?

Cue the howls of hate, but if you really think about it, you'll realize I'm right. Can you come up with a more moral system? Really? Money correlates with the amount of material and personal wealth provided to others (free time, goods obtained, problems solved, power over circumstances gained), both by the virtue of earning and the virtue of saving (a selfless act of letting others enjoy the wealth you've created while taking nothing in return). Even inherited wealth is past credits for selfless behavior (in the practical outcome sense).

Word gets out that cases of water are going for $50 in FL. Some guy in NJ packs a Uhaul full of $5 cases of water, drives through the night down to FL and sells them on the side of the road for $35 each. He makes 15k for a few days work, and there's now more water in FL than there would have been otherwise. Regular supply chains can't handle the demand, so high prices are necessary to open irregular supply chains.

The flaw is in thinking smart business decisions have anything to do with the greater good.
If people want to help out they can.
The government should not mandate it.

I think the fact that every grocery store in FL is empty and that there wasn't enough gas to evacuate for a lot of people gives lie to the idea that price gouging is a bad thing. As others in this thread have stated lots of people bought VASTLY more than they needed to prepare for this disaster. If the price had been higher they would have actually thought about how much of it they needed rather than simply buying 4x 'just to be safe' because it's bottled water, and who can't use bottled water?

The whole term 'price gouging' is antiquated as **** and hails back to a time when people HATED people who had large stockpiles of anything during famines. Very hard to explain to someone who is literally starving to death that you have grain and they don't. This debate between the prepared and the unprepared has been going on for literally centuries. At the end of the day with modern supply chains I think it's definitely advisable to raise prices before a disaster to prevent hoarding. If you want to be ultra prepared for a disaster buy your vast quantities of bottled water when the hurricane isn't already coming please. Or pay a HUGE ******* tax.

Absolutely false. I live in Florida and was right in the path of the hurricane. Publix never ran out of food, and water was to be found at multiple places only one day before the hurricane, and within a day after. Trucks were rolling down the highways (supported by police escorts) bringing goods up to the day before the hurricane and immediately after. Gas was being shipped by trucks from the Tampa facility the day after the hurricane. About 60% of the stations ran out of gas before the hurricane, but that means 40% still had some. Everyone i know that wanted to leave was able to leave. I stayed by choice.

Yes, there might have been some places that ran out*, but no one has died of starvation nor lack of water. Power is the biggest issue right now. FPL is doing an amazing job given that the entire state was hit by this hurricane.

The state pulled off one of the biggest mass exits and returns in the history of human beings. It wasn't flawless, but it was pretty spectacular.



* This has a lot to do with people ignoring mandatory evacuation orders. If you stay, then you deal with it.

I love this bit. Who exactly was driving INTO Florida? Southbound was empty down the highways. I'm sure it made some people such as yourself feel right-wing nationalist heart-pride about their state though! Big daddy state loves us! We love daddy! Meanwhile, in the real world:



What a joke and waste of resources. Escorting trucks down ghost-town empty southbound highways.
It takes over a month to die of starvation. Just saying. Not exactly the best metric for whether food ran out.
I love that you're proud, but lol. The state didn't do anything. A few million people got in their cars with five days notice and drove north. It's not exactly rocket science. Get in car. Drive north. There was gridlock everywhere, it was far from orderly.

There isn't just one person that sells water and gasoline. There is still a limit on what someone can charge. And if price rises large enough it would give someone a large incentive to bring those supplies to the affected area.

Here is an example of someone driving 600 miles to sell generators during Hurricane Katrina.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/s...1954352&page=1


The businesses selling those widgets should make more than in normal times. They are keeping their business open during a natural disaster. They should be compensated for the extra risk they are taking.

The reality is no one starves to death or dies of thirst. There is ALWAYS someone willing to help. Always.

you could accomplish the same goal by an increasing marginal price structure

without effectively denying water to poor people