I think you'd be better served to reduce it to it's most basic element....

A guy suffering from heat exhaustion stumbles into a gas station desperate for water, and the vendor recognizes his desperation and demands that he sign over the deed to his house in exchange for a bottle and/or using his phone to call for help.

It's true that it might send a signal to entrepreneurs to place terminals along desert roads that assist people in desperate situations for what would seem to be an exorbitant price (that would reflect the cost, the risks and a healthy profit margin), but that singular event of taking the guy for all he's worth doesn't in itself send the signal - it's the fact that vendors know there are likely to be people out there with a very high willingness to pay in the future and what matters is their perception of how future events will be treated.

If you could convince would-be entrepreneurs that they won't be capped in their ability to charge in the future you'll end up with a competitive provision for those types of terminals, at which point the price will be significantly less than 100% of a persons net worth. Whether "we" should insist on honoring the aforementioned contract that was signed under duress and at prices far in excess of the competitive equilibrium isn't so clear cut.

But this is just general critique of capitalism and wealth inequality, not the effectiveness of the pricing model.

Putting a limit on quantity of a scarce resource is setting a price.

Still not seeing where you are disagreeing with me.... I said the government should encourage businesses to put limits on the quantity people could buy and that was vehemently disagreed with with the implication being that people would go ape****. Then I gave examples of businesses setting limits. So, again, what is your point?

Well David obviously UBI would be the solution for this right? Just make sure the UBI is high enough.

I ran stores a long time ago. The "price gouging is good" crowd miss 1) that there exists in the universe "signs that say 'limit one per customer'" that do reduce demand pressure to approximately "one per customer" and 2) that price hikes cannot even slightly increase supply during a crisis because the limits of supply are entirely set by the crisis.

Given that there is no societal benefit to price gouging (see above: it doesn't affect supply or demand AT ALL), and it does cause societal problems (greater numbers of people going without necessities), I don't see how we wouldn't want anti-price-gouging laws.

Anti-price-gouging laws do not preclude people from sharing (non-profits supplying for free), so I do not understand your point at all.

The supply of widgets is set at one per capita. UBI is irrelevant.

Supply-demand curves are irrelevant.

This is simply a false statement.
A false statement based on a false statement. I'm going to bring this one out again:

This proves that your above statement is false. The end. If only you hadn't said AT ALL and capsed it.

WTF?? Price gouging has the EXACT OPPOSITE effect, regardless of what you think of gouging. How do you manage to get everything exactly backwards? Incredible.

I define "even slightly" as more than a teensy weensy teeny tiny amount. You've got, I believe a whopping 19 generators brought into an area with approximately one **** ton of homes without electricity doesn't come even close to qualifying as "even slightly."

Try again.

Edit: if I thought it would create meaningfully greater supply for those in need, I'd be screaming that we need more price gouging.

you mean MPD?

He meant NPD.

What do think will happen to the supply of construction workers and their wages in the next few months in Florida? What do you think will cause this?
I was responding to some that believe in sharing and not "gouging". The lack of the same laws also do not preclude sharing.

"Available work" will attract some workers who are less than optimally employed. I'm going to make a wild guess that things will be as they will have been in the past and that general laborers won't be selling their services for 10x the normal rate despite the demand.

I was responding to you saying something that is completely irrelevant. Charity doesn't have anything to do with price gouging.

Successful business and economics is run like a multiple round prisoner's dilemma, not a single round. Some people in this thread (the pro price gougers) don't understand that.

This is easily the best DS post I've probably ever read

Oh puhleeze, they obviously could have bought more widgets before the shortage with a sufficiently high UBI.

I think people are forgetting that Americans are incredibly generous and caring people. I think much of the behavior during the hurricanes (that was reported, anyway) show that. Afterwards we can go back to arguing but during times of crisis we usually do come together.

I think everyone understands that. It's not a binary situation.

So as a convenience store/ gas station in monopolistic competition increasing the price for water tenfold because supply and demand dictate as such will probably lead to negative word of mouth and "brand" image in the community. This might positively impact their bottom line that week, but will likely have a negative impact on their entire business.

Airlines increasing the cost of flights out of Florida tenfold are actually much worse, you might increase your bottom line slightly since a few flights don't have a material impact on the overall bottom line. However, the international damage to the brand could be horrific since it will surely make headlines.

Yes? I don't know what you are getting at with that response.

Many people think that supply and demand dictate you must increase prices significantly during crises, there have been many people in this thread that have been pro-price gouge. I say it doesn't make sense not just from a moral perspective, but also an economic perspective.

Ye thats quite nice. Society finds a way to escape the bad prisoners dillema outcome by changing the pay-outs by punishing those who try to push towards the economic equilibrium

However I think the debate here is less about if price gouging is rational in current structure of society and more around the question if the price gouging is a bad equilibrium in the first place, many seem to argue it isnt

The only way to know who is right is to look at many examples of price-gouging in practice, and observe what happens in those situations

Arguing from theory or taking the side that is most coherent with your overall world-view is dumb and stupid

people choosing to price gouge is individual, which results in how much or little they do it, but there are plenty reasonable of arguments in favor of price gouging

-if you sell water at regular price, people will buy as much they want and even excessive amounts since it doesn't expire. this will lead to less people having access to the water

-if you are allowed to price gouge, then there is a benefit to carrying a higher inventory of water. in the even of a disaster, people benefit from the water you supply. the store owner carries the expense of the excess inventory for a potential future profit. win win

- if you sell someone water at regular price, there is no guarantee they will not buy you out and privately gouge others

- price gouging exists everywhere already. its not as extreme as a natural disaster but its something that happens everywhere. when you go to a movie theater they check your bag for food. no food allowed. then they charge you 2 or 3x for snacks. same with all sorts of events

- businesses get hurt by hurricanes also. is it fair to force them to knowingly avoid profit before the hurricane comes and destroys their inventory and infrastructure? people who supply goods are only allowed to be hurt by a disaster and not break even or profit? why? isn't that the basic point of capitalism? you provide a product or service that theres a demand for and you make money

personally i wouldn't reject a dehydrated person who only had $50 for a bottle of water. i wouldnt feel good about seeing a family stranded because they don't have $1000 for a tank of gas either. but where you personally draw the line is subjective. i'm not sure where i would set that line but i do believe people should be able to raise prices when demand skyrockets

You mean you don't smuggle in candy up your butthole like the rest of us?

The big issue is how and who defines what it is and isn't.
Orange crops take a hit due to frost, and prices rise because of lack of supply ; is this price-gouging ?
Chickens are wiped out from disease and egg prices rise due too lack of supply; is this ?
Generator prices rise due to an impending disaster and supply drys up.
someone raises prices and gets arrested.

Only difference is the law is being applied by emotion and not any logical scientific reason. THIS IS WRONG in every sense of WRONG.