Anyway.

Given prosecutorial discretion, any retailer even with solid evidence justifying most, nearly all, or all of their higher prices, the threat is just too much since few would accept a line item, “Documentation and potential Defense costs against charges of gouging” as an acceptable increment to a retailer’s price gouging. So the transactions (retailing) are forgone because the potential for prosecution raises the transaction costs for the retailer to unacceptable levels.

I gave you examples on how hoarding can be restricted.

lexhamfox on November 12, 2012 at 7:15 PM

It’s hilarious how clueless you continue to be.

I brought up stockpiling because there is at least one state where anti-gouging laws also feature restrictions on stockpiling which I found odd and counterproductive.

Yawn. Again, retail stockpiling is not consumer hoarding.

I’m not defending hoarders.

You’ve refused to say one negative thing about hoarding. That is suspect. It’s obvious that you see nothing wrong with it.

Your personal attacks on me say more about you and your failed arguments than they do about me.

None of my arguments have failed. Many of us have attempted to teach you economics, but your feelings are getting in the way. Sorry, you’re not going to be able to properly analyze this issue on relying only on your feelings. Try learning something.

I brought up stockpiling because there is at least one state where anti-gouging laws also feature restrictions on stockpiling which I found odd and counterproductive.

I’m not defending hoarders. I am defending anti-gouging laws.

Your personal attacks on me say more about you and your failed arguments than they do about me.

I mentioned stockpiling in a my original comment, hence my written response.

lexhamfox on November 12, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Retailer stockpiling is not consumer hoarding. Do you seriously not know that?

Again, you put an enormous amount of effort into avoiding any negative comments about people that hoard. It’s disgusting.

The laws allow retailers to pass on additional costs involved with getting the goods to market. Johnny Distributor in Cleveland can charge whatever he likes and so can Mac the truck driver. The retailer can add the additional costs to his pricing without violating the laws.

lexhamfox on November 12, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Hilarious that you completely miss the point while helping me make it. It’s not surprising given your economic ignorance. Price gouging provides incentive on the supply side.

Seriously, why do you put so much effort into willfully misunderstanding this issue? Is it because your hoarding mentality forces you to try blaming others for the damage that you cause to society.

Your personal attack on my imaginary hoarding is amusing and also without any merit.

There is plenty of merit – as explained above. You seem to put quite a bit of effort in absolving any blame to those that hoard. I personally think this is because you know that doing so means that you need to blame yourself.

Seriously, why haven’t you made a single negative statement about people that hoard?

Again, why did you mention hoarding in comparison to price gouging?

blink on November 11, 2012 at 10:00 AM

I should have read your mind instead of what you wrote. Silly me. I mentioned stockpiling in a my original comment, hence my written response.

If price gouging was considered acceptable, then would-be suppliers would most certainly have an incentive to push extra supplies into areas where they are most needed. But why should Johnny Distributor in Cleveland bother working the weekend to ship extra supplies to New York City if he can’t make any extra money doing so? The orders will still be there on Monday. And why should anyone try to preempt Johnny Distributor by filling orders faster than him at a higher price?

The laws allow retailers to pass on additional costs involved with getting the goods to market. Johnny Distributor in Cleveland can charge whatever he likes and so can Mac the truck driver. The retailer can add the additional costs to his pricing without violating the laws.

Your personal attack on my imaginary hoarding is amusing and also without any merit.

You asked me why I ‘mentioned hoarding’ and then accused me of ignoring it Blink.

lexhamfox on November 12, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Actually, it’s obvious that I meant to ask why you didn’t mention hoarding – since you hadn’t mentioned hoarding.

You asked me why I ‘mentioned hoarding’ and then accused me of ignoring it Blink.

Hoarding hasn’t been an issue in the disasters I have experienced

Sure it has. It’s always an issue. You just want to ignore it. Probably because you an avid practitioner.

Well in that situation none of your free market purity would have helped the situation in that place and time.

You continue to demonstrate economic ignorance by describing an anecdotal situation in which price gouging wouldn’t have disincentivized hoarders.

By the time markets could effectively react, the demand/need for those goods and services would be gone.

This is an incredibly strange comment. Price gouging only occurs because prices are increased while demand is high. In other words, the market had enough time to “effectively react” by raising the prices. If price gouging was considered acceptable, then would-be suppliers would most certainly have an incentive to push extra supplies into areas where they are most needed. But why should Johnny Distributor in Cleveland bother working the weekend to ship extra supplies to New York City if he can’t make any extra money doing so? The orders will still be there on Monday. And why should anyone try to preempt Johnny Distributor by filling orders faster than him at a higher price?

Economic principles which would normally be sound simply can’t address the imbalances fast enough to be effective which is why these laws exist in the first place.

Another economically ignorant statement. These laws exist because people that are just as economically ignorant as you have passed them because of how they FEEL about the issue. Stop pretending that these laws exist because of the actual economics involved. It’s pathetic.

Again, I still think that you’re the type to run out and buy things just in case you need it. You probably would keep your car’s tank topped off just in case you wanted to go somewhere. You probably wouldn’t care about the guy sitting in a cold, dark home without any fuel for his generator. You most certainly haven’t given any indication that you care about him in anything you’ve written on here. You only seem to care about having to spend a bit more for your own hoarding.

Again, why did you mention hoarding in comparison to price gouging?

blink on November 11, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Because at least one state law on price gouging has a component that prevents retailers from stockpiling.

lexhamfox on November 11, 2012 at 11:57 AM

That has nothing to do with consumer hoarding. Why do you continue to ignore the issue of hoarding?

Is it because you’re a hoarder yourself? At the first mention of bad weather do you run down to the stores and begin buying things that you don’t really need “just in case”? Do you buy the shelves empty and leave nothing for people that really have need?

Do you buy 8 batteries instead of just the 4 that you need?

Are you a disgusting person? This is much worse than price gouging, and your bias implies that you lean this way.

blink on November 12, 2012 at 8:03 AM

You asked me why I ‘mentioned hoarding’ and then accused me of ignoring it Blink.

Hoarding hasn’t been an issue in the disasters I have experienced (earthquake, forest fire, war) as people had very little time to prepare, but I have been in places where there was a run on certain products (cash, rice, fuel) and in those cases retailers ration on their own or the authorities mandate it. There was no declared emergency so retailers (in the case of fuel and rice) jacked up prices but most retailers still rationed how much an individual could purchase. I’m not a hoarder myself but I keep a drum with a few days supply of food, water, candles, batteries, etc… Is that OK with you Blink?

My uncle has a water truck in a somewhat remote area in the Rockies. One year they had bad fires and we went and helped out. According to you he would have helped the supply chain by gouging his neighbors and making the most of a captive and terrified market in an emergency situation, right? Well in that situation none of your free market purity would have helped the situation in that place and time. By the time markets could effectively react, the demand/need for those goods and services would be gone. These laws we are discussing are limited in scope cover situations that are extreme and temporary. Economic principles which would normally be sound simply can’t address the imbalances fast enough to be effective which is why these laws exist in the first place.

I was cold and in the dark without internet and calling a roofer to fix my roof, when my cell phone wasn’t cutting out.

I considered myself lucky that my family and I were safe and I had a house and found a gas station with gas.

Elisa on November 11, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Barbaric!

tom on November 12, 2012 at 11:28 AM

More seriously, after Katrina hit, I really missed my intranet while waiting for power to be restored.

But most of us lost cell phone service entirely, except for customers of one company.

Rationing can be rational in an emergency, such as when gas is hard to get and people want to fill up both cars and three or four gas tanks. We spent in some cases 7 hours in line to get gas. We would not have been happy if they had sold all their gas to the first 50 customers because it was easier.

The problem is not that emergencies may not justify extraordinary measures. The problem is that “price gouging” is a populist term just waiting for a demagogue to seize, and so it gets applied to any rise in prices at all. Which is insane, since prices should rise right after an emergency when temporary shortages are encountered, but any attempt by a business to raise prices to recoup their extra expenses is at risk of having them denounced and indicted for price gouging.

The government should only get involved when price hikes lead to dangerous situations where life or health is at stake. Which could be as simple as water not being available for extended times. But price hikes for a lot of goods tends to help prevent shortages, and gives people an extra incentive to go to extraordinary measures to get that profit.

If it’s truly an emergency, is it really unreasonable for water to be twice as expensive? At that point, if it costs twice as much for a business to obtain water to sell, then it’s a good thing that they were able to get lifesaving water at only double the price as opposed to not getting water at all.

Supply and demand gets very interesting after an emergency. It might actually make sense for the government to obtain limited and strictly rationed cheap water for the desperate, while allowing the price of extra water — as in, above the rationed amount — to float.

when a disaster hits, and you have gas bought at a lower price, and you raise the price just because someone is suffering and has no choice, that’s wrong.

right2bright on November 12, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Right, sell all you have in a day, with your 1% markup and make $1,000.

Then have no gas, no business, and shut down for a month until supplies come back.

Then pay your $2,500 rent for the month and your utilities and damages from the storm with the $1,000 you made.

Only people willing to lose money should be allowed in business. Charging a price to cover restocking is wrong.

Then say “because government did not allow prices to rise, people hoarded the water, and there was none left for you.

hawksruleva on November 12, 2012 at 11:00 AM

I have a feeling that people that argue against price gouging are hoarders themselves. Not only do they refuse to admit that what they are doing is unethical they want to be able to hoard without having to pay more. Disgusting individuals.

The gasoline issue is a perfect example. How many people in the line ahead of you are simply topping off their tanks even though they have electricity at home and don’t need to go anywhere – they are simply topping their “tanks just in case.”

But you need a few gallons to run your generator so that your family can run the pump that circulates the heat through your home’s radiators. You’d happily pay $6 per gallon, but you get nothing because of the hoarders in front of you in line.

Disgusting.

Also people won’t buy what they need, people who have means will buy everything they can while people without means watch. And get pissed. And start to think about going on a rampage.

RW Wacko on November 12, 2012 at 10:37 AM

This isn’t true. If you really needed a battery, then you’d spend $10 on a battery.

Right now, it’s the hoarders that get everything. Those that don’t hoard don’t even have the option of spending a bit more for something that they desperately need. They are forced to do without, and you seem to believe that that’s a better system.

Additionally, supply would likely increase if price gouging was allowed. Guys would be coming to your street and selling batteries for $9 off the back of their truck in order to undercut the corner store. Or maybe they’d be forced to sell for $8 in order to compete with the other guys selling batteries from their truck.

you raise the price just because someone is suffering and has no choice, that’s wrong.

right2bright on November 12, 2012 at 10:21 AM

You don’t raise the price because someone is suffering. You raise the price because the market for your product has increased.

Do people like you care if the market for their product decreases, and they’re forced to sell at a loss?

I can argue that it’s wrong NOT to raise the price. Failing to raise the price allows hoarders to overbuy. Raising the price correctly makes the product available to those in true need.

Can’t travel to another hospital because of the roads…sounds like tripling the cost of hospital care…having a baby, well you have a choice, pay $10,000 cash,or have the baby in the street…bet your “price gouging is good” theory goes out the window.

It’s incredibly strange that you assume that the hospital capacity sits idle while someone is having a baby in the street.

YOU seem to believe that someone should be forced to have their baby in the street because someone else is having a hangnail removed from their finger.

YOU also pretend that hospitals don’t perform triage when care capacity is limited. Hospitals ration care based on priority of need. Retailers can’t do this. Retailers that aren’t allowed to raise their prices fall victim to hoarders, and hoarders are much worse than price gougers.

Sounds great in theory. Just like socialism sounds great in theory to the libs. But allow gouging and what you will have are burning buildings, looting, and Thunderdome-style battles to the death over needed essentials. Also people won’t buy what they need, people who have means will buy everything they can while people without means watch. And get pissed. And start to think about going on a rampage.

RW Wacko on November 12, 2012 at 10:37 AM

That is completely backward. When you outlaw “gouging” is when you find the situation above. Not only are there less resources, but the people who really need the resources fast can’t because they have to wait in line with everyone else.

I was cold and in the dark without internet and calling a roofer to fix my roof, when my cell phone wasn’t cutting out.

I considered myself lucky that my family and I were safe and I had a house and found a gas station with gas.

Elisa on November 11, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Barbaric!

Price “gouging” saves lives but you will never succeed in explaining that to the majority of fools.

Rogervzv on November 12, 2012 at 10:54 AM

I think you could succeed in that. It helps that the truth is what actually happens in peoples’ lives. So they’re familiar with it. The problem is that we don’t make things simple for people.

The video on this page presents the case pretty plainly. But it could be even simpler. Show a shelf with 1 water bottle. The guy in front of you buys it, leaving you without. Ask “where did all the water go?” Show people carrying out carts full of water. Then say “because government did not allow prices to rise, people hoarded the water, and there was none left for you. And because of government intervention, business couldn’t afford to deliver more water to the storm-ravaged area.”

Or even better – “What would a thirsty man rather have? A $10 bottle of water, or $10 and no water?”

Well, yeah…so finish your thought…they can’t afford “blood” so they die, or they can’t afford caviar so they settle for pate?

right2bright on November 12, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Who said anything about what they could afford? Excessive means the price is so high that people refuse to pay it. I can AFFORD gum at $10 a pack. But I won’t buy it, because that price is excessive.

In the aftermath of Sandy, people are fighting for gas. When they get to the pumps, many people are filling containers of gas, to make sure they get as much as possible, fearing it will run out.

If the price was higher, they’d buy less, and the danger of the gas station running out would be much lower.

This is why we keep losing elections, and why we are successfully painted as cold-hearted and uncaring. Let’s explaint this theory to voters, ahve the libs say we are uncaring and for businessess profiteering at the expense of the little guy, and see who gets reamed.

Even if it makes sense in theory, it’s a dumb idea politically. Got to pick your battles sometimes. IMHO.

RW Wacko on November 12, 2012 at 10:37 AM

It depends on how you get your message out. We support allowing businesses the freedom to make decisions. And we trust people to make good decisions. The commercial for this could be simple: Show a 1-gallon gas can and say, “how much should this cost?” Then ask “What if it was the last gallon of gas in your city?”.

Price hikes mean people don’t hoard. If you keep gas prices artificially low, people are more likely to buy up gas to power their cars and generators, as opposed to buying just what they need right now.

If prices are “excessive” people don’t buy the product.

hawksruleva on November 12, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Well, yeah…so finish your thought…they can’t afford “blood” so they die, or they can’t afford caviar so they settle for pate?

This is why we keep losing elections, and why we are successfully painted as cold-hearted and uncaring. Let’s explaint this theory to voters, ahve the libs say we are uncaring and for businessess profiteering at the expense of the little guy, and see who gets reamed.

Even if it makes sense in theory, it’s a dumb idea politically. Got to pick your battles sometimes. IMHO.