Nice theory about price gouging, however, you forgot about elasticity. In an emergency goods that were once elastic become inelastic and suitable substitutes vanish. With price gouging what happens is that a smaller number of consumers are able to purchase a diminishing supply while demand remains the same. Price does NOT affect demand like you assume in the vid. (i.e. if gas goes from $4/gallon to $400 the gas station will only sell a fraction of their supply to consumers.) Also it's skeezy.
I'm sorry, what's the argument here? Because it seems that what you're saying is that, during an emergency, supply of goods decreases without a commensurate decrease in demand.
That's the same thing that people who are not opposed to price gouging are saying. There's less stuff going around now than there used to be, without there necessarily being less demand for it, and so either consumption has to be rationed, or else there will be a shortage.
If he believes that his money will be useless in the upcoming zombie apocalypse(or whatever) , yeah, I think he'll spend whatever it takes to get prepared.
@Earthfart We'll aren't you a genius, what if you have a family of 12 kids that you need to feed too? Or what if you live in a remote area, and you know that you will not be able to make it back to the store for weeks? Regulations like this are dangerous and pointless. If the store wants to limit it, then fine, but the government should not get involved with private business.
You all are missing the point. If you ration supplies that still doesn't incenticize anyone to come in from outside markets to *increase* the supply of water. If water sells for a higher price, truly representing the higher demand for it, that higher demand can be answered by higher supply, in other words you ask for more water, you get it. If you want something which is hard for you to find, offer a bigger reward, it is only logical, and perfectly fair.
@eggory Actually it DOES give incentive. If someone is selling water for a high price and someone from out of town can afford to sell it at their regular price... a price at which they're still making money... they would be able to come into said town and sell their water for SLIGHTLY more (or they same price as normal if they legitimately care) and EASILY undercut the individuals price gouging.
@hotfudgemoney Competition for bringing prices back down occurs without anti-price-gouging laws though, as soon as the outside competition coming in brings supply to meet demand. The laws just keep that outside competition away from the emergency. You can cap the prices only a little bit if you want, but the extent to which you do is simply the extent to which the incentive system is broken. Normally the higher the demand, the farther they'll come to join the market, *then* the prices come down.
@ProfPorkchop ya think the rich would buy less if it was made cheaper??? high price reflects high value placed on it. and why should a rich guy buy 500 bottles of water at $10 each?
at least price gouging lets the poor have access to water in the first place, it wont all be bought up by the first opportunist with a shopping cart.
Price gouging also attracts new business who realize they can make a higher profit, thus driving supply up (more is available) and prices down (it's more affordable).
Hell yeah, someone understands economics, and what an economist does is decide how to distribute resources fairly among everybody in a society and trade happens.
I predicted what your argument was going to be before watching this. I don't really buy your argument HtWW but at the same time I'm not against business owners that want to price gouge and would see myself doing the same thing. It's a natural business phenomena.
@Frances3654 you live with people who only do things on the behalf of your interest for too long.. ie. pls move out of your parents' house. in the real world nobody really cares about you. whose decision is rationing based on again? yes some guy at a desk in a dark corner you can't even see
@Frances3654 There is no way legislate a ration system within private entities like grocery stores. Also, there is not an incentive for enterprising individuals to come in an meet a demand by bringing in more supply. If you have allot of supplies at your geographic location, you might be monetarily incentivized to bring those supplies to a place that needs it if you have the means. "Price gouging'' laws criminalize that incentive. All price gouging laws do is ensure 'first come, first serve'.
A limit on the amount a single person can buy would accomplish the same thing and poor people wont have a hard time either. All price gouging does is make sure only the well off can afford to buy an entire shelf of groceries in an emergency and screw the rest over.
Why don't people stock up on food, water, and medical supplies before a natural or man-made disaster? Instead of waiting till the last minute to get supplies. And I'm not taking about "hoarding". Just something that can get you through a 72 hour period can make a world of difference. It would seem like common sense for people who live in areas prone to hurricanes to have supplies ready.
So now the first rich person to get to the grocery store gets all the water. Great. Problem solved. Totally beats the hell out of limiting purchases of important supplies during times of crisis.
Interesting way of looking at price gouging during a storm... Still don't see how a "Limit 1 per customer" sign would work just as well... Harder to enforce maybe during a storm? Just thinking aloud... Anyway people, smart thing to do stock on supplies before hurricane season!
When I think of price gouging I'm not thinking of emergency situations (which you're right about). I'm thinking of, say, companies with monopolies (say phone companies) price gouging simply because they can. (Speaking as a New Zealander where this is more common due to a limited market.)
I prefer paranoia instead of price gouging. What I mean is this, I buy extra on a regular basis. When the shit hits the fan I am NOT going to be in line to buy water. I already have water, I will just sit back and watch the city I live in go empty. If I was to go try and buy something I would bring my gun, some cash and a partner. If an unscrupulous store merchant tried to steal by charging 100 dollars a can for tuna I would use my gun to convince him to "honor the contract" and sell fair
the only thing this thread does is prove that capatilsm has created a bunch of brainwashed wanna be elites who think they can just buy anything they will ever need as long as they have money...guess what your money cant buy you love haha
Gouging would also have other suppliers of bottled water rushing bottled water into the area where there was price gouging. So that they could make a profit.
they call it gouging because its bad its a way to take advantage of a situation...an easier solution would be to limit the amount that a person could purchase instead of raising the price
@josh1492 That sort of solves the demand side (thought enforcing it would be a nightmare and it would undoubtedly create a black market), but that still doesn't help with the supply side by attracting needed goods from other markets.
@shamgar001 I remember that after 9/11 flags nationwide were sold out and there was price gouging ...so grandmaw had to step up to the plate and make flags for free just because there was a need...a lot of people will step up to meet a need and they are not doing it for wealth.
You just *love to be there* when circumstances arise where people predictably act stupidly, exploit it to the max, and then disingenuously try to argue that it may have been in their best interests after all.
You just answered your own comment - people predictably act stupidly - that is to say the "natural" condition is distress is to not necessarily think of the "bigger picture." The reason that price gouging exists - is that it is the "natural" response to the actions of people in this setting and has evolved to this because it is the best natural response - ie price-inflicted self rationing. Acknowleging what is fact is neither disingenuous or exploitive unless you have all the h2o
@AlephNeil Why is it not in someone's best interests to remind them that they are responding to an emergency that will pass and not responding to daily fluctuations in house inventory?
Why do libertarians love to be there when there are crises and when people act stupidly?
I think the rationale of opposing price gouging is this: To a first approximation, there is no "crisis". There will be massive damage, but most everyone will soon have reliable food and shelter one way or another.
However, faced with a natural disaster, some people panic and behave irrationally. Price gouging exploits this temporary irrationality.
It's immoral in the same way as it would be if you knew a man was having a manic episode and wanted to give away all his stuff, to simply take it.
@AlephNeil Doesn't price gouging ANSWER responsibly to this temporary irrationality? You don't need more than a few days worth of resources which should be used sparingly according to emergency conditions. Why should a person enjoy the madness which urges them to buy, buy, buy, when they should be thinking more clearly and only buy a few things?
I had never heard this side of the debate before and it opened all kinds of questions. I look at this a little different.
Price gouging and the market is where Libertarians win the day. This all comes down to the individual making a choice. Do I charge more for gas because supply is low and possibly lose customers in the future? As a customer do I buy more than I need?
If there's 10 bottles on a shelf and you take all 10 as 9 people wait behind you then you are as bad as the gouger.
So your saying that that companies decide to raise the prices on goods in desperate situations because they are legitimately worried that enough people wont get any, and not because they will make more money on people who are desperate and will pay up the nose. um strange because if that was their concern why couldn't they just put a limit on the amount someone could buy.
I'll tell you why because it's BS, they are simply taking advantage of people because they can, and it's good business.
It has nothing to do with worrying about other people. Stores want to maximize profits, and in doing so, they help the consumer. If you prevent so called "price gouging" to occur in disasters their will be shortages. The people who get their first will by way more than they need, the store will run out of items, and the majority of people will go without.
Additional. In one sense, we don't see the additional cost, at uneconomical levels, for delivery of food, water, and ice, by the government, in the aftermath of a hurricane before things return to "normal". It is essentially "free" to the consumer. A more explicit example of government doing something that is not economically viable would be hard to find, but then again, it is an emergency condition so it is acceptable.
In a transient emergency, such as a hurricane or flood, transient emergency pricing (gouging) as a rationing mechanism does not have time to establish a "norm" for the "market", so there are all kinds of variations when it happens. Since the emergency is only sort of at the moment and there is an expectation of a return to "normal", especially in the US where help will come from unaffected areas to do that, "price gouging" is publicly seen as "anti-social" behavior.
@ConservCanadian "What about rationing supplies? It was done during WW2, why can't it be done during emergencies?" The easiest way to ration is to make an item more valuable or cost more. A $1 bottle of water lasts longer than a $0.17 bottle. You buy less because you can afford less, then use is more sparingly.
So, yeah, rationing works. Price gouging is self rationing AND increases supply by making it more attractive to those with the items to risk their time and money.
@OhZoneFan not really, its all about finding the sweet stop, low enough that people will buy it, but high enough that you still make profit without depleting inventory too quickly
I never thought of it that way before. Good stuff, question though, what's to stop the stores from keeping prices high after the disaster has struck and people have generally recovered from it? Would lower prices from the other competitors eventually drive the prices back down to their pre-disaster rates?
@Unknown2Yoo There again is supply and demand. People don't demand food as a daily expense nearly as much as they would demand it as a needed source of healthful sustenance during disaster periods. Unless a store is literally forcing people to buy their stuff, at which point they are commiting upwards of 20 crimes or they are the government, there is no way they would be able to make a good return on maintaining high prices.
You know, I doubt I would shop again at a place that gouged me! Yay! More companies go out of business! BTW: Best Buy is getting some bad press for price gouging. Horay!
Your idiotic greedy rant makes socialism look good! What about poor people? They can just pay more??? ** What if they don't have the money to pay more? ** God, you have no idea how things work. BTW: I'm on the Jersey shore and there were **almost no shortages** right up to the grocery store closing. And they kept things ** on sale.** Yep, sale prices! One last point: Seltzer water rocks!
Which is better: "The stores all ran out of water and I can't buy any regardless of what I do" or "The stores are charging a lot of effing money for that water, hey neighbor care to pitch in together to share a case of water"?
Your example in Jersey is quite unlike a real emergency. In Katrina people _died_ because of your type of viewpoint.
@OhZoneFan "Your idiotic greedy rant makes socialism look good!" But socialism creates lack of food... look at the old Russian bread lines and most "socialist" countries today. It makes the resources so scarce that gov't HAS to come in and force people to make more.
"What if they don't have the money to pay more?" Then create an economy where people made more money rather than waiting for mama gov't to feed them.
Price gauging really does protect and serve the common man. What's to stop a rich person from spending $20 per gallon on water to fill their pool and thus buying all the water? $20 per gallon. Rich people aren't rich because they make poor spending decisions (if they are then they rightfully redistributed their money to better business people who know the lies of supply and demand). If there is a penalty for not having essentials in stock, stores will simply not STOCK essentials.
Libertarians are retarded sometimes. A very wealthy person could come into some town a buy all the entire store worth of water/food. Do they give a fuck that it is 10x the normal price? Fuck no. They could buy it just to refill their pool after the storm but that's ok its saving lives.
@hunkgod Because that is what wealthy people do. They swoop in when people need water and buy it up (at a cost more than what they would have paid in a non disaster zone) so they can fill their pools. Cause that is just what those rich capitalist swine do. Of course if I sell water and I hear some rich person is paying 10X what I am asking for water in a disaster zone I am going to do what ever I can to get water there so he will pay me 10X what it is worth. And so will anyone with sense. see?
@hunkgod What is your point here? How are libertarians "retarded"? And i doubt that if someone so rich they can buy the entire store would stay where the storm is. If there that rich they probably make pretty good choices and they would probly go stay at another one of there homes somewhere safe. I dont understand what your trying to prove...
@hunkgod Libertarians are smarter than you.You gave us an unrealistic scenario that, although possible, is fairly unlikely. Understand that the higher the prices, the more unlikely someone will buy out a product. The lower the prices, the higher the chances the product will be bought out. So even though what you said COULD happen, it is less likely with higher prices.
@hunkgod "A very wealthy person could come into some town a buy all the entire store worth of water/food" Let's examine this...
There is a flood/hurricane/earthquake making it difficult and dangerous for a "very wealthy person" to go to a place. They have already left and now can get water for $0.17 a bottle. Why would they go back? Some might go back to sell that water for $1 a bottle. That profit is what makes bringing in more water worth the time and trouble.
@bsabruzzo That is the thing. You are assuming that it is easy to bring in more product. Get a disaster big enough and there will only be the resources from pre-disaster. The is it ok to screw everyone over to make a profit. Making money is not a good way to save lives. Libertarianism is primary about me me me. Other people should have prepared better or gotten out earlier or become a millionaire and chartered a jet out before it hit...
@hunkgod "You are assuming that it is easy to bring in more product." No, I am assuming that the price justifies bringing in the product. Is it isn't possible to bring supplies in, it isn't possible to rescue people in that area either. And then it doesn'r matter because they are worse off than a Chillean miner.
@hunkgod "Libertarianism is primary about ..." No, it is about personal and individual thought and action. A Christian libertarian is about charity and others. Unless you think that Christians only do good deads because they are greedy and want eternal life for themselves (those jerks doing good thinks and helping people is sooooo selfish).
"Other people should have prepared better " or I should have prepared and become a millionaire so that I can help others (rights with responsibilities).
@hunkgod If this were to happen to me, Katrina+ sized disaster, I am putting on my Kevlar, slapping my 75round drum magazine into my ak-47 and coming to your store to TAKE what I need. I won't be the only one either. So its better to be nice and keep the prices stable or even give it away for fee. Most places are insured anyway.
@hunkgod " If this were to happen to me, Katrina+ sized disaster" But that disaster people were able to get to the victims and price "gouging" helped convince many to help. And even that evil Walmart brought in free water and supplies and various selfish store owners who became rich chose to either volunteer their time and effort or charge the prices based on their effort in MS and it recovered quickly.
@hunkgod "to your store to TAKE" And you'd be dead or alone while I helped the poor. More likely than not, if you could get to my store, so could I get out.
But in your senario, assuming you aren't a libertarian, you actually prove that the libertarian is the kinder and more charitable of us and you are the greedy SOB who doesn't care.
"Most places are insured anyway" Um, so it's oklay to steal and hurt people because they are paying for the protection? Thank you Jimmy Hofa"
Than you're just a thug who deserves to be shot or imprisoned. You're the reason why men who produce should have guns. To shoot thugs like you on site.
This is BS - after the earthquake in Japan there were food shortages which were solved quickly without price gouging. This free-market economist lives in fantasyland.
Great argument for how gouging controls the amount of resources available to a given population and, thus, saves lives. Imagine, if those hotels, for example, didn't gouge, someone may just rent out 20 rooms, leaving none for the others. It makes perfect sense.
@rhabdoviridae You know, if you're going to attempt to make a sarcastic argument, you're going to have to do better than that, you just permanently made yourself sound ridiculous. A family of four is likely to buy 2, 3 or even 4 rooms. With an increase in prices, they may even buy 1 room and have people sleep on the floor for a short-term natural disaster, making other rooms available for people who need them. Thanks for making yourself a joke for my morning.
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Your simple contribution is as addled as it is misanthropic. Show us the grateful masses who were saved by gouging. One wonders if you were having a slow day & decided to see just how far you could take this nonsense with your viewership.
@rhabdoviridae Show me the greatful masses that have been helped by fixed prices? That was easy in the late 70's as they were all standing in gas lines. This was due to the gas shortage. Of course there really was no actual shortage. There was more gas sold in 1979 than any other year prior other than 1978. But the fixed low price caused shortages. With gas that is inconvenient...with food that is, to use your word, misanthropic. Less Balbraith, more Sowell my friend.
@rhabdoviridae How about in 2005 all the people in new orleans that the FEMA overlooked while writing checks to people who didnt even live in the disaster zone. They were helped and although it wasnt free it was provided. If there was no incentive for you to take your buisness there would you take the loss?
@HowTheWorldWorks I think I've heard you make this point about hotel rooms before. But it's true. I live near Austin, TX and on weekends when the Longhorns are playing or when there is a music festival like ACL or SXSW the hotel prices jump. And reasonably so. If the Motel 6 left their price at $39.99 all the rooms in the city would be gone, because no one would double up. So they jack up the prices to $80 or $100. Well during a hurricane, there is even more reason to do this.
@HowTheWorldWorks And the poor folks are STILL sleeping under a bridge... Fact is if someone can afford to buy 4 rooms at 100 each, you can bet he'll have no problem affording them at 500. It's the people that can barely afford the 100 that lose out entirely and end up under the bridge with the hobos.
@antagonizerr Im pretty sure red cross swoops in and provides shelter... If your under a bridge its probly due to your pooor decision making which got you there in the first place.
@antagonizerr You're wrong. You're just wrong. If someone can afford 4 rooms at 100 each, it doesn't mean they can afford 4 rooms at 500 each. What you said is simply untrue and there is no argument. It's like arguing with someone who says 2 + 2 = 7, after a certain point, you just can't argue.
Someone can always buy out a product, but it's more unlikely the higher the prices.
@NoNameC68 I can afford 4 rooms at 100. Now 4 rooms at 500 may stretch my credit cards but it's a disaster and I'm going to do what I need to. The same mentality others will apply, it's justifiable.
Nevertheless someone who can barely afford 1 room at 100 is definitely screwed when the prices get jacked to 500 and there are more of them than there are of me. Most don't even have credit and live pay to pay.
You may free up a room or two but in the end you'll screw MANY more out of a place to stay
@antagonizerr "... no problem affording them at 500."? So price isn't part of your equation then? And please stop using "the poor" as an argument. It's not about helping all the poor / all the rich. It's about how to make the most out of the scarce resources that are available.
@Iamfatbrain OK, so no poor. How about calling them the 43.6 million or 14% who DEFINITELY couldn't afford it, the 28% who could if they maxed out their cards, the 23% who represent the lower middle class who have enough equity to definitely afford it then the 35% left over who represent the top 3 levels of the pyramid that would have no problem at 500 a room.
Seems to me it's the po...oh sorry the 43.6 million that lose out here. You're not making resources available only class specific.
dumbass ina crisis situation, people tend to STICK TO TOGETHER, the one room rented is the most likely scenario , so that hypothetical situation you present is unrealistic, and second what about price gouging in other non emergency situations, how does that save lives or help us the consumer.
@HowTheWorldWorks I may have already answered my own question.. I was going to suggest strict limits during crises, but why would a store owner NOT sell an item to a customer? Capitalism. The almighty dollar. Sometimes I'm a bit naive and idealistic, but during a crisis, should a store owner be concerned with stretching his goods to as many people as possible (1,2 per cust) or trying to cash in on this great opportunity to sell everything in his store in one night? alas. i AM naive..sigh...
@HowTheWorldWorks What world do you live in? Your argument MAY be a side effect of price gouging but it is not the reason why any one does it. You are just making excuses for greed.
Who isn't greedy? You think those Liberal politicians you vote for aren't greedy? Capitalism harnesses greed for the public good. "Price gouging" is a market mechanism preventing shortages. Read some basic economics.
@rhabdoviridae " Imagine, if those hotels, for example, didn't gouge"
As a member of the hotel and hospitality industry I must weigh in here.
In a situation where there are 10,000 room in the city and 100,000 people who don't have a school or a gov't center to go, there is charity. But when there are also 100 schools, but people want to sleep in luxury in a hotel, why give it away?
Hotel prices are actually gouging the rich, not the poor.
You saw yourself how even with gouged prices, the shelves were empty. Groups A and B (the upper middle class and upper class) won't buy less product simply because of a higher price. They will complain, but they will buy.
The problem with Washington is they think everyone is the same. They cannot fathom how a person with limited income lives -- and the sad thing is, I believe most of them simply don't care.
@sweetalker79 The problem with setting a limit is when one person comes into buy for people who are not able to come in - "sorry, one per person. come back tomorrow and wheel your grandmother in if she wants one too."
@sweetalker79 You must be poor, because growing up middle class, I still had to limit my spending. You are foolish to make such stupid assumptions. You must also remember that most people are middle class and lower class, where upper class people are less common. Everyone has to save. When the rich needs something, they COULD buy everything out, but they are far less likely. Anyone with any financial responsibility would understand.
Price gouging benefits two groups: Group A who are well-off enough to own franchises and small businesses (and are making a significant profit on other people's misfortunes and worry) and Group B who are wealthy enough to easily afford the gouged prices, and will in fact buy more product because Group C -- the impoverished and the lower middle-class, which make up the majority of this nation -- will buy less, often far less than they need for their families, on account of price gouging.
@sweetalker79 What you said doesn't make any sense. You're saying the rich will buy MORE when prices are gouged? You're a moron. Go start a business, I promise you'll go bankrupt quickly.
How about limiting the number of units a person can buy rather than cranking up the price? I agree that price controls don't work but there are alternatives.
I think the problem is that Lee would argue that rationing is a form of price control because price is always dependent on demand in some way. If you limit the units that can be bought then you effectively are lowering the demand which increases the supply and lowers the price.
Additionally, I think he would say that people should be able to have the freedom to choose how much they want to buy. It seems strange having the government define how much food each person needs to live.
@Fast81Z28 That doesn't really work. Say a store limits customers to 6 bottles of water. What's to stop a family of four going into the store and buying 6 bottles of water each? Or someone buying 6 bottles, putting them in their car, and going back in to buy 6 more? What's to stop them coming back tomorrow for 6 more bottles? Trust me, this exactly what happens. I've witnessed it. The only way to effectively ration limited supplies is through prices.
@sweetalker79 Poor people lose? If it ensures they get water, I'd call that a win. I think a poor person has lost when they turn up to a store during a panic and all the water is gone because some asshole thought it'd be unfair to raise the price of water so that people really do limit how much they buy.
"Lets forget about intentions and focus on our goal". Ignoring that our goals and intentions are the same thing, I don't think we can ever ignore intentions. We always try our best to take into account what the motive is. No one thinks that someone who defends themselves from an attacker is guilty of assault (unless the "defense" too "excessive")
The competition argument is good, but ethically the stores could limit the amount of goods bought based on their discretion.
Not true. I never said only our goals and intentions matter, but that you cannot forget them. Are you going to ostracize those involved with the Andes flight disaster as cannibals? Yes, they are cannibals, but they weren't intending to eat people because they like the taste of flesh.
If you don't think intentions matter then anyone who shoots an intruder in their house is guilty of assault. That is simply absurd.
@insidetrip101 I'm not even sure you understand your own argument. What matters in your examples is the objective reality of whether or not they reached a desired result. I don't care if someone saves my life because they are a caring person, or because they benefited financially. In fact, if more lives will be saved if financial incentives are in place, at the expense of the existence of "caring people" with dead people, again, we should judge policies by results, not intentions.
"I don't care if someone saves my life because they are a caring person, or because they benefited financially."
Well you should care. Eventually there will come a time when someone does not benefit financially or in some other way. Where does that leave us then? If we are all just pursuing our self interest, then as soon as we gain enough power to destroy others for our own benefit we will.
Is free market and charity incompatible? Is there no such thing as a good action?
@insidetrip101 The Free Market is simply voluntary exchange...therefore charity is fully compatible. However, again, what matters is good outcomes, not good intentions. Period.
"what matters is good outcomes, not good intentions. Period."
Can you then explain why we have different categories of crimes like manslaughter and differing degrees of murder? Isn't that largely based on intentionality and the psychology of the killer? Should we rid the law of these distinctions?
@insidetrip101 Why on Earth would you think that destroying others is in your self-interest? Nearly all the successful people that I know in the private sector are honest, hardworking, and trustworthy. Does your field encourage and promote destruction of others in order to achieve success?
Nowadays I think you need a high bar for deciding to give charitably. There are too many professional parasites, and organizations built around supporting them while pushing other agendas.
@insidetrip101 WHAT?! That is ridiculious. He is not saying that everyone will be pissed on. He is simply saying the reality of the situation. I dont think you understand your own argument here.
In most circumstances I agree; however, sometimes this is not the case. One example are toys like tickle-me elmo that are in high demand around Christmas. Manufactures purposely produce few products such as these to increase demand and increase prices. If we hypothesize a conflict (such as war) then it may be necessary to ration goods.
We don't like it, but things like the military may require goods more than us, and should not be left to the whim of the market.
"Manufactures purposely produce few products such as these to increase demand and increase prices"
if there is a competition (free entrance) there is no reason why manufactures should decrease production. if some firms do so there will be opportunity for other producer to take their place
To be honest, that just does not happen. For example, only Nintendo can produce Wiis. They have a monopoly on them. If you want a Wii you have to get it from them. Of course, I admit that it is a bit more complicated than this, but there are all sorts of reasons to decrease production when you monopolize a market. If you own all the water in a town, you have every reason to decrease production to increase profit.
"no they dont, you can buy xbox, sony or other similar stuff."
In some respect. If you're kids really want a wii, they don't care if you get them an xbox. Sure, you *could* tell your kids to fuck off, and is probably the responsible thing to do; however, this point still highlights that it DOES matter to many people.
"it is not possible, other people can make well on their land"
"so tell nintendo to double price of wii, i am sure that it will reduce their income"
Do I really have to point to the launch of the PS3? They tickle-me-elmo "shortage" or other holiday items that are purposefully under produced to increase demand for a very short period of time?
No, it isn't a good long term strategy, that is why these things are released in the holiday season, because demand is so high. By your logic, it makes no difference when a product enters the market.
yes, we have all been schooled since the 50s that self-interest and greed are the building blocks of a 'free society' in an economy based on fraud ... i got it and so did all the thumbs-uppers ... all the best minds are in finance ... that's where the money is.
Yeah it saves lives since people like you will not have any issue paying the higher prices .When people can not afford things I hope your house is the first looted .
Easily solved by doing what grocers do with big sales: "Limit X items per customer." Sounds more like this guy has been indoctrinated by the Laissez Faire, free-market, Atlas Shrugged crowd.
Astoundingly moronic! Who the FUCK can't see through this ass hole? Water for you Poindexter? No you fucking reet? NO WATER FOR YOU FUCK NUT! You don't have enough cheddar! You fucking do without,. The fuck heads that pay you to make these bull shit propaganda video turds bought it all up and gave each other enemas and fucked some prostitutes in their Lear jet laughing at your pwned ass!
@TheFrankFactor I think you need to take a deep breath and make sure to form your sentences with structure. I think I see what your argument is, but then,maybe not. It is hard to read through the lines. As far as the claim that you can just go without, imagine a scenario where all public access to water is contaminated with something that makes you sick and die. Is it fair for a person to buy 50+ bottles of water? What if those will save 50 other people's lives? Think of all sides of discussion.
I understand your argument, I think. But I still don't understand why can't we just ration the water. Lets say that everyone get a case of water then would there be enough for everyone at an affordable price. Then again it's kind of a waste to buy bottled water, since tap water is idential and practically free.Sometimes it even tastes better then bottled water.
Why not just simply ration the merchandise at the regular price? Companies do this all the time. They will put something on sale, for example, but limit how many you can buy at that price. If you say "Maximum purchase of water bottles will be FIVE" it accomplishes the same thing without taking advantage of those who can least afford to be taken advantage of. Rationing was an everyday thing during World War II. Now we give tax cuts to the rich instead of paying for our wars.
So you suggest forcing people to either pay more for less in order to get the desired results? Why not instead keep the prices the same and educate? Communalize.
You act like this and yet act surprised that people don't care about one another in america, you rather manipulate them through pricing fluctuation rather than getting along with one another and expect better of people.
This is stupid...I've gone through Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans...and price gauging hurt people because they couldn't afford it...$15 for water...no one had that money...it's immoral to price gauge anyway...for you moral value conservatives...Chance are, if you price gauge...people would rise in anger and overthrow the price gouger's place of business where the over-priced water is being sold...that's what happened here in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina...
You're literally arguing fro something that redistributes wealth. It may be a free market method, but you are arguing for controls on who gets what. Thinka bout it.
Nice theory about price gouging, however, you forgot about elasticity. In an emergency goods that were once elastic become inelastic and suitable substitutes vanish. With price gouging what happens is that a smaller number of consumers are able to purchase a diminishing supply while demand remains the same. Price does NOT affect demand like you assume in the vid. (i.e. if gas goes from $4/gallon to $400 the gas station will only sell a fraction of their supply to consumers.) Also it's skeezy.
voltinator 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@voltinator reality disagrees with you.
quantumG 2 weeks ago
@voltinator
I'm sorry, what's the argument here? Because it seems that what you're saying is that, during an emergency, supply of goods decreases without a commensurate decrease in demand.
That's the same thing that people who are not opposed to price gouging are saying. There's less stuff going around now than there used to be, without there necessarily being less demand for it, and so either consumption has to be rationed, or else there will be a shortage.
What's the issue?
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 days ago
in short.. :-) come on guys.. we all know what happens when shit hits the fan.. cough..
do you want to atleast have goods on the shelves to take away in the chaos when it actually hits!
yeah... from like katrina when it hit.. like anyone pays for anything when the disaster hits anyway!
yay price gouge~
that way atleast stores will have some extra cash to restock after everyone cleans them up and the dust settles.
islamconstitution 1 month ago
It's a double edged sword, which depends on the situation and current flow of resources.
KittenKoder 1 month ago
um... how about rationing per customer AND preventing price gouging
0atheist 1 month ago
why would some one buy all the milk when the power could fail and it would go bad?
jordler 5 months ago 3
If he believes that his money will be useless in the upcoming zombie apocalypse(or whatever) , yeah, I think he'll spend whatever it takes to get prepared.
ProfPorkchop 5 months ago
Price gouging is communist
Ukweli93 5 months ago
I don't think it saved many lives in say, the Bengal famine of 1943 an artificial famine created solely because of price gouging.
dinguspingus1 5 months ago in playlist More videos from HowTheWorldWorks
I think they should price gouge everything.
tragedyisfun 5 months ago
@Earthfart We'll aren't you a genius, what if you have a family of 12 kids that you need to feed too? Or what if you live in a remote area, and you know that you will not be able to make it back to the store for weeks? Regulations like this are dangerous and pointless. If the store wants to limit it, then fine, but the government should not get involved with private business.
BronzieCaster 5 months ago
You all are missing the point. If you ration supplies that still doesn't incenticize anyone to come in from outside markets to *increase* the supply of water. If water sells for a higher price, truly representing the higher demand for it, that higher demand can be answered by higher supply, in other words you ask for more water, you get it. If you want something which is hard for you to find, offer a bigger reward, it is only logical, and perfectly fair.
eggory 5 months ago
@eggory Actually it DOES give incentive. If someone is selling water for a high price and someone from out of town can afford to sell it at their regular price... a price at which they're still making money... they would be able to come into said town and sell their water for SLIGHTLY more (or they same price as normal if they legitimately care) and EASILY undercut the individuals price gouging.
hotfudgemoney 5 months ago
@hotfudgemoney Competition for bringing prices back down occurs without anti-price-gouging laws though, as soon as the outside competition coming in brings supply to meet demand. The laws just keep that outside competition away from the emergency. You can cap the prices only a little bit if you want, but the extent to which you do is simply the extent to which the incentive system is broken. Normally the higher the demand, the farther they'll come to join the market, *then* the prices come down.
eggory 5 months ago
so the rich will buy everything. fuck the poor
ProfPorkchop 5 months ago
@ProfPorkchop ya think the rich would buy less if it was made cheaper??? high price reflects high value placed on it. and why should a rich guy buy 500 bottles of water at $10 each?
at least price gouging lets the poor have access to water in the first place, it wont all be bought up by the first opportunist with a shopping cart.
Price gouging also attracts new business who realize they can make a higher profit, thus driving supply up (more is available) and prices down (it's more affordable).
MEIZimm 5 months ago
Hell yeah, someone understands economics, and what an economist does is decide how to distribute resources fairly among everybody in a society and trade happens.
thekooj 5 months ago
I predicted what your argument was going to be before watching this. I don't really buy your argument HtWW but at the same time I'm not against business owners that want to price gouge and would see myself doing the same thing. It's a natural business phenomena.
thecosmos003 5 months ago
Why not ration rather than price gouge?
Frances3654 5 months ago
@Frances3654
Because rationing is through the government and not voluntary, through the market, it is voluntary and you can have options.
Rationing is centralized and simply not up to the market which is decentralized.
RyanR3volution 5 months ago
@Frances3654 you live with people who only do things on the behalf of your interest for too long.. ie. pls move out of your parents' house. in the real world nobody really cares about you. whose decision is rationing based on again? yes some guy at a desk in a dark corner you can't even see
spyletu 5 months ago
@Frances3654 There is no way legislate a ration system within private entities like grocery stores. Also, there is not an incentive for enterprising individuals to come in an meet a demand by bringing in more supply. If you have allot of supplies at your geographic location, you might be monetarily incentivized to bring those supplies to a place that needs it if you have the means. "Price gouging'' laws criminalize that incentive. All price gouging laws do is ensure 'first come, first serve'.
9Apilot 5 months ago
A limit on the amount a single person can buy would accomplish the same thing and poor people wont have a hard time either. All price gouging does is make sure only the well off can afford to buy an entire shelf of groceries in an emergency and screw the rest over.
broccoify 5 months ago
Why don't people stock up on food, water, and medical supplies before a natural or man-made disaster? Instead of waiting till the last minute to get supplies. And I'm not taking about "hoarding". Just something that can get you through a 72 hour period can make a world of difference. It would seem like common sense for people who live in areas prone to hurricanes to have supplies ready.
JeffTheDude777 5 months ago
So now the first rich person to get to the grocery store gets all the water. Great. Problem solved. Totally beats the hell out of limiting purchases of important supplies during times of crisis.
Formosus111 5 months ago
@Formosus111 As opposed to the first rich person to get to the grocery store getting all the water at a below-market price?
Rationing never works.
shamgar001 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Formosus111 As opposed to the first rich person to get to the grocery store getting all the water at a below-market price?
Rationing never works.
shamgar001 5 months ago
@Formosus111 yeah - you also notice how he *mentions* poor people being helped by this then doesn't expand on it? ;)
sikok93453 5 months ago
Interesting way of looking at price gouging during a storm... Still don't see how a "Limit 1 per customer" sign would work just as well... Harder to enforce maybe during a storm? Just thinking aloud... Anyway people, smart thing to do stock on supplies before hurricane season!
acorrales1380 5 months ago
When I think of price gouging I'm not thinking of emergency situations (which you're right about). I'm thinking of, say, companies with monopolies (say phone companies) price gouging simply because they can. (Speaking as a New Zealander where this is more common due to a limited market.)
TheIllestVillain 5 months ago
I prefer paranoia instead of price gouging. What I mean is this, I buy extra on a regular basis. When the shit hits the fan I am NOT going to be in line to buy water. I already have water, I will just sit back and watch the city I live in go empty. If I was to go try and buy something I would bring my gun, some cash and a partner. If an unscrupulous store merchant tried to steal by charging 100 dollars a can for tuna I would use my gun to convince him to "honor the contract" and sell fair
AtlasHBS 5 months ago
the only thing this thread does is prove that capatilsm has created a bunch of brainwashed wanna be elites who think they can just buy anything they will ever need as long as they have money...guess what your money cant buy you love haha
josh1492 5 months ago
Gouging would also have other suppliers of bottled water rushing bottled water into the area where there was price gouging. So that they could make a profit.
noontimespender 5 months ago
they call it gouging because its bad its a way to take advantage of a situation...an easier solution would be to limit the amount that a person could purchase instead of raising the price
josh1492 5 months ago
@josh1492 That sort of solves the demand side (thought enforcing it would be a nightmare and it would undoubtedly create a black market), but that still doesn't help with the supply side by attracting needed goods from other markets.
shamgar001 5 months ago
@shamgar001 I remember that after 9/11 flags nationwide were sold out and there was price gouging ...so grandmaw had to step up to the plate and make flags for free just because there was a need...a lot of people will step up to meet a need and they are not doing it for wealth.
josh1492 5 months ago
@josh1492 Sure, but that only happened because of the gouging that took place.
shamgar001 5 months ago
@shamgar001 not true, the flags were sold out quickly and only after did gouging take place... not everyone is a greedy piece of shit
josh1492 5 months ago
There is no free market dip shit if there were it would be free.
You suck
CosmosPrivateer 5 months ago
@CosmosPrivateer What do you mean by the second half of your run-on sentence?
kiminokami 5 months ago
@CosmosPrivateer
either you are a troll, or you are the dumbest fucker on the internet.
scarface8999 5 months ago
You are an idiot. You always have been an idiot and always will be a idiot.
Plain and simple you suck.
So if I buy up all the gold and none is left and the entire planet goes in the toilet what good is my gold?
CosmosPrivateer 5 months ago
@CosmosPrivateer If you are the only person with gold, then people would find some other medium of exchange.
Did you think your comment through at all?
shamgar001 5 months ago
And this is what I hate about you libertarians:
You just *love to be there* when circumstances arise where people predictably act stupidly, exploit it to the max, and then disingenuously try to argue that it may have been in their best interests after all.
AlephNeil 5 months ago
@AlephNeil
You just answered your own comment - people predictably act stupidly - that is to say the "natural" condition is distress is to not necessarily think of the "bigger picture." The reason that price gouging exists - is that it is the "natural" response to the actions of people in this setting and has evolved to this because it is the best natural response - ie price-inflicted self rationing. Acknowleging what is fact is neither disingenuous or exploitive unless you have all the h2o
pargenta1 5 months ago
@AlephNeil Why is it not in someone's best interests to remind them that they are responding to an emergency that will pass and not responding to daily fluctuations in house inventory?
Why do libertarians love to be there when there are crises and when people act stupidly?
kiminokami 5 months ago
I think the rationale of opposing price gouging is this: To a first approximation, there is no "crisis". There will be massive damage, but most everyone will soon have reliable food and shelter one way or another.
However, faced with a natural disaster, some people panic and behave irrationally. Price gouging exploits this temporary irrationality.
It's immoral in the same way as it would be if you knew a man was having a manic episode and wanted to give away all his stuff, to simply take it.
AlephNeil 5 months ago
@AlephNeil Doesn't price gouging ANSWER responsibly to this temporary irrationality? You don't need more than a few days worth of resources which should be used sparingly according to emergency conditions. Why should a person enjoy the madness which urges them to buy, buy, buy, when they should be thinking more clearly and only buy a few things?
kiminokami 5 months ago
Seltzer is the best! It's the champagne of waters.
(Ditch that diet coke.)
Pallie25 5 months ago
I had never heard this side of the debate before and it opened all kinds of questions. I look at this a little different.
Price gouging and the market is where Libertarians win the day. This all comes down to the individual making a choice. Do I charge more for gas because supply is low and possibly lose customers in the future? As a customer do I buy more than I need?
If there's 10 bottles on a shelf and you take all 10 as 9 people wait behind you then you are as bad as the gouger.
fishblades 5 months ago
So your saying that that companies decide to raise the prices on goods in desperate situations because they are legitimately worried that enough people wont get any, and not because they will make more money on people who are desperate and will pay up the nose. um strange because if that was their concern why couldn't they just put a limit on the amount someone could buy.
I'll tell you why because it's BS, they are simply taking advantage of people because they can, and it's good business.
TheSokilla 5 months ago
@TheSokilla
It has nothing to do with worrying about other people. Stores want to maximize profits, and in doing so, they help the consumer. If you prevent so called "price gouging" to occur in disasters their will be shortages. The people who get their first will by way more than they need, the store will run out of items, and the majority of people will go without.
Don't confuse good intentions with good results.
TimeWarp66 5 months ago
Additional. In one sense, we don't see the additional cost, at uneconomical levels, for delivery of food, water, and ice, by the government, in the aftermath of a hurricane before things return to "normal". It is essentially "free" to the consumer. A more explicit example of government doing something that is not economically viable would be hard to find, but then again, it is an emergency condition so it is acceptable.
4k8t 5 months ago
In a transient emergency, such as a hurricane or flood, transient emergency pricing (gouging) as a rationing mechanism does not have time to establish a "norm" for the "market", so there are all kinds of variations when it happens. Since the emergency is only sort of at the moment and there is an expectation of a return to "normal", especially in the US where help will come from unaffected areas to do that, "price gouging" is publicly seen as "anti-social" behavior.
4k8t 5 months ago
What about rationing supplies? It was done during WW2, why can't it be done during emergencies?
ConservCanadian 5 months ago
@ConservCanadian "What about rationing supplies? It was done during WW2, why can't it be done during emergencies?" The easiest way to ration is to make an item more valuable or cost more. A $1 bottle of water lasts longer than a $0.17 bottle. You buy less because you can afford less, then use is more sparingly.
So, yeah, rationing works. Price gouging is self rationing AND increases supply by making it more attractive to those with the items to risk their time and money.
bsabruzzo 5 months ago
Thanks for this. I had always assumed that price gouging was bad, but I'd never actually thought about it. Your argument makes perfect sense.
ecsheats 5 months ago
Congrats on the new job! :)
ZoozaTheBink 5 months ago 2
Guess what! If you can't afford the new price, i's the same thing as no supply. You're argument has NO VALIDITY. Oh well. :D
OhZoneFan 5 months ago
@OhZoneFan not really, its all about finding the sweet stop, low enough that people will buy it, but high enough that you still make profit without depleting inventory too quickly
qdog1342 5 months ago
@qdog1342 Hmmm... Well, that may not be gouging then, eh?
OhZoneFan 5 months ago
I never looked at "gouging that way before. Thanks for the insight.
beerbrewer737 5 months ago
I pray that your children get cancer and the treatment cost more than you can afford and you have to watch them slowly die, that would be funny.
liberalguy513 5 months ago
@liberalguy513 You're a terrible person. Just because you don't agree with someone, you have to make inhumane statements that shows your stupidity.
MrJohnkeller11 5 months ago
@liberalguy513 Whoa, you mad bro?
NoNameC68 5 months ago
I never thought of it that way before. Good stuff, question though, what's to stop the stores from keeping prices high after the disaster has struck and people have generally recovered from it? Would lower prices from the other competitors eventually drive the prices back down to their pre-disaster rates?
Unknown2Yoo 5 months ago
@Unknown2Yoo There again is supply and demand. People don't demand food as a daily expense nearly as much as they would demand it as a needed source of healthful sustenance during disaster periods. Unless a store is literally forcing people to buy their stuff, at which point they are commiting upwards of 20 crimes or they are the government, there is no way they would be able to make a good return on maintaining high prices.
kiminokami 5 months ago
Great explanation.
TheOrdinaryEconomist 5 months ago
You know, I doubt I would shop again at a place that gouged me! Yay! More companies go out of business! BTW: Best Buy is getting some bad press for price gouging. Horay!
OhZoneFan 5 months ago
Your idiotic greedy rant makes socialism look good! What about poor people? They can just pay more??? ** What if they don't have the money to pay more? ** God, you have no idea how things work. BTW: I'm on the Jersey shore and there were **almost no shortages** right up to the grocery store closing. And they kept things ** on sale.** Yep, sale prices! One last point: Seltzer water rocks!
OhZoneFan 5 months ago
@OhZoneFan
Which is better: "The stores all ran out of water and I can't buy any regardless of what I do" or "The stores are charging a lot of effing money for that water, hey neighbor care to pitch in together to share a case of water"?
Your example in Jersey is quite unlike a real emergency. In Katrina people _died_ because of your type of viewpoint.
NativeNewMexican 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OhZoneFan "Your idiotic greedy rant makes socialism look good!" But socialism creates lack of food... look at the old Russian bread lines and most "socialist" countries today. It makes the resources so scarce that gov't HAS to come in and force people to make more.
"What if they don't have the money to pay more?" Then create an economy where people made more money rather than waiting for mama gov't to feed them.
bsabruzzo 5 months ago
Congrats on the job change, and thanks for keeping these relevant videos!
CTYankeeinTexas 5 months ago
Price gauging really does protect and serve the common man. What's to stop a rich person from spending $20 per gallon on water to fill their pool and thus buying all the water? $20 per gallon. Rich people aren't rich because they make poor spending decisions (if they are then they rightfully redistributed their money to better business people who know the lies of supply and demand). If there is a penalty for not having essentials in stock, stores will simply not STOCK essentials.
Draanor 5 months ago
someone sounds mad they didn't get any water, u mad bro?
ddunlap86 5 months ago
@ddunlap86 lulz indeed!
OhZoneFan 5 months ago
Libertarians are retarded sometimes. A very wealthy person could come into some town a buy all the entire store worth of water/food. Do they give a fuck that it is 10x the normal price? Fuck no. They could buy it just to refill their pool after the storm but that's ok its saving lives.
hunkgod 6 months ago
@hunkgod Because that is what wealthy people do. They swoop in when people need water and buy it up (at a cost more than what they would have paid in a non disaster zone) so they can fill their pools. Cause that is just what those rich capitalist swine do. Of course if I sell water and I hear some rich person is paying 10X what I am asking for water in a disaster zone I am going to do what ever I can to get water there so he will pay me 10X what it is worth. And so will anyone with sense. see?
mixmastermeeks 5 months ago
@hunkgod What is your point here? How are libertarians "retarded"? And i doubt that if someone so rich they can buy the entire store would stay where the storm is. If there that rich they probably make pretty good choices and they would probly go stay at another one of there homes somewhere safe. I dont understand what your trying to prove...
vied54 5 months ago
@hunkgod Libertarians are smarter than you.You gave us an unrealistic scenario that, although possible, is fairly unlikely. Understand that the higher the prices, the more unlikely someone will buy out a product. The lower the prices, the higher the chances the product will be bought out. So even though what you said COULD happen, it is less likely with higher prices.
Thanks for trying though.
NoNameC68 5 months ago
@hunkgod "A very wealthy person could come into some town a buy all the entire store worth of water/food" Let's examine this...
There is a flood/hurricane/earthquake making it difficult and dangerous for a "very wealthy person" to go to a place. They have already left and now can get water for $0.17 a bottle. Why would they go back? Some might go back to sell that water for $1 a bottle. That profit is what makes bringing in more water worth the time and trouble.
bsabruzzo 5 months ago
@bsabruzzo That is the thing. You are assuming that it is easy to bring in more product. Get a disaster big enough and there will only be the resources from pre-disaster. The is it ok to screw everyone over to make a profit. Making money is not a good way to save lives. Libertarianism is primary about me me me. Other people should have prepared better or gotten out earlier or become a millionaire and chartered a jet out before it hit...
hunkgod 5 months ago
@hunkgod "You are assuming that it is easy to bring in more product." No, I am assuming that the price justifies bringing in the product. Is it isn't possible to bring supplies in, it isn't possible to rescue people in that area either. And then it doesn'r matter because they are worse off than a Chillean miner.
bsabruzzo 5 months ago
@hunkgod "Libertarianism is primary about ..." No, it is about personal and individual thought and action. A Christian libertarian is about charity and others. Unless you think that Christians only do good deads because they are greedy and want eternal life for themselves (those jerks doing good thinks and helping people is sooooo selfish).
"Other people should have prepared better " or I should have prepared and become a millionaire so that I can help others (rights with responsibilities).
bsabruzzo 5 months ago
@hunkgod If this were to happen to me, Katrina+ sized disaster, I am putting on my Kevlar, slapping my 75round drum magazine into my ak-47 and coming to your store to TAKE what I need. I won't be the only one either. So its better to be nice and keep the prices stable or even give it away for fee. Most places are insured anyway.
hunkgod 5 months ago
@hunkgod " If this were to happen to me, Katrina+ sized disaster" But that disaster people were able to get to the victims and price "gouging" helped convince many to help. And even that evil Walmart brought in free water and supplies and various selfish store owners who became rich chose to either volunteer their time and effort or charge the prices based on their effort in MS and it recovered quickly.
bsabruzzo 5 months ago
@hunkgod "to your store to TAKE" And you'd be dead or alone while I helped the poor. More likely than not, if you could get to my store, so could I get out.
But in your senario, assuming you aren't a libertarian, you actually prove that the libertarian is the kinder and more charitable of us and you are the greedy SOB who doesn't care.
"Most places are insured anyway" Um, so it's oklay to steal and hurt people because they are paying for the protection? Thank you Jimmy Hofa"
bsabruzzo 5 months ago
@hunkgod
Than you're just a thug who deserves to be shot or imprisoned. You're the reason why men who produce should have guns. To shoot thugs like you on site.
TimeWarp66 5 months ago
This is BS - after the earthquake in Japan there were food shortages which were solved quickly without price gouging. This free-market economist lives in fantasyland.
goodsquidjapan 6 months ago
Great argument for how gouging controls the amount of resources available to a given population and, thus, saves lives. Imagine, if those hotels, for example, didn't gouge, someone may just rent out 20 rooms, leaving none for the others. It makes perfect sense.
rhabdoviridae 6 months ago
@rhabdoviridae You know, if you're going to attempt to make a sarcastic argument, you're going to have to do better than that, you just permanently made yourself sound ridiculous. A family of four is likely to buy 2, 3 or even 4 rooms. With an increase in prices, they may even buy 1 room and have people sleep on the floor for a short-term natural disaster, making other rooms available for people who need them. Thanks for making yourself a joke for my morning.
HowTheWorldWorks 6 months ago 22
@HowTheWorldWorks
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Your simple contribution is as addled as it is misanthropic. Show us the grateful masses who were saved by gouging. One wonders if you were having a slow day & decided to see just how far you could take this nonsense with your viewership.
rhabdoviridae 5 months ago
@rhabdoviridae Show me the greatful masses that have been helped by fixed prices? That was easy in the late 70's as they were all standing in gas lines. This was due to the gas shortage. Of course there really was no actual shortage. There was more gas sold in 1979 than any other year prior other than 1978. But the fixed low price caused shortages. With gas that is inconvenient...with food that is, to use your word, misanthropic. Less Balbraith, more Sowell my friend.
mixmastermeeks 5 months ago
@rhabdoviridae How about in 2005 all the people in new orleans that the FEMA overlooked while writing checks to people who didnt even live in the disaster zone. They were helped and although it wasnt free it was provided. If there was no incentive for you to take your buisness there would you take the loss?
vied54 5 months ago
@HowTheWorldWorks I think I've heard you make this point about hotel rooms before. But it's true. I live near Austin, TX and on weekends when the Longhorns are playing or when there is a music festival like ACL or SXSW the hotel prices jump. And reasonably so. If the Motel 6 left their price at $39.99 all the rooms in the city would be gone, because no one would double up. So they jack up the prices to $80 or $100. Well during a hurricane, there is even more reason to do this.
CTYankeeinTexas 5 months ago
@HowTheWorldWorks And the poor folks are STILL sleeping under a bridge... Fact is if someone can afford to buy 4 rooms at 100 each, you can bet he'll have no problem affording them at 500. It's the people that can barely afford the 100 that lose out entirely and end up under the bridge with the hobos.
antagonizerr 5 months ago
@antagonizerr Im pretty sure red cross swoops in and provides shelter... If your under a bridge its probly due to your pooor decision making which got you there in the first place.
vied54 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vied54 "Im pretty sure red cross swoops in and provides shelter... "
Oh, you mean like they did in Katrina...gotcha, now it's all their fault for being poor.
antagonizerr 5 months ago
@antagonizerr You're wrong. You're just wrong. If someone can afford 4 rooms at 100 each, it doesn't mean they can afford 4 rooms at 500 each. What you said is simply untrue and there is no argument. It's like arguing with someone who says 2 + 2 = 7, after a certain point, you just can't argue.
Someone can always buy out a product, but it's more unlikely the higher the prices.
NoNameC68 5 months ago
@NoNameC68 I can afford 4 rooms at 100. Now 4 rooms at 500 may stretch my credit cards but it's a disaster and I'm going to do what I need to. The same mentality others will apply, it's justifiable.
Nevertheless someone who can barely afford 1 room at 100 is definitely screwed when the prices get jacked to 500 and there are more of them than there are of me. Most don't even have credit and live pay to pay.
You may free up a room or two but in the end you'll screw MANY more out of a place to stay
antagonizerr 5 months ago
@antagonizerr "... no problem affording them at 500."? So price isn't part of your equation then? And please stop using "the poor" as an argument. It's not about helping all the poor / all the rich. It's about how to make the most out of the scarce resources that are available.
Iamfatbrain 5 months ago
@Iamfatbrain OK, so no poor. How about calling them the 43.6 million or 14% who DEFINITELY couldn't afford it, the 28% who could if they maxed out their cards, the 23% who represent the lower middle class who have enough equity to definitely afford it then the 35% left over who represent the top 3 levels of the pyramid that would have no problem at 500 a room.
Seems to me it's the po...oh sorry the 43.6 million that lose out here. You're not making resources available only class specific.
antagonizerr 5 months ago
@HowTheWorldWorks
dumbass ina crisis situation, people tend to STICK TO TOGETHER, the one room rented is the most likely scenario , so that hypothetical situation you present is unrealistic, and second what about price gouging in other non emergency situations, how does that save lives or help us the consumer.
samtotheg 5 months ago
@HowTheWorldWorks I may have already answered my own question.. I was going to suggest strict limits during crises, but why would a store owner NOT sell an item to a customer? Capitalism. The almighty dollar. Sometimes I'm a bit naive and idealistic, but during a crisis, should a store owner be concerned with stretching his goods to as many people as possible (1,2 per cust) or trying to cash in on this great opportunity to sell everything in his store in one night? alas. i AM naive..sigh...
2eelShmeal 5 months ago
@2eelShmeal Money exists under socialism and even communism. Why wouldn't someone sell a product under socialism? Greed.
NoNameC68 5 months ago
@NoNameC68 I'm sorry, I don't follow....
2eelShmeal 5 months ago
@HowTheWorldWorks To be honest, I didn't even recognize it as a sarcastic comment until you pointed it out.
1emart1 5 months ago
@HowTheWorldWorks What world do you live in? Your argument MAY be a side effect of price gouging but it is not the reason why any one does it. You are just making excuses for greed.
hunkgod 5 months ago
@hunkgod
Are you 12?
Who isn't greedy? You think those Liberal politicians you vote for aren't greedy? Capitalism harnesses greed for the public good. "Price gouging" is a market mechanism preventing shortages. Read some basic economics.
TimeWarp66 5 months ago
@rhabdoviridae " Imagine, if those hotels, for example, didn't gouge"
As a member of the hotel and hospitality industry I must weigh in here.
In a situation where there are 10,000 room in the city and 100,000 people who don't have a school or a gov't center to go, there is charity. But when there are also 100 schools, but people want to sleep in luxury in a hotel, why give it away?
Hotel prices are actually gouging the rich, not the poor.
That's different than food sales.
bsabruzzo 5 months ago
The guy who bought all that milk must be pretty disappointed.
a46475 6 months ago
You saw yourself how even with gouged prices, the shelves were empty. Groups A and B (the upper middle class and upper class) won't buy less product simply because of a higher price. They will complain, but they will buy.
The problem with Washington is they think everyone is the same. They cannot fathom how a person with limited income lives -- and the sad thing is, I believe most of them simply don't care.
Set a price, and then set a limit per person.
sweetalker79 6 months ago 2
@sweetalker79 The problem with setting a limit is when one person comes into buy for people who are not able to come in - "sorry, one per person. come back tomorrow and wheel your grandmother in if she wants one too."
rolling126r 6 months ago
@sweetalker79 You must be poor, because growing up middle class, I still had to limit my spending. You are foolish to make such stupid assumptions. You must also remember that most people are middle class and lower class, where upper class people are less common. Everyone has to save. When the rich needs something, they COULD buy everything out, but they are far less likely. Anyone with any financial responsibility would understand.
NoNameC68 5 months ago
Price gouging benefits two groups: Group A who are well-off enough to own franchises and small businesses (and are making a significant profit on other people's misfortunes and worry) and Group B who are wealthy enough to easily afford the gouged prices, and will in fact buy more product because Group C -- the impoverished and the lower middle-class, which make up the majority of this nation -- will buy less, often far less than they need for their families, on account of price gouging.
sweetalker79 6 months ago
@sweetalker79 What you said doesn't make any sense. You're saying the rich will buy MORE when prices are gouged? You're a moron. Go start a business, I promise you'll go bankrupt quickly.
NoNameC68 5 months ago
@sweetalker79 You pointed out the empty shelves used in the video as evidence? The prices on shelves were not gouged. Not evidence.
NoNameC68 5 months ago
How about limiting the number of units a person can buy rather than cranking up the price? I agree that price controls don't work but there are alternatives.
Fast81Z28 6 months ago
@Fast81Z28
I think the problem is that Lee would argue that rationing is a form of price control because price is always dependent on demand in some way. If you limit the units that can be bought then you effectively are lowering the demand which increases the supply and lowers the price.
Additionally, I think he would say that people should be able to have the freedom to choose how much they want to buy. It seems strange having the government define how much food each person needs to live.
insidetrip101 6 months ago
@Fast81Z28 That doesn't really work. Say a store limits customers to 6 bottles of water. What's to stop a family of four going into the store and buying 6 bottles of water each? Or someone buying 6 bottles, putting them in their car, and going back in to buy 6 more? What's to stop them coming back tomorrow for 6 more bottles? Trust me, this exactly what happens. I've witnessed it. The only way to effectively ration limited supplies is through prices.
BobGeorgeAU 6 months ago
@Fast81Z28 Some buisnesses have done that. But its a buisness choice to make not a government choice.
vied54 5 months ago
Comment removed
sweetalker79 6 months ago
@sweetalker79 Poor people lose? If it ensures they get water, I'd call that a win. I think a poor person has lost when they turn up to a store during a panic and all the water is gone because some asshole thought it'd be unfair to raise the price of water so that people really do limit how much they buy.
BobGeorgeAU 6 months ago
Two thoughts.
"Lets forget about intentions and focus on our goal". Ignoring that our goals and intentions are the same thing, I don't think we can ever ignore intentions. We always try our best to take into account what the motive is. No one thinks that someone who defends themselves from an attacker is guilty of assault (unless the "defense" too "excessive")
The competition argument is good, but ethically the stores could limit the amount of goods bought based on their discretion.
insidetrip101 6 months ago
@insidetrip101 What?! Your entire statement would invalidate the concept of negative unintended consequences.
HowTheWorldWorks 6 months ago 6
Comment removed
insidetrip101 6 months ago
@HowTheWorldWorks
Not true. I never said only our goals and intentions matter, but that you cannot forget them. Are you going to ostracize those involved with the Andes flight disaster as cannibals? Yes, they are cannibals, but they weren't intending to eat people because they like the taste of flesh.
If you don't think intentions matter then anyone who shoots an intruder in their house is guilty of assault. That is simply absurd.
insidetrip101 6 months ago
@insidetrip101 I'm not even sure you understand your own argument. What matters in your examples is the objective reality of whether or not they reached a desired result. I don't care if someone saves my life because they are a caring person, or because they benefited financially. In fact, if more lives will be saved if financial incentives are in place, at the expense of the existence of "caring people" with dead people, again, we should judge policies by results, not intentions.
HowTheWorldWorks 6 months ago 4
@HowTheWorldWorks
"I don't care if someone saves my life because they are a caring person, or because they benefited financially."
Well you should care. Eventually there will come a time when someone does not benefit financially or in some other way. Where does that leave us then? If we are all just pursuing our self interest, then as soon as we gain enough power to destroy others for our own benefit we will.
Is free market and charity incompatible? Is there no such thing as a good action?
insidetrip101 6 months ago
@insidetrip101 The Free Market is simply voluntary exchange...therefore charity is fully compatible. However, again, what matters is good outcomes, not good intentions. Period.
HowTheWorldWorks 6 months ago 17
@HowTheWorldWorks
"what matters is good outcomes, not good intentions. Period."
Can you then explain why we have different categories of crimes like manslaughter and differing degrees of murder? Isn't that largely based on intentionality and the psychology of the killer? Should we rid the law of these distinctions?
insidetrip101 6 months ago
@insidetrip101 Why on Earth would you think that destroying others is in your self-interest? Nearly all the successful people that I know in the private sector are honest, hardworking, and trustworthy. Does your field encourage and promote destruction of others in order to achieve success?
Nowadays I think you need a high bar for deciding to give charitably. There are too many professional parasites, and organizations built around supporting them while pushing other agendas.
r74quinn 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@r74quinn
"Why on Earth would you think that destroying others is in your self-interest?"
How about war and conflict. Regrettably, I would drop the bomb on Hiroshima.
insidetrip101 5 months ago
@insidetrip101 WHAT?! That is ridiculious. He is not saying that everyone will be pissed on. He is simply saying the reality of the situation. I dont think you understand your own argument here.
vied54 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vied54
"He is not saying that everyone will be pissed on."
Not sure when i said that, but how could you be wrong? You know better than I do.
insidetrip101 5 months ago
@insidetrip101
"The competition argument is good, but ethically the stores could limit the amount of goods bought based on their discretion"
but higher prices encourage people to send or produce more goods, so the outcome is better
rsobies 6 months ago
@rsobies
In most circumstances I agree; however, sometimes this is not the case. One example are toys like tickle-me elmo that are in high demand around Christmas. Manufactures purposely produce few products such as these to increase demand and increase prices. If we hypothesize a conflict (such as war) then it may be necessary to ration goods.
We don't like it, but things like the military may require goods more than us, and should not be left to the whim of the market.
insidetrip101 5 months ago
@insidetrip101
"Manufactures purposely produce few products such as these to increase demand and increase prices"
if there is a competition (free entrance) there is no reason why manufactures should decrease production. if some firms do so there will be opportunity for other producer to take their place
rsobies 5 months ago
@rsobies
"if there is a competition (free entrance) "
To be honest, that just does not happen. For example, only Nintendo can produce Wiis. They have a monopoly on them. If you want a Wii you have to get it from them. Of course, I admit that it is a bit more complicated than this, but there are all sorts of reasons to decrease production when you monopolize a market. If you own all the water in a town, you have every reason to decrease production to increase profit.
insidetrip101 5 months ago
@insidetrip101
"They have a monopoly on them"
no they dont, you can buy xbox, sony or other similar stuff.
"If you own all the water in a town"
it is not possible, other people can make well on their land and start to sell water if the price is high enought to encourage them
rsobies 5 months ago
@rsobies
"no they dont, you can buy xbox, sony or other similar stuff."
In some respect. If you're kids really want a wii, they don't care if you get them an xbox. Sure, you *could* tell your kids to fuck off, and is probably the responsible thing to do; however, this point still highlights that it DOES matter to many people.
"it is not possible, other people can make well on their land"
Not if you own all the land.
insidetrip101 5 months ago
@insidetrip101
"If you're kids really want a wii, they don't care if you get them an xbox"
so tell nintendo to double price of wii, i am sure that it will reduce their income
"Not if you own all the land"
you mean, the goverment?
rsobies 5 months ago
@rsobies
"so tell nintendo to double price of wii, i am sure that it will reduce their income"
Do I really have to point to the launch of the PS3? They tickle-me-elmo "shortage" or other holiday items that are purposefully under produced to increase demand for a very short period of time?
No, it isn't a good long term strategy, that is why these things are released in the holiday season, because demand is so high. By your logic, it makes no difference when a product enters the market.
insidetrip101 5 months ago
This guy has no idea what he's talking about.
TONYTHETlGER 6 months ago
I've always wondered what song Lee uses for the closing of his videos
rogging1 6 months ago
yes, we have all been schooled since the 50s that self-interest and greed are the building blocks of a 'free society' in an economy based on fraud ... i got it and so did all the thumbs-uppers ... all the best minds are in finance ... that's where the money is.
EdisonAndHirsch 6 months ago
Yeah it saves lives since people like you will not have any issue paying the higher prices .When people can not afford things I hope your house is the first looted .
Joeybsmooth 6 months ago
Simply not being smart enough to understand how dumb you are does not make smart by default.
There is a well known study on this effect, it is called Dunning Kruger, you, of all the people I have ever come across need to look into this.
While you are at it, take the time to understand hyper narcissism - you need help with this.
audas 6 months ago
Easily solved by doing what grocers do with big sales: "Limit X items per customer." Sounds more like this guy has been indoctrinated by the Laissez Faire, free-market, Atlas Shrugged crowd.
bneverga 6 months ago
Yeah - if I am the only supplier of water, I can charge $5000.00 per bottle, and i only need to sell one bottle to make all the profit I need.
Or i could be real generous and sell them for $500.00 a bottle and sell ten.
Yeah - you are an absolute moron of the highest order howtheWorldWorks.
audas 6 months ago
Holy shit this is retarded. Its like he cant understand the real-life consequences of his ideas.
MrTomPeters 6 months ago
Why are gay republicans always the most vitriolic and irrational?
CassieDill4 6 months ago
Wow! You dedicated the ENTIRE video to hurricane Irene? What a wonderful guy you are...
TheFrankFactor 6 months ago
Astoundingly moronic! Who the FUCK can't see through this ass hole? Water for you Poindexter? No you fucking reet? NO WATER FOR YOU FUCK NUT! You don't have enough cheddar! You fucking do without,. The fuck heads that pay you to make these bull shit propaganda video turds bought it all up and gave each other enemas and fucked some prostitutes in their Lear jet laughing at your pwned ass!
TheFrankFactor 6 months ago
@TheFrankFactor I think you need to take a deep breath and make sure to form your sentences with structure. I think I see what your argument is, but then,maybe not. It is hard to read through the lines. As far as the claim that you can just go without, imagine a scenario where all public access to water is contaminated with something that makes you sick and die. Is it fair for a person to buy 50+ bottles of water? What if those will save 50 other people's lives? Think of all sides of discussion.
kodan50 6 months ago
@TheFrankFactor u mad bro?
NoNameC68 5 months ago
I understand your argument, I think. But I still don't understand why can't we just ration the water. Lets say that everyone get a case of water then would there be enough for everyone at an affordable price. Then again it's kind of a waste to buy bottled water, since tap water is idential and practically free.Sometimes it even tastes better then bottled water.
skeptictom818 6 months ago
Why not just simply ration the merchandise at the regular price? Companies do this all the time. They will put something on sale, for example, but limit how many you can buy at that price. If you say "Maximum purchase of water bottles will be FIVE" it accomplishes the same thing without taking advantage of those who can least afford to be taken advantage of. Rationing was an everyday thing during World War II. Now we give tax cuts to the rich instead of paying for our wars.
MarkRosengarten 6 months ago
So you suggest forcing people to either pay more for less in order to get the desired results? Why not instead keep the prices the same and educate? Communalize.
You act like this and yet act surprised that people don't care about one another in america, you rather manipulate them through pricing fluctuation rather than getting along with one another and expect better of people.
Whatever you can do to make a buck right?
todocambiara2 6 months ago
An interesting argument, but rich people will buy it all anyway...
I agree that anti-gouging laws would be counter-productive, but rationing would be better than a free-for-all
imnotanumber43 6 months ago
This is stupid...I've gone through Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans...and price gauging hurt people because they couldn't afford it...$15 for water...no one had that money...it's immoral to price gauge anyway...for you moral value conservatives...Chance are, if you price gauge...people would rise in anger and overthrow the price gouger's place of business where the over-priced water is being sold...that's what happened here in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina...
phester061594452 6 months ago
You're literally arguing fro something that redistributes wealth. It may be a free market method, but you are arguing for controls on who gets what. Thinka bout it.
The1onTV 6 months ago