Price Gouging During a Natural Disaster

Guest Post by Walter E. Williams

Price Gouging During a Natural Disaster

Thirteen states — Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia — have enacted laws to combat what is seen as price gouging in the wake of natural disasters. Price gouging is legally defined as charging 10 to 25 percent more for something than you charged for it during the month before an emergency. Sellers convicted of price gouging face prison terms and fines.

Price gouging in the wake of natural disasters is often seen as evil exploitation by sellers to rip off desperate customers. Let’s hold off on that conclusion until after you give thought to some very important questions. First let’s see what we can agree upon.

When a natural disaster occurs or is anticipated, supply conditions change. There is going to be less of what people want and need. Under such conditions, what actions are consistent with the public good? My answer is that people should voluntarily use less of everything and waste nothing. That would include economizing on water, gasoline, food and anything else necessary for survival. How about an example?

Take the case of a hurricane like Florence. Let’s assume that evacuation 200 miles or so inland would guarantee safety for North Carolinians. Say the Jones family’s car has three-quarters of a tank of gas, more than enough to drive to safety. The Smith family’s car has less than a quarter-tank of gas, which is not enough to drive away from danger. We can multiply this scenario by tens of thousands of families in the Joneses’ condition and thousands of families in the Smiths’ predicament.

Here’s my question: Who should forgo purchasing gas in the storm-threatened area? My answer would be all those people who have enough gas to drive to safety — people such as the Joneses. By not purchasing gas, they’d make more gas available for those who really need the gas in order to drive to safety, such as the Smiths. We might also ask how considerate and caring it would be to their fellow North Carolinians who desperately need gas for people who have enough to evacuate to purchase gas just to top off their tanks.

If people such as the Joneses won’t consider the needs of their fellow man voluntarily, the North Carolina attorney general could station government officials at each gasoline station to determine who should be permitted to purchase gas. You say, “Williams, it would be sheer lunacy for scarce state resources to be used that way, especially in the face of a natural disaster!” I think you’re right.

Another method would be for the governor, mayors and church and community leaders to admonish North Carolinians to purchase gasoline only if they really need it. That way, plenty of gas would be available for those with nearly empty tanks. You might say, “Come on, Williams. Aren’t you being a bit naive thinking that would work?” You’re probably right again.

What I think would make gas available to those who really need it are rising prices. Suppose the pre-hurricane price of gas was $2.60 a gallon. As the hurricane approaches, dealers could let the price rise to $4 a gallon. That would give families who have enough gas to evacuate incentive to voluntarily forgo purchasing gasoline. Their voluntary decision would make more gas available for people who desperately need it. By the way, gas available at $4 a gallon seems more preferable than gas stations shut down because they have sold out of gas at $2.60 a gallon.

You might reluctantly agree that allowing prices to rise during a natural disaster helps allocate resources, but that’s not the intention of sellers who raise prices. They are in it for windfall profit. I say: So what? It’s what their actions accomplish that’s important — namely, getting people to conserve during a natural disaster. Also, higher prices create incentives for suppliers of all kinds of goods — such as plywood, bottled water, generators and repair services — to pitch in to help to restore people’s lives.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
starfcker
starfcker
October 24, 2018 3:31 pm

Stupid fucking Uncle Tom. Don’t even have to read the article to know what he’s saying. Set back and let Corporate America Ream you in the ass in your moment of need and then thank them for it. Fuck you nigger

Llpoh
Llpoh
  starfcker
October 24, 2018 3:57 pm

So, if I as a businessman have a resource that I paid for, that I now cannot replenish at the price I paid for it, owing to a sudden scarcity and inability to obtain it, I should be required by law to sell it at a rate that no makes sense. No thank you. I think I will just sit on it, and not sell it at all. People can then do without at any price. And guess what? That is what some busineses are choosing to do. Why sell something you cannot replace at the previous cost without a price increase? It is a good way to go broke.

Maybe they will pass a law forcing me to sell it then, I suppose.

This is fucked up and bullshit. Supply and demand should set prices, not government.

PS – calling this guy a nigger because you do not like his opinion on this is fucked up and just dead wrong. His opinion is one I have read before, by other economists. Don’t like it? Make a case.

Annie
Annie
  Llpoh
October 24, 2018 10:03 pm

Llpoh, it’s worse than that. They’re saying that you can’t sell for a price more than 10% more than you sold previous to the disaster. For example, the owner of a hardware store might have the leverage and/or the finances to special order a load of generators delivered to the area to sell to people who need them, but he won’t because the special delivery charges are going to make his costs higher than he can sell them for thanks to the price gouging legislation.

starfcker
starfcker
  Llpoh
October 24, 2018 11:00 pm

Make a case? I already did. Look at the top

TampaRed
TampaRed
  starfcker
October 25, 2018 12:03 am

it’s 12am & i’m going to bed–save this thread star & i’ll set you straight–

Llpoh
Llpoh
  starfcker
October 25, 2018 1:53 am

That was not a case.

There was this guy, read where generators were in high demand after a big storm. Went to his local Homedepot or whater, bought 20 at $600 each, carted them 1200 miles, and was selling them like hotcakes for $900 by memory out of his pickup. Cops grabbed all his remaining stock and pitched him in jail. Someone complained that the local Homedepot, with no stock, was selling them for $600, if they had any. Charged the poor guy with gouging.

That is some fucked up shit. That guy was going to make three grand tops, not a killing for his time, investment and risk.

Fuck this gouging law bullshit.

Grizzly Bare
Grizzly Bare
  starfcker
October 24, 2018 9:32 pm

Ask someone who grew up in the USSR how that command economy worked for them.

Doc
Doc
  starfcker
October 24, 2018 9:42 pm

So the guy that lives in Ohio rents a truck and buys all the generators that he can find and drives down to the hurricane ravaged area after the storm and sells them for double what he paid for them is a criminal. The truck rental, fuel costs and expenses all add to the what he paid for them. He isn’t entitled to make a profit? Some people would be very happy in that particular circumstance to buy one at double the price. Nobody HAS to buy one of his generators – even if there are none available anywhere else. If his price is too high, people won’t buy them and he loses money on his ‘investment’.

Please note that this follows the LAW – not the theory – of supply and demand.

Grog
Grog
October 24, 2018 3:41 pm

Well, you could use the good old Tesla S. Using a charger connected to a 240-volt outlet you could have up to 31 miles of range for each hour of charging, meaning a full 300-mile charge takes less than 9.5 hours!

What a deal.

All ya gots ta do is think ahead an’ be prepared. sarc/

Trapped in Portlandia
Trapped in Portlandia
October 24, 2018 3:57 pm

Everyone knows that government forced price controls are the solution to these problems. Just look at Venezuela.

Steve
Steve
October 24, 2018 8:30 pm

So a hospital can charge you $50 for a Tylenol that costs them $.02 no problem. But some enterprising guy who buys a 100 sheets of plywood and marks them up $ 10 gets arrested?
Now nobody has plywood. Use any similar scenario. LET THE MARKET DECIDE.