Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Everyone Hates the Gouger
Once upon a time in the not-too-distant past, there was a coastal town called Portside. A large hurricane was headed for Portside and the mayor ordered a complete evacuation.
There were only two routes out of Portside. Each route had a gas station situated just outside of town. After both gas stations, there wasn’t another one for 100 miles. One gas station was owned by Sammy Sweetpants. The other was owned by Gavin Gouger.
Sammy Sweetpants was a good citizen. He knew his pronouns and always used the right ones for others. He always recycled. He had his pets spayed and neutered. He always obeyed the speed limit and stopped twice at every stop sign. He never smoked, cussed or ate beef. Sammy drove a Prius.
Gavin Gouger was different. He ate huge steaks, owned assault rifles, smoked big smelly cigars and cursed like a sailor. He drove a giant gas-guzzling pickup truck with over-sized tires and the biggest engine available. He didn’t care about pronouns and flew a great big American flag at his gas station.
When the evacuation began, Gavin realized that there would be a large demand for gasoline and that it would be in short supply. Gavin raised his price to $12 per gallon. Some would call it gouging.
Sammy didn’t believe in price gouging and kept his price at $3 per gallon.
During the evacuation, the townspeople used both routes to get out of town.
At Sammy Sweetpants’ station, everyone on the route stopped and filled up because they liked his price. Even if their tank was almost full, they would top it off. Everybody loved Sammy Sweetpants.
At Gavin’s Gouger’s station, it was a different story. People would see the $12 price and, if they had enough gas in the tank, would continue to the next station 100 miles down the road. Those whose tanks were almost empty had to stop at Gavin’s station and pay his exorbitant price. They cursed Gavin Gouger for taking advantage of them. Everybody hated Gavin Gouger.
Because of his low prices, Sammy Sweetpants sold his gasoline at a much faster pace than did Gavin Gouger.
Then, Sammy’s station ran out of gas.
Sammy being out of gas wasn’t a problem for people who had enough gas to drive the additional 100 miles to the next station. But some people needed that gas. The price of it ceased to be an issue. Instead of being stuck paying an exorbitant price, they couldn’t buy gasoline at all. The result was stalled cars on the side of the road. Entire families were stranded on the evacuation route and a hurricane was on the way. Some deaths resulted, but were underreported by the media.
That didn’t happen at Gavin Gouger’s station. Drivers that had enough gas drove past his station when they saw his price. Those who really needed the gasoline stopped and paid the exorbitant price, grumbling the whole time about being “gouged.” Few of them realized that gasoline was available to them solely because of Gavin’s high price and would not have been otherwise.
When the hurricane was over, Sammy Sweetpants was lionized by the press, because he kept his prices low during a crisis. The press ignored the serious problems caused by Sammy’s good intentions.
Gavin Gouger, on the other hand, was vilified by the press, even though there were no stranded families on his route.
Years went by. Hundreds of people attended Sammy Sweetpants’ funeral. Testimonials were given about that day he kept his prices low during the hurricane.
Practically no one attended Gavin Gouger’s funeral, even though he likely saved lives on the day of the hurricane.
Published in Economy
And I was making a real point about what happens next.
Apparently. I suppose I could have just cut and pasted what you had already written and replied with that, but would that have added anything to the conversation?
It was a close thing, but FDR died and under Truman the New Dealers didn’t succeed in keeping all the wartime controls in effect. But a lot still is in effect.
I hope that’s a good thing. Would you like to know in turn some of the good things I can say about you as a person?
Recognizing the intent that the price control program be temporary, I nonetheless also recognize that (as I understand it) today’s New York City apartment rent control program is a continuous extension of an emergency program set in place for the circumstances of World War I, more than a century ago. The New York experience may be an aberration, but it is not unique in the annals of “temporary” government powers and taxes becoming long-term.
It was not a call for price controls.
It is for temporary rationing in a crisis.
I have not called or ever supported price controls.
But clearly., y’alls minds are made up and unwilling to even listen to what I Have to say
He was merely pointing out that Rent Control was also “temporary rationing in a crisis”.
It’s about setting a precedent.
Rationing in a short term crisis makes sense.
But, I guess when the Red Cross or FEMA brings in potable water, the way all of you think it should be distributed is by very high prices not by limiting the amount per person.
Can’t set a precedent, after all.
The Point I am making is that rationing can work quite effectively. That has not been refuted at all. Instead, y’all are making other arguments. Not refuting my point.
It is like me saying “Fire can cook food” and you guys are saying “Fire! Bad!”
The point I read from the original post was that “price gouging” is a way to control the distribution of limited supplies that does not involve edicts from the government. There are legitimate criticisms to using “price gouging” in this way, but it does accomplish the sought-after result. Rationing was proposed as an alternative to price gouging. But rationing, especially if imposed by government, has its own issues worthy of criticisms, which it seems reasonable to point out when rationing is proposed as an alternative to the main topic of price gouging. Which works better in a particular circumstance? I don’t know, but they both have problems.
Rationing was immediately dismissed as having nothing but problems.
Rationing doesn’t account for edge cases.
Fact-check: False
Fact-Check: False
No system accounts for edge cases.
There are always edge case exceptions to any plan. Including raising prices.
Clarification on this point. Government shouldn’t make prices go up. It should allow prices to go up. There’s a difference.