Price Gouging Is Not Evil

 

I watched a clip on the news yesterday concerning price gouging. The Attorney General of North Carolina was telling us how many reports of gouging they were receiving, what the penalties are, and how they are going to prosecute gougers. This shows a lack of understanding about the role of prices in determining the most efficient use of scarce resources.

If during a crisis, prices are allowed to rise, people won’t horde as much. They will only buy what they really need. If prices aren’t allowed to rise, there will be shortages. People that need gas won’t get it, while others will have filled every gas can they can find, “just in case.”

The same applies to hotel rooms. Let’s say I am evacuating my family from the coast, and I have the choice between renting a hotel room a few hours away from home or driving an extra four hours to stay with a relative. If rooms are cheap, I will get a room, maybe even two, so the kids can have their own beds. This means there are fewer rooms for people who don’t have alternatives. They will have to sleep in their car (which is still back at the coast, because… no gas). If rooms are expensive, I am more likely to stay with the relative, and more rooms will be available to those that lack alternatives.

The best way to ensure scarce resources are used the best way is by allowing prices to fluctuate.

For those of you who complain about someone is taking advantage of the situation for profit, I have two questions: (1) If I sell gas at $10/gallon, but have a sign out front that states, “We are raising prices, so we don’t run out of gas. All profits over last week’s prices will be donated to hurricane relief”, would you be ok with that? (2) If you are fleeing from a hurricane, which would you rather have, gas at $10/gallon, or no gas?

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 36 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. BastiatJunior Member
    BastiatJunior
    @BastiatJunior

    Terry Mott (View Comment):

    Quake Voter (View Comment):

    Do I have a problem with two entrepreneurs in a bass boat agreeing to rescue the three small children of a panicked homeowner from the last foot of dry roof in exchange for a transfer of the deed to the farm.

    Yeah, I have a problem with that.

    No problem with people having moral misgivings about whether certain market activities are fair in a drastic life threatening circumstance, or with subjecting even our market actions to Judeo-Christian evaluation in such extremities.

    I feel some people are arguing for a libertarian Camazotz they would never want to live in.

    I’d also have a problem with anyone demanding a deed to the farm in order to rescue someone’s kids. However, I would expect such a verbal agreement would be unenforceable due to being made under duress, or something. You could argue that later reneging on the deal once you’ve reached safety is also dishonest, but I’d say that’s sauce for the gander, in this situation.

    We’re not talking about whether something is moral or ethical, but whether it should be illegal. There’s a difference, or should be.

    Maybe there’s room for some broad stroke legislation (say, limiting profit to 500% or something), but my inclination is to distrust any such attempt, as political pressure to eventually reduce the limit to 0% would be huge.

    “Judge not,” would be a good governing philosophy here. We can’t know what’s in people’s heads.  A good gas station owner and an evil one would do exactly the same thing in a disaster situation, even if for different reasons.  The good one would do it to ensure that gasoline would be available for those that really need it.

    The gas station owner who keeps his prices low in such a situation is not good, just self-righteous.  He is the one who will get the positive press later.

    There is also an upper limit to what the “gouger” can charge.  Even in the middle of hurricane Katrina, a gas station wouldn’t be able to charge $1 million per gallon.  No one would have that kind of money and the gas station wouldn’t make any money.  And gasoline would still be unavailable to those who need it.  Any gas station owner, moral or immoral, would keep his price down to the point where there are actual buyers.

    • #31
  2. Terry Mott Member
    Terry Mott
    @TerryMott

    BastiatJunior (View Comment):
    “Judge not,” would be a good governing philosophy here. We can’t know what’s in people’s heads. A good gas station owner and an evil one would do exactly the same thing in a disaster situation, even if for different reasons. The good one would do it to ensure that gasoline would be available for those that really need it.

    We mustn’t forget that allowing “gouging” doesn’t prevent the gas station owner from making exceptions out of the goodness of his heart.  He might decide to sell gas to a single mother for $3 even though his pumps are set to $10, but this wouldn’t be an option if his tanks were already emptied by soccer moms topping off their SUVs at $3/gal.

    Likewise, the bubbas selling water in my earlier example might throw in an extra case for free for a hard-up family if the spirit moves them.  Most of the bubbas I was raised around would probably do so.

    Individual acts of charity are often crowded out by collective virtue signalling.

    • #32
  3. Pony Convertible Inactive
    Pony Convertible
    @PonyConvertible

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    Price gouging is illegal where I live and many don’t have the money to get out to a hotel, let alone pay $10 for gas or other elevated costs when an emergency is on the doorstep – it’s despicable.

    So higher prices have no impact on them. If they can’t afford gas at $3, the same is true at $10. However, when the gas is gone, no one can get it at any price. It is not a question of finding a system that works for everyone. It doesn’t exist. It is a question of what works best for most.

    • #33
  4. Terry Mott Member
    Terry Mott
    @TerryMott

    Good column on the subject (hat-tip, Instapundit):

    https://www.carolinajournal.com/opinion-article/north-carolinas-anti-price-gouging-law-makes-things-worse-not-better/

    • #34
  5. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Terry Mott (View Comment):

    Good column on the subject (hat-tip, Instapundit):

    https://www.carolinajournal.com/opinion-article/north-carolinas-anti-price-gouging-law-makes-things-worse-not-better/

    Both Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have written extensively on price gouging.

    • #35
  6. BastiatJunior Member
    BastiatJunior
    @BastiatJunior

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):
    free markets are not magic fixes to every problem.

    Don’t think anyone has claimed otherwise.  Free markets have done nothing to make me thinner or give me a good personality.

    There is no such thing as a magic fix for every problem.

    Remember that free markets are the absence of something – not its presence.  Free markets are the absence of government interference in the economy, 99 percent of which is harmful.

    That is why free markets become even more important in bad times, like natural disasters.  Policies that are always harmful will still be harmful during a crisis.  We see that with government attempts to prevent price-gouging.

    Remembering that free markets are the absence of something, consider the following sentences.

    Free markets are not  a magic fix to every problem.

    I believe in free markets, but am not extreme about it.  I don’t want unfettered free markets.

    Are free markets your answer to everything!?

    Now in the above three sentences, pretend you’re talking about someone’s health and replace “free markets” with “non-smoking.”  (Also change “are” to “is.”) 

    Non-smoking is also the absence of a harmful thing.

    • #36
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.