Exposing The TRUTH Behind Price Gouging

[@Ublwow]

if i increase prices i price gouge. if i lower the prices i undercut competition. if everyone's prices are the same then we are colluding. you can't convince some about basic economics if they are not willing.

[@DieNibelungenliad]

Thats an unfair way to put it. Price gouging is raising prices when there's a sudden spike in demand caused by crisis. Undercutting competitors usually involves selling at a loss until competitors go out of business first. Collusion usually requires written statements agreeing to share the same price. The price itself is more of a symptom of a wider issue rather than the issue itself

[@hamnchee]

@DieNibelungenliad I know I always write down all my collusions.

[@Logical_Lobster]

With price controls in a hurricane, the shippers and suppliers will say meh, there’s too much traffic and roads closed to sell at regular prices, so we’ll wait til all that clears up before sending any more supplies.

[@dk-bw4gk]

Or some 3rd party trucking outfits would take the risk for increased shipping costs, but then that would also be illegal gouging so they wouldn't do it.

[@griffinoleary1694]

i didnt think of that

[@trublgrl]

An economy is not the simple expression of what you want. It is the complex expression of what _everybody_ wants.

[@lucasworktv]

And what exactly is possible

[@cjbos81]

There are things that people oppose merely because the idea of it feels bad. 2:23 I used to oppose "price gouging" but then one day I considered this scenario.

[@utah_koidragon7117]

But price gouging doesn't preserve resources for people who need them more and are therefore willing to pay more. It preserves resources for people who are *able* to pay more. It has nothing to do with their need.

[@Redbatray]

@@utah_koidragon7117 I would say that the "needs" of people is unimportant and irrelevant. There will always be more people who can't afford something than those who CAN afford something. There will always be more people who "need" something than the market is able to provide. No person is entitled to anything at any point in time because they have a "need." The cost of something is based entirely on its value at a given point in time; and is only available to those who can afford it at that time. In this situation the demand for generators has increased due to a natural disaster, which also caused the value of those generators to increase. You can't seriously propose that people should be allocated resources because they "need" it more than someone else. "Need" is such an arbitrary and subjective term that the free market has a word for it; that word is "want." Prices decide how much you really "want" something. If you don't have the money to "want" something; you don't have the right to it.

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

​@@utah_koidragon7117 They must be both willing and able. Whereas if you ban price gouging, persons who are both willing and able to purchase the item will NOT be able to.

[@hamnchee]

@utah_koidragon7117 Then you should buy generators for people who need them.

[@utah_koidragon7117]

@@hamnchee or maybe I'll just keep supporting anti-price gouging laws that are perfectly moral and work just fine.

[@BlackLibertarian]

You need to remeber the MOST IMPORTANT FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM: There aren't enough generators for every single person to get one! Tinkering around with the price doesn't magically make more generators appear. Even if you lower the generators to $0, it still wouldn't solve the problem. The price needs to be higher, because remember: Anything that's underpriced gets overconsumed.

[@hrvsmart]

that doesn't apply to everything. in the early days of COVID companies did things like buy up stockpiles of PPE, masks, sanitizer and other products. They established a monopoly until months later when the supply was steadier.

[@BlackLibertarian]

@@hrvsmart That fundamental problem actually DOES apply to everything! The amount that everyone wants will ALWAYS add up to more than what there is. Let's take your example about masks: At the time, there were about 8 billion people on the planet. Were there 8 billion masks? Was there enough masks for there to be one for each person? What if we wanted TWO masks per person? One for now, and one for when the other gets soiled, etc. THAT'S 16 BILLION MASKS. Were there 16 billion masks at the time? Don't be silly. There already isn't enough masks for everyone, which means if they get OVERCONSUMED because of underpricing, it will simply make the situation worse. In fact, buying them all up in advance is a very smart idea! For 2 reasons: 1)It acts as a type of bulwark against the possibility of overconsumption 2) It encourages more people to manufacture more masks, which helps in solving the BASIC FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM: not enough masks for everybody. We don't need to force prices to be low. What we really need is to encourage more people to bring in more goods and services. The price system is the FASTEST way to do that.

[@FurryMurry7]

​@@BlackLibertarian Yea

[@jesusc2me]

Populace is woefully out of touch with what it takes to generate goods. Materialism is rampant, popular, and celebrated. People want their "wants" met before their needs. In fact, people don't even want to spend the time to figure out their needs (because they are generally so abundantly provided for them). It's the attitudes that need to change. The out of control money printing hasn't help either. Populace really believes that billionaires are somehow worth a billions. Go ahead and take all their money... as if they are somehow then able to go onto generate billions of dollars worth of goods single handedly in their lifetime. Trees take a certain amount of time to grow, and that's built into the cost. Taxing the billionaires isn't going to make more lumber tomorrow. Sadly, it's economic illiteracy (due to lack of moral fundamentals) that is going to bring people to the brink of destruction.

[@seansmodernlife9823]

​@@jesusc2me Yeah, but it would prevent them for accumulating all the assets, driving up their values, reducing purchasing power, and monopolizing the industry so only they have the power to control price & production. Jesus wants you to educate yourself on wealth inequality and it's consequences.

[@cleverwitticismhere6922]

You know what's infuriating? Explaining the economics of price gouging to someone, having them agree with every point, and have them end the conversation with them STILL wanting to ban price gouging because it's "wrong." I could understand not convincing someone because they disagree with the underlying facts or something, but HOW do you do that while accepting all the facts and conclusions?!

[@Mr.Witness]

Because they dont agree on the facts of morality which is what economic facts are processed through. What works or is efficient means nothing to someone who identifies it as essentially bad , evil, or immoral.

[@Spartan322]

Because most people are low time preference narcissists, they are incapable of or don't care to consider the future, they don't believe in delayed gratification.

[@TBC256]

I think the point that needs to be driven home is that regular price in a crisis is like Black Friday sale. And those needing generators for insulin fridges aren't in front.

[@jonathanbauer2988]

this is why libertarianism will never win, everyone has ALWAYS known that capitalism is the only working economic system, but the issue isnt whether or not it works its whether or not its moral.

[@Mr.Witness]

@@jonathanbauer2988 The real case for why Libertarianism is doomed to failure is best exemplified by the 19th century advocates of capitalism who argument implied that point. The argument is that capitalism works because it ends up being altruistic. Trying to whitewash the fact that capitalism is a system only conceivable without contradiction under an ethics of selfishness.

[@alexp1329]

If you don’t like price gouging. Be prepared for emergency situations. Have a inverter that can run your electrical devices if you can’t afford a generator, have enough shelf safe food that will last at least two weeks, store enough water for two weeks, etc… anyone can afford to do it a little at a time until you have what you need. Learn how to budget, invest in yourself and your family. The government really doesn’t care about you, they just want your money and votes. If a crisis is bad enough, they will be in triage mode and will allow the few to suffer and die to save the many. Help yourself and the ones you care about.

[@darthhodges]

The thing people miss when they oppose price gouging is that ALL VALUE IS RELATIVE. Why is the generator $800 normally? Because the combination of supply and demand settled there. If circumstances were different generally (our grid was less stable, a new source of parts made generators dramatically cheaper to make, etc.) the normal price would also be different. And what about the government? Some of the states with such laws have been under declared emergencies for years (drought, climate, gun violence, etc.) and have dramatically higher prices for a things like electricity and gasoline than other states. Does that make all entities selling such things (including the government) guilty of gouging? What about people's wages? If I live in a state with a declared emergency and I get paid more than the national average for my job, am I guilty of gouging my employer? It seems to me most people's beliefs about price gouging are simply about what makes them feel good, not what makes sense.

[@caster863]

Banning price gouging sounds perfect! If you think prices are just arbitrary numbers producers just slap in because they want to.

[@ExPwner]

Correction: “price gouging” is not a thing. Just because you don’t like that I will not sell for a lower price doesn’t make me a bad person or a “price gouger.”

[@utah_koidragon7117]

Price gouging is definitely "a thing." And yes, in some cases, refusing to sell for a lower price might very well make you both a price gouger and a bad person.

[@TheLibertarianCapitalistUSA]

​​​@@utah_koidragon7117actually, it does not make you a bad person if you're a price gouger. You're basically using economic common sense when you're price gouging. It is when the government steps in and tries to enforce price controls on a business is when it becomes a horrible thing because the government is setting the prices, instead of letting the free market make those decisions.

[@utah_koidragon7117]

@@TheLibertarianCapitalistUSA I return you to the hypothetical in the video. Imagine you have a generator, recently purchased for $800. For you, it's a spare generator. A hurricane hits, and power is out and will be for days or weeks. You decide to sell your spare generator. Some guy wants to buy it from you at $800 so he can keep his daughter's life saving medication refrigerated. You tell him to pound sand, you aren't selling for less than $1300. If that's you, yeah, you're a bad person. The free market is a great thing in normal times when things are working on a standard, every day basis. Emergency situations don't call for that. If you can't see that, you might want to consider that your dedication to the ideology is cultish. Free markets exist to best serve people. Not the other way around.

[@nmmeswey3584]

​@@utah_koidragon7117 If the only guy who has a generator in town wants to sell his property for a 50% markup, if you make it illegal then he simply wont sell the fucking generator and the girl is still SOL. Price controls will also prevent anyone from bringing more generators into the disaster area, maintaining the scarcity situation for much longer, until after the cost and risk of business in the area reaches on par with the rest of the country (until the disaster is long over and that girl long buried).

[@hamnchee]

​@@utah_koidragon7117Why is demanding $800 not also a bad person indicator?

[@Logical_Lobster]

If we limit the price of the generators to $800-$900, then everybody who slightly wants one will buy them all up, so they can continue watching TV, playing video games, etc. They did the same thing with toilet paper, everybody bought up a six month’s supply until the shelves were empty.

[@utah_koidragon7117]

In your world, does everyone have $800 on hand at all times for an emergency, and does everyone who would have a critical need for a generator also have an additional $500 to pay the emergency premium? "Demand" in economic terms is a person's willingness AND ability to pay a certain price. You (and the producer of the video) seem to be operating on the assumption that everyone has the same ability to pay, and that the price only sifts buyers on their willingness to pay a higher price. It's not that way.

[@unfunnydave5485]

⁠​⁠​⁠@@utah_koidragon7117if people had the same willingness and ability to buy, this video’s conclusions would make zero sense. In the case of the video, if the person decides to raise prices beyond the point where the person who needs the product can pay, then the person can take out a loan, try crowdfunding, or try to get a charity to help. If I were to price gouge that generator, then people who don’t need it that want it are LESS LIKELY to buy it off of you. Obviously if someone decides to pay the gouged price for recreational use then whatever, but the point is that the higher price results in much more conservation of the resources. If I don’t buy the generator, then obviously someone else can buy it. If the person really needs the resource more than anyone else, they are more willing to pay. They certainly do have options to do so as I mentioned.

[@Logical_Lobster]

How would empty shelves help the poor? Even price controls on wages causes more qualified retired people who only slightly want to get a job to step in and take the jobs from people who desperately need them.

[@Spartan322]

@@utah_koidragon7117 Don't get into an economic argument when you don't understand economics 101, if you don't have the brain capacity for supply and demand, there is no reason you should ever breath an opinion on economics or business.

[@utah_koidragon7117]

@@Spartan322 Says the guy who doesn't understand what "demand" means.

[@jostkahmann]

If patents would not be a thing, price gouging would not be illegal.

[@Nathan-jh1ho]

It's the hoarding of supplies by opertunist who buy up all the suppliess and sell it at a ridiculous price that's bad. Nothing is wrong with higher prices due to instant increase of demand and limited supplies

[@Logical_Lobster]

Hoarding, market manipulation and price gouging is not a business strategy, and would never work, because it doesn’t add any value to the economy. No value means non-productive, which is the opposite of business. The entire point of busyness vs idleness is that it produces value. Otherwise there would be no point in doing it or participating as a customer, worker or owner.

[@machscga6238]

Where did you get a Generator of that size for $800?... thats some amazing deal

[@rsimpson69]

Laws against price gouging would seem to enforce themselves. If the price set is too high, no one pays it.

[@clairecelestin8437]

If you're in a survival situation and are in danger of experiencing hypothermia during the night, you know that in order to make a campfire, you have to feed resources like firewood into the campfire. We would understand that placing limits on the amount of wood that can be fed into the fire places the fire at risk. These principles which are true for campfires are true of other kinds of production as well. Most people are intuitively dialed into the consumer side of this, in which they feel like prices are unethical because they place consumption behind a paywall. However, it's crucial to remember that supply is also behind a paywall- creating goods and services always takes time, resources, and effort. Paying more for these goods and services makes more resources available to solve the supply problems. Strategies like anti-gouging laws, socialism, or even outright communism, even if they were enacted according to the best intentions of their designers, while appearing to "fix" the "unethical" paywall that limits consumption, fail to solve the paywall problems that limit production. And the fact that production is behind a paywall isn't a property of any economic system; it's a property of the laws of physics and especially the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Even in the worst cases, price gouging causes less harm than the shortages which result from price fixing. We have proof of this dating back to the Roman empire. Since the shortages cause more harm, we should see the shortages as the unethical option. And while the "increased price creates an incentive" arguments are true, we can make a stronger case by pointing out that even a do-gooder, not profit motivated, would become bankrupted if they try to create supply without taking in resources to enable that supply. You can't build a fire without gathering fuel, no matter what your intentions are.

[@Spartan322]

Don't even forget that there are also many people willing to consider assisting others charitably if they really are in a lethal circumstance, its generally uncommon for someone not to at least consider doing so under such circumstances.

[@AustrianEconomist]

This is an amazing comment. I wish I had more friends like you. Keep being awesome!

[@MohammedLiswi]

This is an eye opening point of view.

[@spongeintheshoe]

“First, remember, you don’t have to buy it from me for $1300. If that’s more than you think the generator is worth, you’re free to walk on by.” Unless of course you’ve got a kid who will die without it.

[@subnormalbark2683]

Kamala is sweating nervously rn...

[@AustrianEconomist]

Absolutely fantastic video. If the generator is still $800, I might buy it so I can keep playing video games. And then the people who need it for their sick loved ones, or hospitals, etc... will end up without enough generators. But if it's $1,300, you can bet that I'll think twice before buying it. And on average, you'll end up with less people buying that generator when they don't REALLY need it. Same with gas. I've seen several cases of ambulances running out of gas during disasters. This happens because the anti-gauging laws make sure that the price stays the same, so the absolute first thing that everyone does when a disaster hits is to go to the gas station and load up on as much gas as humanly possible. But if that gas price is allowed to go up significantly, then people would only buy as much as they absolutely need. And so there would still be gas available for ambulances. Etc.

[@spongeintheshoe]

Okay, but what if the ones who need it for sick loved ones can’t afford $1,300?

[@Zeero3846]

I would generally agree, but I've been on the search for arguments to the contrary because it's good to think about. One behavior that I definitely would ban are the last minute hoarders. These are not people who save for emergencies. They are opportunists who are not in want of supply, but they buy up all the existing supply in a local region to become the new sellers. They don't have relationships with existing suppliers, but only the retailers. It should be the retailers that raise their prices to send a signal to their suppliers. The hoarders only make the supply issues even more severe than they have to be because they are not that well-known, and people won't find the goods they need at the usual places. In any case, I would permit "price gouging" only in the case where stores maintain excess stock that can only be sold at a higher price. This keeps price from spiking faster than they need to be, and it discourages hoarders as well. Plus, while no one will buy these more expensive stock normally, it is well-known ahead of time what to expect from retailers when availability becomes constrained, getting in trouble when they go much higher than their original emergency pricing. This is not too much different from being able to view the order books on stock exchanges. At least you get some transparency.

[@dogunboundhounds9649]

There are so many issues with this thought. 1. Last minute hoarders are beneficial in that they will hold an item for a person who is desperate enough to buy it 2. These "opportunists" simply see a supply demand pricing issue with the local distributors and are temporarily adjusting local pricing of the good. There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of the situation at hand. It's really the local distributors whom aren't pricing in the good correctly. 3. What defines "excess stock"? That's non-enforceable. 4. Also, when supply demand shocks like this occur, it isn't easy to determine the correct price of the good in the current situation. Letting it go higher and higher is the only reasonable thing to do until no one is willing to buy. The other big situation is in these states where price gouging is illegal, I would not want to sell my generator at that time (even if I have a surplus). While the price is being enforced, the underlying value of the good is much higher than the price I can sell it for. Why should I sell it then? I'd be better off waiting until prices go down enough where I can legally sell it at, or sell it on the black market. Of course I might want to get rid of some of my generators, so I might sell it at a HUGE value loss, but that's a different scenario.

[@Jaburesu]

Manufactured scarcity is the real evil.

[@SangoProductions213]

Let's play devil's devil's advocate. I mean, there's electric generators, and then there's actual water, which is a non-conditional, required purchase in disaster areas. And just because Richy has the money to eat the higher premium like an Advil, that doesn't mean that he needs it more than Granny and her no-longer-refrigerated medicine. It just means he's got more money. Further, charity comes into the disaster zone. Taking from the charity for free, and putting a price on it, is rather scummy.

[@utah_koidragon7117]

Yep. The video badly misunderstands what economic demand is. It isn't simply a desire or need for something, it's also the ability to pay for it.

[@FourthRoot]

​@utah_koidragon7117 You missed the point.

[@utah_koidragon7117]

@@FourthRoot No, I really didn't. You simply want to ignore the fact that to accept this scenario, we have to be fine with the idea that a little girl dies because the generator seller wants to make a bigger profit.

[@FourthRoot]

@utah_koidragon7117 No, we have to acknowledge that people respond to incentives. That little girl isn't the only one in need. Others' lives depend on generators, too. If you ban people from raising the price, you ensure that the market has no financial incentive to bring in any more generators than normal. You're too focused on a single specific (imagined) instance to see the larger effect of the policy.

[@hamnchee]

​@utah_koidragon7117 Actually the little girl lives because generators suddenly flood the market.

[@Goabnb94]

The situation that enables "price gouging" to exist is reduced supply but increased demand. Implementing laws against it is saying you can't react to supply and demand. For somebody who just wants to continue gaming, they have lower demand at $1300, but for somebody who needs it to live, their demand is near infinite no matter the price. It keeps it available for those who need it. Its like with eggs going up in price, it means people don't want to waste eggs being dumb teenagers, and still allows people to buy eggs without having to be first in the queue. Those who have the supply benefit, and those who have the ability to join supply see that incentive and can get more eggs back to market and allow the price to stabilize again. You can't solve economic problems of supply and demand through taxes or price fixing.

[@macsnafu]

This is typical of modern society, the emphasis on "fairness" without consideration for the consequences of restricting economic activities. Supply and demand are always changing, and prices are information. If demand increases, and prices go up, that tells sellers that there are greater opportunities for profit, and spending more to get their products where they're selling higher becomes worthwhile, and thus increases the supply. Of course, an increased supply means that prices come down again, until you have a new equilibrium between supply and demand. This is especially good in times of natural disasters, because those hit by the disaster have temporarily more urgent needs and greater demands. Not only do anti-price gouging laws hurt those *most* in need, government help like through FEMA is notoriously inadequate to meet those needs. "Fairness" kills!

[@NewsChannel-y4g]

Do you believe no one would create a problem to gouge prices? Do you believe this doesnt already happen? It discourages people from creating problems like a door lock doesnt stop someone from breaking a window........it discourages problem creators.....

[@vss8773]

But what if you really need it more but can’t afford to pay more… are you just screwed?

[@Pisomojado162]

There's usually more than one solution to these problems. We mostly pay for convenience but the hard way although annoying will help out more in the end. But it's a valid question. Would you rather have the money to buy something but it's not available or not be able to afford that thing and work up to it?

[@ZanderSabbag]

The issue is that the situations where price gouging is most effective are when the buyers are vulnerable, such as with a sudden rise in demand (ex: a fad or a pandemic) or decline in supply (ex: a hurricane or trade blockade). If we consider the market as a whole, these situations fix themselves, but in a local scale, such as an individual town or venue, disruptions will damage buyers and the extra revenue won't be directed towards correcting the market. If price increases happened by themselves, that would be fine, but by the nature of the scenarios where gouging occurs, it walks hand in hand with issues like scalping, monopolization of goods, income stagnation, and removal of buyer protection measures like warranties. Not just that, people aren't perfectly logical, and will set the price beyond its new point of equilibrium, effectively reducing supply even further than it already had been. Again, these issues tend to fix themselves, but to say gouging is a good thing ignore the temporary issues people face. What actually is good are market fluctuations.

[@dk-bw4gk]

Imagine writing anti-gouging laws in your state and forgetting about the insulin makers.

[@fraybart]

You can see a classic argument for the morality of price gouging in Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, II-II, q. 77, a. 3 (reply to objection 4).

[@TheoTungsten]

Huh, this is recommended to the subscribers suddenly.

[@jona8953]

"Price gouging is good because then only rich people can afford necessary items while all the poors die." Cool outlook. Next video you should explain how trickle-down is helping everyone and OSHA is hurting businesses.

[@geninji6117]

Spot on❤

[@Logical_Lobster]

Price-gouging hoarders are better at distributing the items to the people who need them the most, while price fixers only sell to first come first served. Wouldn’t you rather pay extra to have somebody hold it for you than have to race for it like tickets to a sold out concert?

[@hamnchee]

Excellent point. Often the "service" you pay extra for, isn't even intended that way, but is a beautiful symbiotic phenomenon nonetheless, and all without sacrificing freedom. In fact it's BECAUSE of respect for freedom that it emerges.

[@Zeero3846]

If only they were actively distributing them. Often, you have to first know about them, and then go to them. One thing that might be better is if they were "hoarding" all year, advertising a higher price all that time. Yeah, no one's going to buy from them normally, but that's the point. They're supposed to just save for a rainy day. They can guarantee availability just by having stock they haven't sold all year because there's no emergency pushing the price up. This type of "hoarding" is a lot more acceptable if it's done ahead of time. The main problem is making sure there's plenty of these emergency stores around.

[@hamnchee]

@@Zeero3846 Then do that!

[@DieNibelungenliad]

That assumes the people who need the product the most can afford to be the highest bidders

[@fluidicrift]

Forget natural disasters. Think about the price of Coca Cola in Hotels, Vendor machines, Casinos, Planes etc where the prices are so inflated we accept it as normal. People don't understand we already have surge pricing in the world and price gouging is pretty normal.

[@hamnchee]

@fluidicrift Normal, every day prices are price gouging because you could always make your own.

[@hfwilkesjr]

I may agree, price gauging is immoral but shouldn’t be illegal. I may also see looting as immoral but shouldn’t be illegal. Maybe.

[@TheLookingGlassAU]

Liberty without Charity is dominion of whoever has the stuff. its a different form of kingdom. You want to say you are moral but your morality is based on self. You sacrifice "the other" to benefit self. This video has problems because the proponent makes his argument then dictates the opposite - its a false restriction on reality. in other words its propaganda. But i suppose everything is these days. I reject the conclusions of this video - your reasoning distorts or artificially crafts a favorable definition of words that mean more or have deeper-wider meanings to the general listeners.

[@DieNibelungenliad]

To put it simply, the market is not charity. Its up to the gov to help those who can't afford their needs

[@godblessamerica3518]

Charity and philanthropy I think is what you meant.

[@mrskelington]

This makes no justification of people who are simply turning a profit out of someone’s else’s misfortune. Scenarios where price gouging opportunists bring goods to people who need it, are the minority exceptions and not the commonplace events within the economy. Opposing anti gouging legislation on these exceptions does not make sense to me. Price gouging also does nothing to address supply supply issues where the base product is in limited production. It just moves the limited from one place to another. It also does not get goods to those that need it most, it gets to those than can afford to pay. Need vs the means to pay should not be conflated. The only way to justify a price increase, is when a vendor needs to cover exceptional supply or transport costs, or exceptional risk when bribing goods to market. Anything g else is still immoral profiteering in my opinion.

[@grahamfinlayson-fife73]

Someone please send this to Kamala!

[@Kaede-Sasaki]

In a fair market, price gouging would be near impossible. When oligopolies and monopolies control prices as it is in the real world, not the theoretical, then price gouging is a major concern. Since these guys are anti-union, imagine monopolies and oligopolies as unions and price gouging as minimum wages. Then they'll be against it. 😂

[@Kaede-Sasaki]

Disappearance protection

[@Kaede-Sasaki]

Error 404

[@DieNibelungenliad]

Price gouging is not a good thing if you're a buyer. Its just the unfortunate reality of the market

[@homewall744]

Gouging isn't good, but raising prices during supply limits works to help drive an increase in the supply.

[@Spartan322]

No to mention it mitigates the supply to those who absolutely need it, and not those who merely want it.

[@bobsteve4812]

@@Spartan322The issue arises when those who need it no longer can afford it, even if they are lucky enough to be the first to come to get it. This is why anti-price gouging laws exist from the most ‘pro-freedom’ to ‘anti-freedom’ states. In most disaster zones time is at the essence and competition cannot arrive in time to increase supply and lower electricity costs in time

[@Spartan322]

@@bobsteve4812 All the price control does is ensure the first person that wants it gets it, not the one who needs it. Prices are literally a form of self-regulating information detailing necessity for resources without describing the specifics. Prices are a by product of market forces, supply and demand, emergencies are not and should not be separated from supply and demand else it causes shortages, any control over prices causes shortages. Non-regulated prices also encourages a deliberate contribution to the supply which will drive the price down even in the emergency rapidly, this has also happened historically before the emergence of statists interventionism.

[@popeye1313]

I disagree

[@aidorygregan3849]

Good points for the single hypothetical you’ve proposed. The problem is that it’s a false analogy. Your hypothetical assumes that (a) what is being gouged is not an essential (like food) and (b) there is a free market of more affordable alternatives. But the issue with price gouging today is that pseudo-monopolies have eliminated virtually all of their competition in crucial markets such as meat, oil, & housing, then communicate with other massive companies within their industry to price gouge together. This allows them to increase their profits collectively while leaving virtually no cheaper alternative.

[@Thereisnorules]

It motivates more supply eventually

[@mvflyhalf]

I can't tell if this satire or insane

[@spongeintheshoe]

Leaning toward insane.

[@ChrisWehadababyitsaboy]

Explain how it's never worked and save everyone from this clickbait

[@jamess9138]

I agree price gouging is awesome!

[@popeye1313]

Ask yourself am I stupid for listening to this guy

[@bobsteve4812]

I like to hear from ppl I vehemently disagree with, tho that may also make me stupid lol

[@popeye1313]

@@bobsteve4812 so tell me what was the purpose of the video then

[@bobsteve4812]

@@popeye1313 That price gouging is good because it supposedly increases supply and reduces shortages

[@sassafras8677]

supply side economics

[@alexissvetrev]

Sadly we have preached robinhoodism for too long...

[@jonathankr]

I guess the fire truck should wait for a better house before saving your burning house. Maybe a more expensive house is burning.

[@RedHuntsman]

Apples and oranges

[@MarcPagan]

In an more perfect world - Econ 101 would be required every high school taking $1 or more in Federal funds. There's no such thing a "price gouging" ..it's market pricing. Period.

[@Nathan-jh1ho]

There is hording though. Like one person buying up all the generators from all the local store then charging a ridiculous markup. I think it should be illegal to deliberately aquire most of the supplies, from an area suffering from an emergency situation with the intention of making a profit. This doesn't affect somone who bought the supplies from an area not effected by the emergency, brought it to the area effected by it for sale.

[@utah_koidragon7117]

Whether you want to call it price gouging or characterize it as market pricing, the issue is whether or not it's an appropriate, moral way to behave in the specific situation of an emergency.

[@AustrianEconomist]

@@Nathan-jh1ho I truly understand where you're coming from and I believe you make a fair point. The issue is that in the real world that law will be crafted by corrupt politicians and will end up being modified 17x before it gets approved. And the end result will be a garbage piece of legislation that does not actually help anyone and only makes things worse. Unfortunately, to make it illegal to "deliberately acquire most of the supplies", there's a lot of moving parts. How do you define "most" in that sentence? What qualifies as a supply? How can you prove it was deliberately malicious? etc. The truth is that the best way to make sure people are being helped as fast and efficiently as possible is to just let the market work without the government getting involved. Unfortunately, politicians tend to destroy every single thing they touch and this is not an exception...

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

In a perfect world, that would add up to zero high schools.

[@DieNibelungenliad]

Price gouging just refers to raising prices relatively high in a time of great need. Its just an unfortunate reality of the market

[@staceyvangorderleung928]

I strongly disagree with the argument presented. When large companies dominate the market for essential goods, such as food, they can exploit their monopoly to drastically raise prices. In the U.S., many people only have access to one or two supermarkets, which are often owned by the same company. This lack of competition can lead to price gouging, making essential goods unaffordable for those who need them most. It's ethically questionable to hike prices on necessities during emergencies. While the argument suggests that higher prices are justified because they regulate demand and incentivize supply, this perspective overlooks the real-world consequences. People can’t simply "walk away" from needing food or other essentials, and in a crisis, many don't have the luxury of waiting for prices to fall. Limiting purchases per person or implementing fair distribution methods, even with their flaws, would be a more humane approach than allowing price gouging. Such measures would ensure that everyone has access to basic needs without taking advantage of their desperation. The argument that high prices encourage competition and increase supply might make sense in theory, but in practice, it can leave the most vulnerable people even worse off. Anti-gouging laws might not solve the underlying shortages, but they help protect individuals from being exploited in times of crisis. It’s crucial to find a balance that addresses both supply and fair access, rather than prioritizing profit over people’s basic needs.

[@armonbrown8196]

The issue comes when there isn’t competition in a market and the few that are in the market conspire to fix prices like so many industries in our country. For example there are now 4 major airlines in operation in the U.S. which is a problem when it comes to competition in the market. Consolidation in the market is wrecking how the economy should work for everyone. Robert Reich talks about these kinds of things often.

[@Queue3612]

1:14 "You dont have to buy" Except for when you do. When the alternative is death there is no choice. Its exploitation and borderline extortion. There is no way you can argue that charging more to people who absolutely need what your selling, specifically because they need it, isnt morally wrong. Oh, also, monopolies price gauging because there is no alternative. Its buy at gouged prices or not at all, which isnt a real choice.

[@RedHuntsman]

Price gouging laws only benefit the early birds for high demand products. If you need something to survive, it doesn't help you when it's sold out. Also early birds have no incentive to not hoard, which will make it less likely others won't be able to buy something at any price.

[@thebeatmakingbeard]

Or 4, you have to buy the generator because this guy has the only one around and you need it to save your daughters life

[@utah_koidragon7117]

Or you can't, because you don't have $1300. Or you do have $1300, but someone else with $1300 got their first, exactly as might happen if the generator was still priced at $800.

[@FourthRoot]

If "price gouging" is legal, then he won't be the only seller.

[@nmmeswey3584]

If he can't make a profit on the sale of the generator, he wont sell the fucking generator and your daughter will still be SOL. And if generators are forced to sell for the same inside and outside a disaster area, aint no one thats gonna bring more generators in.

[@utah_koidragon7117]

@@FourthRoot The entire point is that there is a critical shortage of available, necessary goods because of the emergency. Do you have any real world examples in which price gouging led to the rapid influx of necessary goods to an area stricken by disaster, and in which those goods were distributed to those according to who needed them the most?

[@utah_koidragon7117]

@@nmmeswey3584 I don't know if you've noticed, but we bring goods- generators, water, food, clothing, medicine, etc etc in to disaster areas all the damn time. Just so we're clear, though, you're cool if that kid dies because the guy with a spare generator wanted to make a bigger profit on it while the power was out.

[@DearSX]

What a bs argument

[@popeye1313]

Yes so where are you morals

[@hypocriticalnihilist645]

The point of laws against price gouging is that, in the lead up to a disaster, people would purchase all the water and all the generators beforehand, and many people will never get an opportunity to purchase them, leaving them at the mercy of what amounts to a ticket scalper. Also, Buford and Patsy don't have $60 to buy six bottles of water for themselves and their four children, after they've lost everything. Meanwhile, the DINKS up the street, the ones who didn't just leave town because they could afford it, can purchase your water and generator no problem. So, the idea that you're helping by trucking water to Florida from Georgia and selling it at a price that the people in the greatest need cannot afford is false. It's also illegal for gas stations to jack the price of gasoline up when they know that people need it the most, because you moved from a capitalist market to a captive market.

[@ExPwner]

Ticket scalpers aren’t a bad thing

[@hypocriticalnihilist645]

@@ExPwner That's an opinion statement.

[@ErikLiberty]

The prospect of higher profits encourages entrepreneurs to take risks (like trucking water from Georgia to Florida) that ultimately increase supply in disaster areas. The expectation of higher prices during emergencies also encourages individuals and communities to be better prepared in advance. As professor of economics and finance Mark J. Perry states, "Anti-price gouging laws are really ‘pro-shortage’ laws." Historian/economist Tom Woods wrote the following on his newsletter, Aug 30, 2019: I live in central Florida, so it's looking like I'll get hit by Hurricane Dorian sometime on Monday. I'm well stocked with necessities, but should I need something in a pinch, I sure hope price gougers will be around, doing their socially and economically responsible work. When there's a sudden spike in demand for a good, and supply hasn't had time to adjust, prices rise. And thank goodness. If prices stayed the same or increased only slightly, no one would bother conserving these scarce things. Instead of a family of five huddling in one hotel room, they might splurge and get two rooms -- thereby leaving one fewer room available to another desperate family during an emergency. If the price of water stayed the same, they might consider washing their kitchen counter with it. But when the price is allowed to rise, they use the water only for its most urgent uses, thereby saving water for others who likewise have urgent uses for it -- you know, like drinking. If prices are allowed to rise, potential suppliers will come out of the woodwork, driving from all over the state and even from out of state to help people and thereby get a share of the dough. The shortage will be alleviated all the faster. If prices aren't allowed to rise, well, maybe a complete stranger won't feel like driving 12 hours to help you. In short, I need the price system far more than I need government assistance. Almost no one thinks about things this way, unfortunately.

[@hypocriticalnihilist645]

@@ErikLiberty And yet, despite all that economic theory, many people still bring products into disaster zones, both before and after it hits, and charge a legal mark up. I'm not against people buying up hundreds of Taylor Swift tickets, iPhones and Xboxes to sell at an exorbitant price. Those are not necessities. Those markets are driven by desire.

[@Logical_Lobster]

Businesses profit from being helpful, not from gatekeeping. If gatekeeping was a profitable strategy, we would be surrounded by worthless gates, rather than by valuable goods and services.

[@christianchellis9057]

I’d say to prevent prevent price gouging the government should organize greater supply of such goods to the emergencies.

[@dk-bw4gk]

How are you going to get more gas to a flooded area? What, you're still in that area? Why's that? Oh, anti-gouging laws let the first 50 people take it all? We'll, at least there was no gouging and everyone feels it was fair.

[@DearSX]

Gaslightning at its finest

[@jameswheeler-69]

They blamed it all on inflation as an excuse for their record profits?? BS........GREED... No reason a bag of Doritos should be 7 dollars...... Half the bag is air anyway....

[@Kodeb8]

based as fuck

[@shortoneverything]

this is politics not economics

[@FourthRoot]

It's economics applied to politics.

[@hamnchee]

It's economically political.

[@Spartan322]

Its economics 101, supply and demand, if you don't have the intelligence for economics 101, you shouldn't breath out any statement over business nor economics, you lack the brain capacity.

[@FourthRoot]

@hamnchee The conclusion is political, the logic used to reach it is economics. Nobody would ever draw this conclusion absent sound economics supporting it.

[@hamnchee]

@@FourthRoot It's politically economic.

[@crb4059]

"Price gouging" cannot be maintained for long, like a monopoly, the intial high prices will encourage new entrants into a free competitive marketplace, thus depressing prices naturally. Any perceived "shortage" is thus ameliorated.

[@spongeintheshoe]

Once is often enough to ruin a person’s day.

[@GalrieXII]

I wanted to be respectful and listen to the entire video before I responded, so I did, and you still stuck with the traditional capitalist arguments. There are several flaws though in this line of thinking. First, the problem with price gauging is the issue of temporary scarcity. In a system that has a free flow of goods, price gauging is (mostly) impossible. Raising the price of something isn't called gauging, raising it in response to temporary or artificial scarcity is. If generators COULD be simply brought into the middle of a hurricane, then you wouldn't -need- price incentives for people to do it. If something is profitable at $800, and suddenly demand spikes, then people will work to fill the gap, because selling five generators at $100 profit is better than selling none at $600. Second, your argument regarding a first come first serve basis is not actually better in any meaningful way. At least with time and preparation, an individual is limited by their own choices. When you price gauge you are limiting a resource that is fundamentally more finite. And the third flaw is that when you consider the notion of "it helps people who can't afford it by driving price incentives and bringing more stock to drive back down price through competition," you fail to account for urgency. If my kid needs insulin and I need refrigeration for said insulin, it literally makes no difference if I can get an affordable generator tomorrow, that won't keep the insulin chilled today. So if I cannot afford the price gauged amount for the generator, the movement of market forces means nothing to me and doesn't help me in my vulnerable state. All in all, trying to equate price gauging to markets increasing prices is a false equivalency, and assuming you're an economist, you should feel ashamed for conflatinf the two.

[@AllanColePlus]

Well said. I couldn't articulate the holes in this example, but you nailed it👍🏽

[@Mr.Witness]

All of those things are moral and therefore should be legal. Your needs are not anyone elses obligation to fulfill or care about.

[@GalrieXII]

@@Mr.Witness Hmmm, I didn't think that morals should decide laws. I in fact don't think morals exist, I think we have a set of guidelines that we follow, generally a reflection of our society, and we establish laws with those guidelines, for better or worse in some place. But I actually wasn't explicitly arguing for or against the legality or morality of their point, simply showing that their argument was full of holes and isn't actually meaningful for providing what they indicated it proved.

[@Mr.Witness]

@@GalrieXII guidelines guided by what?

[@GalrieXII]

@@Mr.Witness What the society has come to a consensus about what is right. "Morals" are necessarily absolute, otherwise they don't really function as morals right? So by virtue of the fact that all laws are not the same everywhere, morals cannot be the thing that was used to create them.

[@bjorn_moren]

In reality price gouging is so detested by the general public that who ever practices it in a time of need will not get any more business.

[@utah_koidragon7117]

So, in your hypothetical, the little girl dies but it's for the greater good?

[@AnimeBeefRandoms]

No, the little girl dies if there is government control on pricing.

[@utah_koidragon7117]

@@AnimeBeefRandoms Fair enough. In the hypothetical as presented, the girl lives because her parent has $1300 to spend on a generator that costs $800 in non-emergency times. So whether the girl lives or dies is dependent on whether or not her parents can afford the $800 generator at an additional $500 premium. Do I have that right?

[@utah_koidragon7117]

@@AnimeBeefRandoms See, the issue is that the hypothetical assumes that putting a higher price on the generator means that the generator will somehow get distributed to people who need it the most, because people who need it the most will value it the most and be more willing to pay the higher price. The *obvious* flaw is that putting a higher price on it only means that people who have enough money to afford it can make the choice to buy it or not, and most people won't have enough money to be in that position in the first place. The scenario pretends to be aimed at distributing critical necessities to those who need them the most. In reality, it's only aimed at maximizing the profit of the seller.

[@AnimeBeefRandoms]

@@utah_koidragon7117 A higher price incentivizes people to produce more of that stuff meanwhile gov control pricing creates shortages. In this example this kind of a system gives the little girl the BEST chance of getting a generator, in an alternative socialist system, no one gets the good and everyone dies. Also in a market system, sure the sellers are maximizing profits, but at the same time the buyers are maximizing savings, meaning they can easily by from someone else. The prices are set by supply and demand not just the seller.

[@Nathan-jh1ho]

​@@utah_koidragon7117in your hypothetical, there will just be no generator for sale.

[@voluntarism335]

There is no such thing as "price gouging"

[@ThomasAtkinson-t8r]

you are right, and there is no god, at least not one that gives a shite

[@smokinjoeblues]

The issue with videos like this is that they present an idealized version of “Economics 101” that doesn’t align with reality. For instance, the speaker claims that the “profit motive encourages competition, increases supply, and ultimately drives down prices to a more affordable level for everyone.” While this might hold true in a theoretical, perfectly competitive market, it falls short in the real world, where monopolies and oligopolies exist. Take the U.S. grocery industry as an example. Nearly 80% of all groceries are supplied by just a handful of companies (four or fewer). These companies don’t set prices based purely on the dynamics of supply and demand. Instead, they price their products based on what they can get away with, maximizing their profits at the expense of consumers. And yet, despite these realities, some people continue to defend this video’s thesis statement. This is astonishing because (1) it doesn’t align with how markets actually work, and (2) it tries to justify a practice that hurts consumers (i.e. YOU). Good Lord...

[@tomatopotato2881]

Most of those large discount grocery retailers though like Wal-Mart, Kroger, and Costco already operate at razor thin margins of 2% or less (sometimes as low as 1.2%) and only rake in profits due to sheer volume. It's unreasonable to expect them to lower their prices any further unless they can reduce their input costs/overhead (ex: lower tax/regulatory burdens or lower wages for their employees).

[@KnowThyFulcrum]

I haven't seen the video yet, but the title makes me want to say right off the bat, that price gauging creates demand for prisoners. Not just metaphorically, but literally as well. Specifically referring to the for-profit prison industry. A society that incentivizes incarceration is doomed to fail

[@ExPwner]

This is utter nonsense. Private companies provide that to the government, and they make up a small minority of prisons and the prison population. They are not the driving force behind the rising prison population. More strict laws on the books drive that, and those laws have even been supported by public prison guard unions. The incentive has nothing to do with profit per se and everything to do with someone getting a job based on more people getting locked up.

[@cleverwitticismhere6922]

@@ExPwner No, he's right. There can be more than one driving force behind something. If you run a prison for profit, you have an incentive to ensure your prison stays full. For profit prisons also support more draconian laws the increase the prison populations. They are also encouraged to cut corners to rack up as much profit as possible. This incentive (cutting corners) exists in every market; however, in the normal good/service transaction, the buyer gives feedback on the product the enhances/damages the seller's reputation. This feedback mechanism doesn't work the same way because prisons exist mainly to... contain people. As long as they do that, people (in general) aren't as concerned about the ethical conditions of that containment. Now, is any of this to say the government would/does do it better? No. The solution is not to end for profit prisons. I think a better system may be to have an adversarial business relationship between prisons and some sort of "inspector." However, this would only work so long as there are people who care enough to fund such a business.

[@KnowThyFulcrum]

@@ExPwner those prison guard jobs should be left to increase or decrease naturally on its own without interference, else you create a profit motive that benefits from the denigration of society. in other words, the happiness of one need not have to depend on the unhappiness of others.

[@Spartan322]

That's first off an irrelevant conclusion fallacy, also profit is the only way to determine necessity accurately, supply and demand is basic economics 101, regulations against the natural result of supply and demand creates shortages because the first to come gets served first, not who needs it gets it, also if prisons need to exist, a profitable prison means taxpayers aren't wasting money, it runs more efficient and they don't have to steal from our pockets to fund it, course I don't believe in imprisonment at all anyway, either death, maiming, indentured servitude, or restitution, but if we're gonna have imprisonment, the only good way to do it is via profit.