Replies

During normal periods I would agree 100%. In events like this certain merchants have a monopoly and there is no other source.
When people can’t get certain things they die.
You’re just making excuses for being greedy.

You apparently can't read and process when it comes to an issue that raises an emotional note... the article is quite clear. That generator... or medical kit, or box of food... won't magically save more people just because it retains a certain price. It is still just ONE item. It's price is irrelevant, and it will not save more lives simply because there is a lower price tag on it.

However, as the article states, higher prices WILL cause those who are buying the items to make some measured decisions, and leave more available for OTHERS. THIS is how MORE lives are saved... and NOT by just allowing those who are first to the store to grab all of the supplies.

(Although, I think what could be the wisest pricing system would be to have the price increase for every subsequent item purchased. The first gallon water jug is $1. The second is $2. The third is $4. That will make one pause before buying the 8th gallon jug for $128. That leaves many more jugs for the rest of the people that have not yet gotten to the store, but does allow a somewhat rationed purchase for the ones who got there first. Just my idea formed on the spur of the moment.)

Note: Removing the "gouging" laws also allows for the "greedy" folk OUTSIDE of the disaster zone to bring their supplies in! Just like the Kentucky man who brought those generators down to NOLA, as mentioned above. Without the very moderate 100% increase in price, he never would have done that. The price increase used the simple mechanics of capitalism to draw MORE life-saving goods to the area! But instead of listening and processing an important and interesting point, you read the word "gouging", form pre-conceived conclusions, and refuse to allocate a single brain cell to the actual point being made. Typical of a Lefty, to be honest. See the Global Warming debate sometime. That's you, here.