It’s not about rich, it’s just about not poor. That’s the key to the gouge. If you jack up the price to $100 yeah the people have to be rich, and now even at that price you’ll be finding a way to not sell stuff. But if you only jack a $1 bottle $5 plenty of non-rich people can still buy all they can carry, you just happen to get 5 times as much money. There’s gonna be a small handful of people that can’t afford the new price, they’re screwed. So the same number of people don’t get water, only instead of it being only the slow that arrived too late you add some poor that got there early.
The only difference is your profit. That’s why it’s called price GOUGING, because you’re using the unusual market situation to maximize your profit while not actually doing anything that helps any more people that you were before.
The higher prices don’t impose thrift, they just keep some people out of the market. The people that can afford your new prices will still buy all they can carry. All that you do is swap early people who could have afforded your old prices with late people who can afford your new.
“If you only jack a $1 bottle $5 plenty of non-rich people can still buy all they can carry”
Then the “gouger” didn’t set the price high enough. Ideally it would be where bilk buyers were turned away in favor of the more eesperate. But surely less people will buy at 5 than 1, and more will get water. The best way to ensure a maximum of unnecessary bulk buying is to leave prices at pre-disaster levels, which is what you’re advocating.
Also, you are still pretending as if all that matters is the brief window in which the supply masts. What do you think attracts more supply where it’s mist needed? It isn’t low prices.
“The only difference is your profit. That’s why it’s called price GOUGING, because you’re using the unusual market situation to maximize your profit”
At least you’re admitting it is a market situation, and at least fir the moment not calling it “artificial.” What’s the matter with “using” it in this way, praytell? Market situations can only be usual for you yo make a profit? Why, when your profit making provides a public service—and we know it does because if it didn’t you wouldn’t be making money?
I see where you’re coming from, truly. Firstly you don’t think it’s right to profit off misfortune. Secondly you can’t see or don’t admit the efficiency if higher prices. Because of that you view “gougers” the same way progressivejournalists and historians managed to paint the “robber barons” of old. The original robber barons were thieves who controlled strategic points on rivers and were able to extract tribute from passing boats. Stretching the metaphor allowed people to imagine as if 19th century captains of industry stole from customers by carving out a niche in the market and holding up traffic until they extracted their tribute.
It wasn’t the same, except for when they partnered with government. Disaster profiteers aren’t thieves for “taking advantage of” unique market conditions. Even if they didn’t serve various beneficial economic purposes they wouldn’t be thieves. For that which they take advantage of is the market, and it is not artificial, though it is unusual. Their goods are theirs and they are free to sell at what price and with whom they want.
It so happens that their wanting profit, as is only natural, benefits the public through more efficient rationing. You and those like you wouldn’t have it that way because it seems wrong. Profiting off disaster must be wrong, and so you wrap your brain in circles arguing against common sense, like pretending raising the price won’t lower demand.