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.
“During normal periods I would agree 100%”
But during disasters it’s all the more important.
“When people can’t get certain things they die”
Exactly. And what woukd prevent them from getting what they need to live? Below market prices, that’s what. I don’t know why people can’t see this. Sentiment blocks reason, I suppose.
“In events like this certain merchants have a monopoly and there is no other source”
People have various misconceptions concerning monopolies, but perhaps the biggest is the delusion that they can set prices completely arbitrarily. But they do still have to worry about demand, and they do still want to dispose of their remaining stock in the most profitable means possible. And in this situation as in others profit is your friend. It ensures that information about scarcity is broadcast, and it ensures yesterday’s prices do boot screw desperate customers put of sorely needed items.
The danger of monopoly is when it bars the entry of competition, which requires government collusion. Arguments have been made, also, to preempted what are known as “natural monopolies,” which has gifted us public utity companies and the like. A local monopoly on selling bottled water during a hurricane us a sort if natural monopoly. Would you prefer state-run hurricane convenience shops to preempt evil, greedy price gougers? Or should stores be confiscated by the national guard in times of trouble? If you think price fixing works I guess that’d work.
“You’re just making excuses for being greedy”
Am I? Is it greed that makes selling in a disaster extra profitable? Try hacking up prices under normal conditions and what happens? Customers run away. What’s different during a crisis? Demand is higher and future supply in doubt. Steve Jobs became a kabillionaire fulfilling demand for various electronic gizmos. How come that’s okay but not the corner grocery store to make money off more essential goods? And furthermore, to fulfill the much needed function of rationing goods so that those who need them most can get them (yes, by paying more, as if that’s evil)?
I should think the fact that they can make such a profit would be proof that their goods and services are needed. But I guess you want them suddenly to be a charity. Who needs the profit motive? It’s not as if it ever induced anyone to do needed things which they otherwise wouldn’t. And it’s not as if we should expect people to pay for their own survival. It’s not as if we’re responsible for ourselves or anything.
I belonged to a free-market economic discussion group years back. We had heated discussions with people over this exact issue.
We had complex thought experiments that went through the entire process under the conditions of a truly free market-system and true Liberty. We used only ice as the product delivered.
What was concluded was that a system without any government interference whatsoever (i.e. let prices be what the may) that what your call greedy was in fact the superior method to deliver needed goods in the most timely fashion and at the least cost.
Space does not permit me to explain in detail, but the fallacy of blaming "greed" is strictly the result of the indoctrination of progressive ideas.
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.