Price Gouging Saves Lives

In the evening before Hurricane Charley hit central Florida, news anchors Bob Opsahl and Martie Salt of Orlando's Channel 9 complained that we "sure don't need" vendors to take advantage of the coming storm by raising their prices for urgently needed emergency supplies.

In the days since the hurricane hit, many other reporters and public officials have voiced similar sentiments. There are laws against raising prices during a natural disaster. It's called "price gouging." The state's attorney general has assured Floridians that he's going to crack down on such. There's even a hotline you can call if you notice a store charging a higher price for an urgently needed good than you paid before demand for the good suddenly went through the roof. The penalties are stiff: up to $25,000 per day for multiple violations.

But offering goods for sale is per se "taking advantage" of customers. Customers also "take advantage" of sellers. Both sides gain from the trade. In an unhampered market, the self-interest of vendors who supply urgently needed goods meshes beautifully with the self-interest of customers who urgently need these goods. In a market, we have price mechanisms to ensure that when there is any dramatic change in the supply of a good or the demand for a good, economic actors can respond accordingly, taking into account the new information and incentives. If that's rapacity, bring on the rapacity.

Prices are how scarce goods get allocated in markets in accordance with actual conditions. When demand increases, prices go up, all other things being equal. It's not immoral. If orange groves are frozen over (or devastated by Hurricane Charley), leading to fewer oranges going to market, the price of oranges on the market is going to go up as a result of the lower supply. And if demand for a good suddenly lapses or supply of that good suddenly expands, prices will go down. Should lower prices be illegal too?

In the same newscast, Salt and Opsahl reported that a local gas station had run out of gas and that the owner was hoping to receive more gas by midnight. Other central Florida stations have also run out of gas, especially in the days since the hurricane smacked our area. Power outages persist for many homes and businesses, and roads are blocked by trees, power lines, and chunks of roofs, so it is hard to obtain new supplies. Yet it's illegal for sellers of foodstuffs, water, ice and gas to respond to the shortages and difficulty of restocking by raising their prices.

If we expect customers to be able to get what they need in an emergency, when demand zooms vendors must be allowed and encouraged to increase their prices. Supplies are then more likely to be sustained, and the people who most urgently need a particular good will more likely be able to get it. That is especially important during an emergency. Price gouging saves lives.

What would happen if prices were allowed to go up in defiance of the government?

Well, let's consider ice. Before Charley hit, few in central Florida had stocked up on ice. It had looked like the storm was going to skirt our part of the state; on the day of landfall, however, it veered eastward, thwarting all the meteorological predictions. After Charley cut his swath through central Florida, hundreds of thousands of central Florida residents were unexpectedly deprived of electrical power and therefore of refrigeration. Hence the huge increase in demand for ice.

Let us postulate that a small Orlando drug store has ten bags of ice in stock that, prior to the storm, it had been selling for $4.39 a bag. Of this stock it could normally expect to sell one or two bags a day. In the wake of Hurricane Charley, however, ten local residents show up at the store over the course of a day to buy ice. Most want to buy more than one bag.

So what happens? If the price is kept at $4.39 a bag because the drugstore owner fears the wrath of State Attorney General Charlie Crist and the finger wagging of local news anchors, the first five people who want to buy ice might obtain the entire stock. The first person buys one bag, the second person buys four bags, the third buys two bags, the fourth buys two bags, and the fifth buys one bag. The last five people get no ice. Yet one or more of the last five applicants may need the ice more desperately than any of the first five.

But suppose the store owner is operating in an unhampered market. Realizing that many more people than usual will now demand ice, and also realizing that with supply lines temporarily severed it will be difficult or impossible to bring in new supplies of ice for at least several days, he resorts to the expedient of raising the price to, say, $15.39 a bag.

Now customers will act more economically with respect to the available supply. Now, the person who has $60 in his wallet, and who had been willing to pay $17 to buy four bags of ice, may be willing to pay for only one or two bags of ice (because he needs the balance of his ready cash for other immediate needs). Some of the persons seeking ice may decide that they have a large enough reserve of canned food in their homes that they don't need to worry about preserving the one pound of ground beef in their freezer. They may forgo the purchase of ice altogether, even if they can "afford" it in the sense that they have twenty-dollar bills in their wallets. Meanwhile, the stragglers who in the first scenario lacked any opportunity to purchase ice will now be able to.

Note that even if the drug store owner guesses wrong about what the price of his ice should be, under this scenario vendors throughout central Florida would all be competing to find the right price to meet demand and maximize their profits. Thus, if the tenth person who shows up at the drugstore desperately needs ice and barely misses his chance to buy ice at the drugstore in our example, he still has a much better chance to obtain ice down the street at some other place that has a small reserve of ice.

Indeed, under this second scenario—the market scenario—vendors are scrambling to make ice available and to advertise that availability by whatever means available to them given the lack of power. Vendors who would have stayed home until power were generally restored might now go to heroic lengths to keep their stores open and make their surviving stocks available to consumers.

The "problem" of "price gouging" will not be cured by imposing rationing along with price controls, either. Rationing of price-controlled ice would still maintain an artificially low price for ice, so the day after the storm hits there would still be no economic incentive for ice vendors to scramble to keep ice available given limited supplies that cannot be immediately replenished. And while it is true that rationing might prevent the person casually purchasing four bags of ice from obtaining all four of those bags (at least from one store with a particularly diligent clerk), the rationing would also prevent the person who desperately needs four bags of ice from getting it.

Nobody knows the local circumstances and needs of buyers and sellers better than individual buyers and sellers themselves. When allowed to respond to real demand and real supply, prices and profits communicate the information and incentives that people require to meet their needs economically given all the relevant circumstances. There is no substitute for the market. And we should not be surprised that command-and-control intervention in the market cannot duplicate what economic actors accomplish on their own if allowed to act in accordance with their own self-interest and knowledge of their own case.

But we know all this already. We know that people lined up for gas in very long lines during the 1970s because the whole country was being treated as if it had been hit by a hurricane that was never going to go away. We also know that as soon as the price controls on gas were lifted, the long lines disappeared, as if a switch had been thrown restoring power to the whole economy.

One item in very short supply among the finger-wagging newscasters and public officials here in central Florida is an understanding of elementary economics. Maybe FEMA can fly in a few crates of Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson and drop them on Bob and Martie and all the other newscasters and public officials. This could be followed up with a boatload of George Reisman's Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, which offers a wonderfully cogent and extensive explanation of prices and the effects of interference with prices. Some vintage Mises and Hayek would also be nice. But at least the Hazlitt.

"Price gouging" is nothing more than charging what the market will bear. If that's immoral, then all market adjustment to changing circumstances is "immoral," and markets per se are immoral. But that is not the case. And I don't think a store owner who makes money by satisfying the urgent needs of his customers is immoral either. It is called making a living. And, in the wake of Hurricane Charley, surviving.

--- David M. Brown, a freelance writer and editor, is a resident of Orlando, Florida. dmb1000@juno.com. Comments can be posted on the blog.

Nothing beats the market when it comes to allocating scarce resources and he gave a good example to make his point.

If yer gonna be really hard bitten about it, then even curse the charities who send in supplies for free or dirt cheap. Poor Mr. Merchant who just bought a bunch of replacement water for $8 a gallon hoping to sell it for $10 is now sitting on, and eating, a big loss.

Which I think should stand as obvious, but some maniacs who want to worship the Market Uber Alles keep getting in the way. A market is a fine tool. It becomes instead a horrible master when the prophets of this god cry out to all and sundry: "Gouge!" "Gouge!" And when we see Marketgod damning those prophets of the Charity god who cry out "Give! All you can!"

I will leave this question to wiser heads than mine.

I don't want the government in it either wrt price controls and interfering with the free market.

However, to restore order, prevent looting, repair/reopen necessary infrastructure (bridges, clear roads, municipal water supplies, etc.), I feel they have a place.

The private sector is much more experienced and much better able to move goods from the warehouse to your house.

As far as the government is concerned - Just clear the damned road so I can go get the stuff!!!

You missed what I was saying (or trying to say). If I wasn't clear, I apologize.

After a tragedy strikes -- be it a natural disaster or a relative who gets shot -- there is no universal reaction. Some want to take away freedoms and others fight harder to maintain it. Some relatives of shooting victims call for gun control measures while others press for carry permits.

Some victims of flooding (hurricane, tornados, blizzards, etc) want government protections and some just prepare themselves better to deal with it the next time.

Re: #196

Everybody would. And it doesn't have to be expensive perishables. Normal "refrigerator food" is not all that expensive but you sure do need it.

My point was, however, had I made the trek "over the river and through the woods" and brought back a truckload of ice and water only to be met by the Ntl Guard "giving it away", I would be financially screwed.

"I did not sell out the stock in 5 minutes.

I did not shut the store down.

Pinhead? I guess you're entitled to your opinion......."

No, I think what you did was great. The other guy called me a pinhead for agreeing with you, after I called anybody who price gouges a pinhead.

Does this guy make his case?

No. Might as well have an auction with the highest bidder getting the ice. Sure, this is America, free market, capitalism, supply and demand, what have you, but in America there's also a little something called competition. The week after Charley when everyone's ice machines are working and the demand goes back to normal, the guy's customers will remember his shoddy business practices and will buy their ice down the street. Nope, the author doesn't make his case.

I could have raised prices but would be paying for it today. As it is, people still comment on the fact that I was available and didn't try to take advantage of their grief. They even talked about me on one of the local radio stations that was up on a genset. Had I, I would have far fewer customers today.

Ah ha! That's my point exactly. The guy didn't make his case. Sure, he would have made a killing off a few bags of ice, but he'd have also lost his customers. Supply and demand doesn't always work.

He is the one who showed the courage. He enforced quotas but sold at normal prices.

Courage is the act of risking yourself by doing the right thing. Quotas are not the right thing. A quota can be just as harmful as a shortage. If you need five bags of ice to preserve five hundred dollars worth of meat, a quota of one bag will not help you very much.

The dollar bill is the best ration card.

And you bash a straw person. The Florida law which raised this whole issue does not restrict Mr. Pickup Truck Man for selling a pint of water for $1000.

I think it does if you believe Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist:

"Florida has an anti-price gouging law that prohibits anyone from charging exorbitant prices for essential goods after the Governor declares a state of emergency following a disaster. This law makes it illegal for a business or individual to charge unconscionable prices for items such as food, lumber, ice, water, generators, and even motel rooms for no reason other than extra profit."

This is a very bad law because it is very vague. What is unconscionable? What "reason" is going to be accepted?

The law would restrict any honest person who wouldn't want to be arrested, forced to hire a lawyer and justify his costs or his reason for raising prices.

Well it had better be SO good that you can afford to move out of there lickety split as soon as disaster is over, and oh that you can also forget about your former friends and neighbors.

I really depends on your friends and neighbors. The wise ones will understand why prices rise during shortages. The pinheads won't. The trouble is, the pinheads are the ones who make the most trouble and make the most noise.

In this world, young man, there are some things which cannot be measured in dollars and cents.

When I was a young man, I had this same argument and I was accused of talking like an old man. Now I am accused of talking like a young man.

There are things that are more important than money. Having supplies of essential goods is more important than money. Therefore it is best to allow price to meet demand so that essential goods will be kept in supply.

One thing I have observed: when oil supplies get scarce, petroleum product prices go up. When oil gets more plentiful, these prices STAY up, at least for quite a while.

In 1998, I recall buying gas in California for less than a dollar a gallon. I would wager they were selling at a loss. Merchants sell below costs all the time for a lot different reasons. If costs fall they may have to sell below what they bought it for to meet competitor's prices. They will need the money so they can replenish stocks at the new, lower costs.

If demand falls, merchants have price wars until good times recover or until one is forced out of business.

You may escape the court of law, but the court of public opinion is more ruthless.

Public opinion doesn't determine right and wrong. A public that can't understand market forces will force the markets away. They get what they deserve.

My point was, however, had I made the trek "over the river and through the woods" and brought back a truckload of ice and water only to be met by the Ntl Guard "giving it away", I would be financially screwed.

Exactly. There are enormous risks. That's why you should be allowed whatever profit necessary to offset the risks.

Supply and demand doesn't always work.

Sure, he would have made a killing off a few bags of ice, but he'd have also lost his customers.

And the customers would have lost a supply. Where would you rather live during a disaster? In a neighborhood where essential supplies are available at a price or in a neighborhood where nothing is available at any price?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.