Posted on 08/17/2004 3:49:10 PM PDT by beaureguard
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.
Yes. Higher prices encourage conservation and provide incentives to increase supply. They also allocate use to the highest valued users.
I suppose if you think that monetary transactions are the only true measure of moral interaction, then I suppose be makes his case.
However, if one believes there is a moral difference between "can" and "should," (i.e., I "can" charge $25 for a gallon of water, but "should" I?) then I would say that he has not made a case for anything except his own moral obtuseness.
Whether it's immoral or not is beside the point.
Human beings react instinctively against gouging. That's why this author's point, whatever it is, will always fall on deaf ears.
This doesn't work: you're applying long-term market considerations to an intrinsically short-term problem.
Capitalism is freedom. Anything else is not.
"Does this guy make his case?"
Yes. Let the markets work. Selling anything for less than the market price should be a voluntary act of charity.
I will concede he has made his case when they stop going after scalpers at sporting events... It seems to me that if it OK to "gouge" those that are in need from a disaster, it should be fine and dandy to get outrageous prices for scarce tickets to games...
It works in the short term too. If a store only has 500 gallons of gasoline, does it sell it to the first customers who come along? If consumers fear a shortage, people could start hoarding by filling up their tanks. If the price remains the same as prior to the disaster, the store quickly runs out of fuel. Then no fuel will be available at any price. Also, those who filled up before the store ran out would be in a position to sell fuel from their gas tanks on the black market.
As somebody who has been a contractor for 30 years dealing with these situations, I can tell you it is much more costly to provide services to people in these kinds of catastrophe situations.
It takes longer to get from place to place. I have great difficulty getting supplies and materials and they cost me more. I may have to pay more to get labor. The "friction" of business increases exponentially.
So either I need to charge more for a similar service or I can't afford to provide the services they desperately need.
Human beings react instinctively against gouging.
In a vacuum he makes his point.
I operate a small grocery store in Virginia's Northern Neck. When Isabel came through here last year we were without power (and everything else) for a minimum of four days, some places, as much as two weeks. I kept the store open with a battery powered calculator, a cigar box, and a sidearm. I was the only game in town. I raised not one price. My ice and water went in a matter of hours.
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.
I understand the laws of supply and demand perfectly but profiting on the backs of my own neighbors during a time of universal suffering is not my idea of how to run a business or be a responsible member of a small community. I have to live here when the weather is nice too.
My two cents worth from personal experience...
Let me use your extreme example a different way:
Suppose the dying person doesn't have $25 for that life-saving drink of water. The water seller can refuse to sell him the water at a lesser price. The question is, should the water seller refuse, and thereby let him die?
I hope the extreme example illustrates what reading my post failed to -- namely, the possibility that there is a difference between "can" and "should".
Wow. Excellent post.
I've often wondered how effective these restrictions on price gouging are, anyway. Couldn't a business owner circumvent them by simply announcing that he was selling his scarcest products at an open public auction in his parking lot?
He falls in the same category as those who blame the weather service. I'll have to say he's quite detailed and extravagent in his reasoning. Would have been far more efficient to say, "here's my dumbass idea".
How about this: Some yahoo with a truck who lives 500 miles from the disaster sees a report on TV about price gouging and decides to get some of that $25 per gallon for himself. So he loads up his truck with bottled water and sets off to make his fortune.
If he gets there quick enough he might sell some of that water for several bucks a gallon, but most likely he will have to sell it for a small profit if at all. That's because there are lots of other yahoos with trucks who watch TV and would like to make a quick buck.
God bless yahoos with trucks and God bless America.
well I suspect if someone tried selling water for $25 a gallon he would have no store left by the next day, some "natural" disaster would hit it in the middle of the night..
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.