Posted on 09/02/2005 10:05:18 PM PDT by NonZeroSum
With every disaster or crisis, it seems that the public, press and politicians require a remedial course in Economics 101. In fact, apparently we need an ongoing educational campaign even when there is no catastrophe, as demonstrated by the recent foolish legislation in the state of Hawaii to cap wholesale fuel prices. Note the subhead in the linked story: "Some analysts warn move may spur supply problems."
Really? Only "some"? Maybe they need to be more careful about which "analysts" they listen to. Whatever would we do without those other "analysts"?
Imagine the headlines, "Legislature Mandates Pi To Equal 3.00000 -- Some Analysts Warn Move May Spur Engineering Problems," or "King Canute Commands Tide To Recede -- Some Analysts Warn Move May Spur Wet Footwear Problems." What would we think of the analysts who thought that the proposed mandates were no problem, perfectly in consonance with the laws of physics and human nature? Even most people with typical journalism educations would recognize such heads and subheads as the jokes they are, but somehow when it comes to basic economics, the laws of supply and demand, and the function of prices in a market economy bizarrely remain subjects for public debate.
I write this little essay sadly, knowing that it's been written many times before, and that it will have to be written many times again, if history is any judge. It's hard enough to watch all of the suffering of these apocalyptic events on the Gulf Coast without having to contemplate as well the compounding of the problems that will be achieved in future days by editorial writers and public officials with their calls for defiance of economic reality. I grind my teeth in frustration at all of the economic damage that will continue to be wrought by well-meaning but economically ignorant people as they attempt to circumvent the most efficient means of delivering products and services to those areas in which they are needed most -- the market, with its pricing mechanisms.
Let's recap, briefly, for those who never took the class, or have forgotten it. It's really simple. In any locality, when the supply of a particular item is reduced with no change in demand, or the demand for it increased with no change in supply, or supply is decreased with a demand increase, prices will go up.
This is a signal to the market. To those demanding the product, it is a signal that the supply is relatively short, and that they should perhaps rethink the level of their demand, if possible. To the suppliers, it is a signal that more of the resources must be brought to market. In both cases, it will result in a change in behavior on both parties that will restore the balance between supply and demand. Moreover, it does so in a useful, quantitative way. It tells the supplier how much expense, risk and effort she should expend to increase the supply. This calculation may even bring new suppliers into the market. It also indicates the degree to which it is sensible for the consumer to change their demand. When by fiat we pretend that the price has not gone up, it's like covering up the signposts, and we shouldn't be surprised when those supplying no longer attempt to increase the supply, and those demanding can't be bothered to reduce their usage of that particular commodity.
What does this mean in the current situation?
Let us ignore for the moment the horrific situation in the worst-hit areas, in which first-worlders have been thrust into the third world literally overnight, many with no place to even sleep, let alone have access to food, water and other necessities or money with which to purchase them. In some of the other areas, homes are damaged, but intact and dry, and people have cash. Commodities like gasoline, perishable food and ice are in short supply. In fact, gasoline prices are rising across the nation, in response to the sudden reduction in refinery capacity on the Gulf Coast.
Consider -- if a gas station owner has gas, someone has to decide who gets it. If the price remains at pre-hurricane levels, many will fill their tanks, because they can afford to do so, against the chance (and even likelihood) that gas will later become completely unavailable (a self-fulfilling prophecy if the price is not allowed to rise). Many will do so even if they have no immediate need for it. But after the first few people do this, the gas will be gone, and none will be available for those who come after, because it's now tied up in the gas tanks of those who didn't really need it. Those who didn't get any may include emergency workers, or truck drivers who need it to go out and find other goods to bring in. It is likely worth more to them, but they didn't get it, because the price was artificially fixed. Moreover, had the price been allowed to rise, they would have been able to afford it, because they would have been able to demand more resources with which to pay for it -- the emergency worker might have had aid from local agencies to pay for it, or the truck driver might have been willing to make the investment in order to recover it by bringing in necessary goods (assuming, of course, that prices on those weren't capped).
Similarly, if ice prices rise to the market, the man who needs to keep his insulin cold for his diabetes treatment will place a higher value on it than the man who wants to keep his beer cold, and will have a better chance of getting it. The man who might rent two hotel rooms for his family for additional comfort might, in the face of appropriately higher prices, inconvenience himself and only get one, releasing one for another whole family.
This works for the supply side as well. Making and transporting ice costs money. When the local ice plant is out of commission, it has to be brought in from other locations, in refrigerated trucks, at higher gasoline costs. Who would bother to take the trouble, expense and risk to deliver it at a loss when they can only get the same price for it as before the hurricane?
Of course, some argue that prices shouldn't go up for stock on hand because the cost didn't go up. After all, the gas station owner is selling gas that he already paid for at pre-hurricane wholesale prices. Why should he make "obscene profits," taking advantage of a situation by jacking up the price when his price hasn't changed? But in reality his prices have already changed. He will have to replace the gas that he sells, and he knows, either indirectly because he understands the supply situation, or directly because he's gotten a call from his supplier, that the cost of his next tank load will be dramatically higher. In order to pay for it, he has to get as much as possible for the stock he has on hand, which means as much as the market will bear against his competition, if he has any. If he doesn't have any, then he just has to guess.
But won't some people make "unfair" profits from such "greed"?
Sure. Sometimes life isn't fair. We can't eliminate unfairness from life -- at best we can minimize it. But what's more unfair -- someone who supplies a community with needed goods while making a profit (at some financial, and even personal risk, given the breakdown of civil law in many areas, in which shipments can be hijacked), or someone who overpurchases and hoards a commodity because the price doesn't reflect the demand and supply? Ice at three dollars a bag doesn't do one much good if there are no bags available at that price.
The response to this, in turn, is that the solution is rationing. But is it more fair to have a bureaucrat, perhaps unfamiliar with the needs of the local community, making decisions about who should get scarce goods? Does the local commissar understand the market better than the market? We can recognize that when prices are high, some people of modest means may not get essential goods. A better solution for this is not to subsidize prices, which misallocate the resources due to the false market signals, but to subsidize the individuals who need help, by giving them cash or vouchers (somewhat akin to the food stamp program).
Price "gouging" is purely in the mind of the beholder, and there's no way to distinguish between it and the necessary signals that the market must have to ensure the most efficient use of resources. The price "gougers" are (often, if not always) the people who will have incentives to satisfy market needs as quickly as possible, and ensure that the economic recovery will occur. That some people may "unfairly" take advantage of this is a price we have to pay, and it's a small one compared to the alternative.
There has been much discussion recently (much of it foolish) of how this disaster was a result of "fooling mother nature," whether in the absurdity of asking whether or not it's a result of not acquiescing to the unjustifiable damage to our economy that would have resulted from the Kyoto Treaty, to the more sensible questions of how much effort we should expend to continue to divert the natural course of the greatest river on our continent. To whatever degree that's true, let us not compound the damage, and slow the recovery from it, by attempting to fool mother economics.
I had enough gas to last a day or two so I did not fill up. It is my belief that the media always reports things to be worse than they are.
Coming home yesterday afternoon I noted that several stations had dropped their price to $2.99 a gallon.
Walmart usually sets the price on gasoline in my town, but yesterday they did not. A regional chain of stations dropped their price before Walmart did. When I stopped at Walmart it was still $3.09. After purchasing some items, I noted as I left that now Walmart was $2.99 cents a gallon.
My son-in-law sets the gasoline prices in much of Ohio for a chain of stations. In each market an employee is charged with reporting all competitive prices.A price decision is then made based on a complex set of calculations. In some cases the decision may be to drop the price below the lowest competitor... Other times the price will be unchanged and still other times the decision will be to raise the price.
There are many factors in the equation but the lowest possible price is usually determined by costs. But there are time when the competition can force the price to be set below costs.
Setting prices either too high or too low could bankrupt the company. In todays volatile times, lots of higher ups are looking over son-in-laws shoulder. He had best not make any mistakes.
So what? Exxon will take a portion of that profit and explore more more oil (but not in the United States because of government regulation). Another portion will go toward maximizing the efficiency of current operations.
Of course some will go into the bank accounts of those in charge, which evokes the predictable (and ultimately irrational) emotional response.
Mostly true, but IIRC, there are anti-gouging laws in various States, maybe even federal.
And while we're on this discussion, now that gasoline prices are over $2 a gallon, could they drop the .9 cents from the end of the per gallon price, please? Say, $2.06, rather than $2.059. I mean, really. That might have been a clever deal back when gas was $0.399/gallon, but now? What's the point?
When there is no station down the street.
Some guy is lucky enough to have the only station that survived the Hurricain so he raises his price to $6.99 / gallon and $10 per bag of ice, because he knows people have no other option, even though he can get all he wants at $2.39 / gallon and $1.00 per bag of ice.
That is profiting at the expense of those that have no choice and should be illegal.
I would love to discuss your post, but the lack of paragraphs made it too hard to read.
Great post. Hooray for opportunists! Hooray for price gougers!
Whenever I see socialist tripe, I check the "born on" date. Trolls are like beer in that they're best ingested when fresh.
Nah, it encourages tanker trucks to come down and set up porta-gas stations in competition.
You notice the troll got nuked.
Do you know that for a fact? Florida attracts charlatans in the best of times, and hordes of them during disasters. Market mechanisms such as the prosecution of fraud and communication between market participants breaks down in an emergency. Unfortunately, Florida also requires occupational licenses for out of staters on top of the anti-gouging laws. It works for us. There may not be a need for it where you live.
I live in an area that was hit hard by Katrina. We had almost a million people lose power, which was actually much more than after Andrew. People in my neighborhood had no problem finding generators at the same price they were before the storm. I was also amazed at how easy it was to get tree cutting crews to clear up the downed trees and branches. I just don't see the shortages, but I do see the decrease in charlatans. If we really do need outside help, our wonderful governor can lift the restrictions.
Some years ago, there was a bad spell of winter weather here in PA. Everything kept melting in the day and re-freezing overnight. The stores were denuded of rock salt. A neighbor hopped in his car and drove to Northern Virginia, loaded up his car with rock salt at $1 or $2 a bag, drove it back to Philly, and sold it out of his trunk at $10 a bag. Everyone was damn glad to get it at that price, and he did well by doing good. I'm glad no government protected me from him.
I saw you post the same story after the hurricanes and the articles glorifying price gouging last year. My response is still the same. In Florida that wouldn't be considered price gouging.
Wasn't a troll and don't know why "nuked" -- maybe I missed some later intemperance? In nay case his post that I replied to is a great post, despite the grammar. He describes well the benefits of free markets and the utter foolishness of those who stand against them for perceived insults such as gouging or profiteering, etc.
My boss just changed my work schedule to 4 - 10 hour days instead of 5 - 8 hour days after seeing the prices! *Snicker*
I love it!
It amuses me to watch people panic over gas prices.
Towns don't demad gas, people do. For the most part 90% of NO and the surrounding area was evacuated. Unless they are dead, those people are still demanding gas.
LOL!
Not True.
Loss of power line triggers blackouts in Calif (Fri Aug 26, 2005)
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.