Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
A Steelman of Anti-Gouging-ism
Market-based allocation, in emergencies, denies the poorest access to $RESOURCE1 in any quantity, no matter how dire their need; meanwhile, the wealthiest have no requirement to consume less $RESOURCE1, as even 100x inflated prices are, to them, couch change.
Under direct allocation, however, the emergency has the same effect on everyone: they can get essential quantities of $RESOURCE1, but cannot consume as much as they might desire.
If it is possible, but expensive, to maintain reserve capacity of $RESOURCE1, such that, even in an emergency, supply will be sufficient to meet even non-essential demand, then the outcomes for a rich person are as follows:
Market-based allocation/build stockpile: plentiful $RESOURCE1 in emergency for self and others, higher expenses in other times.
Market-based allocation/no stockpile: plentiful $RESOURCE1 in emergency for self but none for others, lower expenses in other times.
Result: Rich person has no incentive to maintain reserve capacity.
Direct allocation/build stockpile: plentiful $RESOURCE1 in emergency for self and others, higher expenses in other times.
Direct allocation/no stockpile: limited $RESOURCE1 in emergency for self and others, lower expenses in other times.
Result: rich person has more incentive to maintain reserve capacity, as they can only continue their normal consumption habits in emergencies to the same degree as their impecunious neighbours.
Thus, prohibition of price-gouging falls under the umbrella of "ways to align the incentives of the powerful with the public good".
Even given the progressive 'love the poor give them everything', this is an argument for state intervention to buy the good at the market price and give it to poor people, not an argument to ban selling it at a higher-than-usual market price. If poor people can't buy it at $5000, a lot probably can't at $500 either, but some being able to at $5000 is better than nothing (and, if it's $5k, that - sort of, if you assume basic economics generalizes everywhere - means that there aren't means to bring the good to everyone who wants it, at least who can pay $500, so giving it to those who can pay $5k vs giving it to ... nobody, is the issue)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link