View Single Post
Texrat's Avatar
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#13
Originally Posted by GeneralAntilles View Post
Well, yes and no. In the typical usage of the term "price-gouging" (which basically seems to just mean regular old supply and demand), I'd disagree—in that sense, it's a good thing, as it keeps the demand from grossly outstripping supply (as happens every time a hurricane rolls around in Florida), slows down the runs on emergency supplies, and helps keep certain individuals from buying way more than they need.

In the sense of abusing an emergency situation to jack prices beyond what demand justifies, well, right or wrong, who cares? Unless there's some major price-fixing conspiracy involving all suppliers, the market will take care of the issue itself and people will go elsewhere.

As it is, "price-gouging" laws mostly just result in insane rushes to pick up supplies people don't need and little incentive for suppliers to go to extra lengths to get more supplies to the area.
The qualifiers should be assumed in my post given the context (I did acknowledge regular supply and demand). But as I amended, petroleum (and ergo gasoline) no longer follow supply-and-demand and have not for years now. Unfortunately, recognizing a scarcity economy is almost always a hindsight sort of vision.

And while it betrays my cynical side, you seem to imply altruism on the part of producers that isn't there. Most operate out of self-interest (nothing really natively wrong with that) which at the peak and into the decline of any process starts working against the process. Thus the regulatory safeguards that many naively decry as unnecessary-- although they would be if we lived in Utopia.

Collusion also creates the same result. Ah, if only the gears of economy were naturally oiled and defect-free...
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net