The State of Florida has activated its price-gouging hotline in anticipation of Tropical Storm Fay. "Price gouging statute violators could be fined $1,000 per violation, up to $25,000 for multiple violations in one day."
Florida gas stations are starting to run out of gas in anticipation of Tropical Storm Fay:
Gas stations around Southwest Florida seem to be well-supplied this afternoon as residents prepared for tropical storm Fay.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection surveyed 79 gasoline facilities in Lee, Collier and Charlotte counties. Only four reported being out of fuel.
Charlotte County seems to be the most fuel-strapped. It had 11 stations that reported being “low on fuel” and two that were out.
In Lee County, 24 stations reported having “plenty of fuel,” one was out and none of them reported being low. In Collier, 25 stations reported plenty, four were low and one was out.
Goza said two of the 7-Elevens in Cape Coral had run out of gas Sunday, but were now fully stocked.
At the Murphy USA station across Colonial Boulevard in Fort Myers, business was livelier. Cars and trucks lined up two to three deep at each pump. Diesel fuel was out, but all other tanks seemed fine.
It is almost as if the two stories are related in some way...
Anyone who witnesses the law of supply and demand being honored, I mean "suspects price gouging is asked to call 866-NO-SCAM."
Related Posts (on one page):
- In Defense of Price Gouging:
- Gasoline "Price-Gouging":
As opposed to when gas stations run out of gas?
Our collective bleeding heart tendencies just exacerbate the supply problem. Price gouging laws cause many more problems than they solve (which would be, precisely, zero).
For example, we might prefer that a poor person get his or her first jug of water in an emergency, before a rich person gets his or her sixth jug. Though this rationale would not seem to apply as well to gasoline, as I doubt the rich are filling up storage tanks on their estates.
But the whole point is that people CAN'T get supplies because sellers aren't the only ones with "baser instincts." Consumers have "baser instincts" too, and one of them is to hoard more than they need, resulting in widespread shortages.
Consumers can only obtain supplies if stores carry inventory. Carrying inventory costs money. Allowing stores to "gouge" means that stores can afford to carry more inventory, which means that more people will be able to obtain supplies. It also sends the price signals that motivate those with the means to bring goods to disaster areas to do so.
If you support anti-gouging laws, that's fine, but at least admit that there are costs to your approach. Sure, store owners won't be "unjustly enriched," and that may make you feel better. At the same time, there will be fewer goods to be had, and those few won't be distributed any more fairly (indeed, it will enable the rich to hoard even more of precious resources, provided they get in the queue early)
Always the altruist equivocation of "failure" with "misfortune".
What you do not account for is that gas stations that are completely, physically out of gas are a worse calamity than finding one that is asking $20 a gallon -- because in the latter case, everyone who comes after the last gallon is sold is screwed, instead of merely the unprepared. Perhaps that is your goal -- to make the disaster egalitarian, instead of attendant upon individual foresight?
The higher prices naturally force everyone to purchase only what they need, no more, and to be very careful with it. Your approach results in shortages -- and sure enough, I bet your "solution" after that would be rationing. A perfect illustration of how controls create the problems which justify further controls.
It is simply ridiculous to pretend that the market can always efficiently anticipate needs, especially in an emergency.
Evidence? Cite? Bueller?
What you are ignoring here is that there is no such entity as "the market"; it is simply a collection of individual human beings. Regardless of social organization, that is always the case. In light of that, the best way to maximize good choices is to leave these individuals free to act on their own judgement, and let the results flow where they ought. THAT is justice.
After the last century, it is ridiculous to imagine that government can make things "better".
On the other end, higher prices encourage people to carpool, not drive as far to get away, etc.
Thus you get more gas where it is most needed. It is true that this is unfair in that higher prices affect the poor, but the simple reality is that demand has gone up. Meaning that someone, somewhere will go without as much gas he he wants. The government can change who this is, but cannot change the fact that there is a shortage. Price controls in an emergency resove this problem by "first come, first served." Why this is so fair?
Also, why is the "gouging" logic never applied consistently? In the wake of a Hurricane, construction job pay better because there's more demand. Why aren't construction workers "gouging?" If a business has to stay open on a holiday and pays its workers double or triple time, aren't they "gouging?"
Having said that, there are potential reasons why, as in wartime, a longer view suggests that enough gasoline be available for everyone to evacuate, and that might involve a system of price control plus quantity rationing. Childless, young, healthy Libertarians who live inland usually don't see merit in arguments of this nature.
Maybe first-come first-served is a better way to save lives in a disaster than is the luck-of-the-rich? Personally I prefer having the first in line drain the well one tank at a time over having the richest escape and the poor remain, while the well sits half full.
And, no, there is not time to recalibrate to lower demand thresholds in the midst of a 12 hour storm.
I agree that economic stupidity is truly bipartisan.
Here's the flip side of the "failure = misfortune" equivocation; "success = luck".
Again, this is egalitarianism at work: the envious hostility of the altruist to the notion that a person's lot in life is largely a function of their own choice -- foresight or the lack thereof -- rather than mere happenstance.
The responsibility attendant upon being the captain of one's fate, is too much for them to bear.
Dare I ask what a gross disparity is? What, if the station owner raises the price by more than 20%, he's going to get dinged? That being the case, are there any other systems used by gas stations, grocery stores, etc. to ration scarce supplies in the storm? Anyone from Florida know?
I'd hate to think that official Florida policy is to impose a price ceiling and then have everyone bum rush the gas stations and grocery stores to stock up on fuel, water, and food.
It's reasonable in an emergency for the govt. to enact policies to protect people. Isn't that one of the few things that even libertarians should agree that govt. is there to do? So in a storm when people need gas to evacuate, you can either ration or control the price or both. There's not much point rationing when most stations still have gas and the danger of hoarding is not great. That leaves price controls.
Construction jobs is not an apt simile; raising the price tenfold on things like plywood, jugs of water, and formula is more like it. Is it okay to do that in an emergency? If it might endanger people by suddenly preventing their access to basic lifesaving resources, isn't that precisely the job of govt? I'm sympathetic to libertarianism but don't understand why it should be taken this far.
The failure is one of preparedness. Choosing to live in a dangerous area is not a failure *unless* one ignores the risks attendant upon living there. I live in California, and if I get caught with my pants down in a earthquake or flash fire, it will be nobody's fault but mine.
It's reasonable in an emergency for the govt. to enact policies to protect people. Isn't that one of the few things that even libertarians should agree that govt. is there to do?
It's reasonable to expect something better than this sloppy formulation. "Protect" from what? Foreign invaders? Bad weather? Foreign imports? The consequences of one's own actions?
The government is a solution to a very narrow problem: the possiblity of some people using force against others. That's it.
I'm sympathetic to libertarianism but don't understand why it should be taken this far.
Because freedom means that others may make choices you don't like -- and if you don't like it, it's your problem.
marketgovernment can always efficiently anticipate needs, especially in an emergency. There is little doubt thata fewmany greedy people will take advantage of the misfortunes (including government imposed price limits) of others in an emergency. It is fully within the emergency powers of the state to ensure that the baser instincts of mankind are not exercised during a weather emergency so that people canobtainsell necessary supplies at what they believe is a reasonablecostprice and nobody is unjustly enriched (whatever that may mean).If you prevent the gas station in Florida from charging over $4/gallon, it cannot, as a purchaser, effectively compete with all of the other gas stations in the country who need the fuel less desperately but can charge their customers the same $4. No distributor will find it worthwhile to divert supplies into a storm-stricken area without the prospect of superior profits. (One should also consider the cost and risks to the station owner of staying open vs. boarding up. I suspect few would argue against the suggestion that hazard pay might be in order for staffers who stay to serve those seeking to tank up and to get out of town ASAP.)
Also, by keeping prices low and triggering shortages, you encourage or urge the customer to buy more fuel than absolutely necessary. Sure, the rich will buy what they want. They always do. The problem is that the rest of us who tend to count our nickels and dimes will buy more than the amount of fuel necessary to take us to where fuel prices are likely to be less severe. Why not fill up if the price of gas will not be materially less outside of the storm zone?
As for the underprivileged, I suspect they'll be more able to find help in the form of cash from their neighbors than gasoline. Price caps would mean less gasoline available for all. In any event, why should this social burden fall on the shoulders of those who happen to own a much-needed resource in the midst of a storm?
It is insane to suppose that privately owned gasoline stations should hold gasoline in trust for the benefit of society in the event of a storm. If you wish to secure yourself against the specter of "gouging" keep your own stash of gasoline or, at least, make sure your tank's always at least 3/4 full. Don't gum up the gears for the rest of us who prefer to rely upon the market in our hour of need.
Another benefit lost by imposing caps is the signaling power of prices. Maybe escalating prices for staples should serve as a warning that one's place of residence could become much more costly in other ways. Those who boldly tell the news cameras they intend to ride out the storm need to be prepared to pay the price.
The difference is that most people can relate to their brother-in-law, a carpenter, moving to New Orleans to get a get a good paying job. Not as many can relate to a small business owner and no one can relate to those evil bastions of white male, cigar-smoking, warmongering, capitalist greed -- the oil companies. But the economic prinicple is the same.
It's reasonable in an emergency for the govt. to enact policies to protect people. Isn't that one of the few things that even libertarians should agree that govt. is there to do? So in a storm when people need gas to evacuate, you can either ration or control the price or both.
You beg the question and skip over the key steps in your argument. Why are the two options for protecting people rationing and price controls? Why not a third, giving suppliers sufficient monetary incentive to keep supplies up?
Upholding the abhorrent moral concept of "duty", of unchosen obligations to others regardless of your own desires in the matter, is a surefire way to kill this kind of benevolence.
The help we give one another should always be freely requested and freely offered -- never demanded.
That is due mainly to the storm not being a hurricane. Wait until Hurricane Andrew II shows up... then we'll see how far this regulation moves Florida towards the New Orleans model.
If the proposed solutions (price-controls and rationing) actually helped anything, you might have a point.
But price controls and rationing don't solve supply problems, they create (or exacerbate) them.
If you want to make the case that they solve them, then fine. Feel free to try to overcome decades or economics, borne out again and again in the real world. But at least try to make a case, OK?
G
That comment was proof that leftists can't ever engage an argument. Everyone posting against price controls on the board is arguing that the market maximizes social utility. Maybe they're wrong but they're not saying "I'm rich! Muhuahua!!!"
In any event, its because I don't "have mine" that I worry about some harebrained government policy screwing things up for me. I don't want my family to be stuck in the middle of a disaster because some liberal wanted a warm fuzzy.
Strictly speaking, there is no Supply of retail gasoline because the market does not dictate the price; each retailer faces demand that isn't perfectly elastic. Under normal conditions, the retailers are pretty well disciplined by the market, and so it makes sense to think in terms of Supply and Demand. But what disciplines the retailers under normal conditions is the elasticity of demand for their gasoline. It's elastic not so much because consumers vary their consumption of gasoline in general, but rather because consumers can choose to buy some other retailer's gasoline.
Under emergency conditions, search costs and switching costs go up. Consumers are less likely to react to a rise in one retailer's price by buying from another. (If the sky is green, your kids are throwing up in the back of the car, and every gas station has a line, then you might not even drive across the street to get a lower price.) The retailers face less elastic demand and thus have the incentive to raise the price above, perhaps well above, what would be justified by market-clearing arguments.
As Rand never said "screw everyone else" and neither does her philosophy even suggest such a thing, "screwing everyone else" is simply your own projection.
And that says more about you than it does about Ayn Rand or us Objectivists.
(Hint: it helps to be knowledgeable about your target.)
One thing, that perhaps someone can help me understand. Why is it that the optimal size of government is always just enough to favor the advocate? If you want minimal government, live in the jungle; but if you want state protection then why can't we negotiate on the other stuff too?
Well, the problem is that there is no "justification" of that sort that trumps the individual's right to set the price for his property.
Besides, the customer is never completely helpless. If the particular station is simply so high that one can't purchase enough, there are still options. Negotiation, for one. Going elsewhere does not necessarily mean to other gas stations; a neighbor with a second SUV he's not taking with him that happens to have a full tank, could siphon and sell some of that (or even give it freely -- see above).
Creativity is a key to survival -- a link that the altruists seek to sever.
And so long as freedom remains, people are free to remember those who overshot the mark thusly, and plan better for that possibility next time... go to another station first, the next time. And maybe give that other station their business permanently, too.
Helps, of course, being used in the loosest possible sense.
Because of course **everything** has to be just luck, right? These earthquake supplies I have here just happened to show up here instead of at my neighbor's place -- imagine that! And I just happened to inhale my job skills during a multi-year walk through college.
Nobody is saying that luck isn't a factor. I am saying that luck does not invalidate my individual rights. Someone else's luck is someone else's luck. There is no moral grounds why someone else's rotten luck should automatically become a calamity for me or anyone else.
As I wrote above, people freely help each other, and that's what is so great about free people. Make it a matter of duty, and that all dries up -- nobody moves until ordered at gunpoint.
If you want minimal government, live in the jungle; but if you want state protection then why can't we negotiate on the other stuff too?
Because individual rights are not negotiable. Without those, the jungle would be the safer option; fortunately, the discovery of that principle is what allows us to exploit the benefits of being in society while minimizing the dangers thereof (to wit: the threat of force).
First; I don't think this article is as bad as you make it out to be. Only 4 of 79 gas stations were out of fuel. That's about 5%. Is there any evidence that 5% is an unusually high number of stations to be out? I'd guess that at any given time maybe 2-3% of stations are probably out. It makes sense that in a time of high demand that number would be somewhat higher -- this would be true with or without price controls.
Second; this law really has zero effect on the supply of gas. Do you really believe that, if the price gouging law was repealed, the station owners would go buy bigger tanks? That's truly absurd.
I was saying that the degree of the rise in price is not necessarily justified by market-clearing arguments. I was not saying that price-gouging laws are justified by market-clearing arguments, although I do think that that's a possibility. Of course, if, as you suggest, all government involvement in markets is morally impermissible notwithstanding any efficiency arguments, then price-gouging laws cannot be justified. My point was that efficiency arguments don't necessarily go against price-gouging laws.
In what sense are individual rights not negotiable? Reality seems to suggest otherwise.
And when were these rights discovered? And where? In a pond? Behind a tree? I really don't understand what these non-negotiable things are that you claim are able to constrain the choices of society and, to some degree, direct outcomes.
On the one hand, I never made the claim that markets "always work rationally". As mentioned eralier, markets are not some sort of disembodied entity; they consists of nothing more than free traders in search of the best deal that meets their needs. None of them are infallible.
The trick is the wild leap that interventionists make from that fact to the idea that markets need correction by government. Necessarily implicit in that idea is that the same fallible people who trade on the market somehow gain infallibility when they work for government.
...and that non-free-market solutions always fail.
In the long run they must, if prosperity is your goal, because markets confine and isolate failure while propagating successes... while central planning confines, isolates and destroys success while entrenching the status quo.
That being said, the fundamental case against non-market solutions (with the exception of that narrow purpose for which governments exist -- the securing of individual rights) is not whether they "work" or not, it is that they are necessarily an erosion of individual rights, and as such are immoral.
I've been through Hurricanes, and gas companies can see them coming. They know they can sell huge quantities to desperate people in the area and make a hefty profit just by charging the normal price. I can't remember there ever being a severe shortage in serious storms I've been through in Florida, Louisiana, and Texas. Lines? Yes. Mass numbers of stations running out of gas? No.
Most of the people commenting here who are going on about the inherent greatness of the market obviously have never evacuated for a hurricane. First off, you assume that gas stations in the evacuation zone are going to stay open--wrong. The owners and the employees of those stations pack up and evacuate with everyone else. The problem is that when you have been in bumper to bumper traffic for six or seven traffic and you are starting to get low on gas, rich or poor you are going to need to buy gas. If you are finally out of the evacuation zone and some jerk is charging $8 a gallon (instead of the $4 he was charging the day before) for gas, some people are going to be able to afford to pay for it, others or not and are going to try and make it to a gas station where the owner is not such a libertarian douche. Some of them are going to run out of gas, making traffic even worse. This creates a public safety hazard--which is literally a matter of life and death during a major storm.
When Houston tried to evacuate during the Hurricanes of 2005, traffic was so bad, people were running out of gas on the interstate, making the traffic even worse.
People would say this is gouging and exploitation, but would the people be any better off if *the option* to obtain goods wasn't there at all?
The rich also respond to incentives -- they will take less, at a higher price; perhaps merely filling a tank rather than a bunch of gas containers as well.
As an aside, I have a mid-20's friend with a particular form of glaucoma that requires daily eyedrops, which must be kept cold or they lose their efficacy. These drops prevent him from going blind; after a fairly short period of time, the damage to his eyes becomes permament. He'd much rather pay $100 for a bag of ice for a cooler, so long as he is able to buy it at all. It would be truly tragic if he couldn't buy ice at any price because a bunch of frat boys decided to buy $2 ice bags and had a hurricane party, or people wanted it to keep eggs, meat, and milk cold. Even if he didn't have the money, he could probably get some for free or at a sharp discount off the inflated price from most people or even the store by explaining his situation.
The idiocy of price-gouging laws is that they don't allocate goods efficiently at all; they tell people that goods are NOT scare and there's no need to change behavior or buying habits. They encourage, rather than deter, hoarding, and prevent people who need things most from being able to acquire it. At $2/bag, the ice will be long gone before anybody can take sympathy on my friend, because it will be all used up for easily replaceable perishable goods and beverages rather than for irreplaceable vision.
When I see some examples of your "reality", I'll address them.
And when were these rights discovered? And where? In a pond? Behind a tree?
If that is where you look, it's no wonder you don't have a clue about them.
I really don't understand what these non-negotiable things are that you claim are able to constrain the choices of society and, to some degree, direct outcomes.
No argument there.
I'll just give you a link to my (Objectivist) basis for the absolutism of individual rights and see what happens.
But I will note that while you are demanding that I validate the "non-negotiable things" securing my free choice, you offer nonesuch in support of "society's right to choose" with no reference to what are the "things" that make *that* non-negotiable.
I don't find it obvious that gouging laws have "zero effect" on the quantity supplied of gas. When gas stations know that demand will rise dramatically, they may have to make a major effort to get an extra shipment of gas. They're unlikely to do this if they're still just making a cent or two over wholesale.
Even if the quantity supplied isn't effected, though, inefficiencies could possibly arise on the demand side alone. For example, with the low price of gas, everyone fills up their tanks even if they only need half a tank to get out of town. Even if the high price doesn't have an effect on quantity supplied, it might affect the way the gasoline is ultimately rationed.
Were their anti-gouging controls in place? You don't say.
When did you get to the pumps -- two days before the storm arrives, or within a few hours after? You don't say.
Comments like the ones in this thread are a clear reason why Randian Libertarians are so marginalized in society.
Like what? That people help each other freely when they aren't being morally blackmailed into it, or flat out ordered around. since you don't actually address any of these "comments" you dismiss, I can't tell.
You are an idiot. You fill up your tank--you don't know how long you are going to be on the road or where the next open gas station will be. I talked to people after Katrina who had driven across the northern area of the storm impact area without seeing an open gas station for 300 miles. They hit Baton Rouge on fumes. Power and therefore gas pumps were out for a semi-circle extending about 160 miles or more inland from where the eye crossed the coast. From Biloxi to Baton Rouge--a distance of almost 200 miles--there was no power, no gas stations open, nothing. Most of Baton Rouge lost power too, so finding gas there was hard.
No doubt. While you are right in my case -- I have not ever evacuated from a hurricane -- this fellow, as Randian as I am, has.
On one level, I chalk this up to libertarian self-interest. Allowing price gouging slows down sales enough to ensure a supply of necessities for upper and upper-middle class libertarians. They might not like to, but in an emergency they can afford to pay $400 for a tank of gas.
Thanks for your assessment. I was trying to give a simple example of why someone might buy less gas when it's less expensive than they would when it's more expensive. That's all my argument relies on. If your imagination is deficient, maybe I can come up with some other example that will jibe with your obvious expertise. How about a husband and wife both driving their SUVs because they want to get them both out of town? You're probably not satisfied with that, but are you seriously arguing that everyone would buy just as much gas whether it is $4.00 or $6.00 a gallon? That is ridiculous.
The argument for banning "gouging" is analogous to that against high-occupancy toll lanes, and misses the same result. It's not just that the "rich" (or, more accurately, those with a high willingness to pay) will be able to "opt out" of the scarcity; but that the "opting out" also reduces the burden on those who are stuck. Even those who aren't able to hoard still benefit from *something* being left for them. High prices are themselves a rationing mechanism.
Or, to go back to the case of my friend with glaucoma, the very very rich may very well buy lots of ice to keep their caviar and pate fresh; they would certainly buy even more at $2. But the fratboys won't spend hundreds of dollars to keep a keg of beer cold, which leaves my friend *able* to acquire ice so he doesn't go blind.
Somewhere out there I read an Internet story about the college Ayn Rand club that broke up when one member accidentally left his wallet on a chair and the other members couldn't see any Randian reason to return the money.
Fixed.
One thing not being noted, is that an emergency cash stash keeps much longer than gasoline and other fuels, which tend to have a shelf life and poses a fire hazard in the casual storage most likely to be seen in suburban homes. If people know that gas will get expensive but is likely to be available, they can choose to keep emergency cash instead of gasoline itself. With price controls, gas shortages are more likely (not guaranteed) and that tips the balance towards attempting storage.
Were it not for all those self-interested people in the energy industry, there wouldn't be much of an infrastructure to supply the gas anyway. That shortages don't happen more often is because of that. Now imagine if all we had was the equivalent of PEMEX.
What effort have you made to find out? Here, I'll make it easy for you.
(Hint: it helps to be knowledgeable about your target.)
So what you're telling me is that one day someone woke up and decided that there is a "right" to life. They imposed the social construct of contract onto a "pre-social" reality. And everyone fell in line.
Now what happens if everyone in society says they don't care about your "right?" Society is wrong? You are right? On what grounds?
Call it immoral, or unjustified, or whatever you like, but until you can come up with more than an a priori "right," around which all of society must bend, your seemingly absurd extremism will continue to be rejected. In the real world there are market considerations, humanitarian considerations, and a whole lot more to sort out. We spend our time trying to balance them to come up with a better life for everyone. It's hard enough without bowing to your a priori "right." So unless you can justify it beyond merely stating that it is true, why should anyone care?
Oh, and what "right" can you think of that has yet to be "balanced" by the courts? Not to mention "free" actors.
So a typical gas station is shut down one day a month, is your guess?
I never understand why people like Seerak don't move to Somalia, where government is just the size they like.
I never understood how Andrew J Lazarus gets such great internet connectivity from Pyongyang.
No. It was *discovered* as the objective basis for constructing society, not "decided". Reality is not "decided". I can see you didn't read the link, which does not bode well for your honesty.
Now what happens if everyone in society says they don't care about your "right?" Society is wrong? You are right? On what grounds?
The same grounds every tyrant is wrong — might is not right. Are you trying to see if I'm the one who runs afoul of Godwin's Law first?
Are you really that politically and historically (not to mention philosophically) ignorant?
Call it immoral, or unjustified, or whatever you like, but until you can come up with more than an a priori "right," around which all of society must bend, your seemingly absurd extremism will continue to be rejected.
By whom? On what grounds? Why do you arrogate to yourself the privilege of arbitrary assertions while denying such to me (which I haven't done anyway — my grounds are to be found in the same place as they were an hour ago.
As we await your explanation of why society has the a priori right around which the individual must be bent, burned, squashed flat, shot, gassed, stretched on the rack, or otherwise obliterated, I'll just say I'm glad you don't run things around here.
Whatever honesty has to do with it, I read the link--just about every one of the quotes. But citing Ayn Rand is no kind of answer. Nor is *discovering* rights and calling them "the objective basis for constructing society." I would guess that the vast majority of societies never had anything like what you call rights, so they seem to be a much more *subjective* basis for constructing society than you are inclined to think.
What does it even mean to have a right to one's own life? It's vaccuous.
The same grounds every tyrant is wrong — might is not right. Are you trying to see if I'm the one who runs afoul of Godwin's Law first?
Are you really that politically and historically (not to mention philosophically) ignorant?
Wait. I'm not sure. What evidence do you have that "might is not right?" I only ask because everything I know tends to suggest the opposite.
By whom? On what grounds? Why do you arrogate to yourself the privilege of arbitrary assertions while denying such to me
As we await your explanation of why society has the a priori right around which the individual must be bent, burned, squashed flat, shot, gassed, stretched on the rack, or otherwise obliterated, I'll just say I'm glad you don't run things around here.
I do run things around here. And so do you. Thats why we vote. And that's why you can leave our society if you want. There is no a priori right of society. It can exist or it can not exist (at least society in the modern sense--although you may be onto something in a biological sense); but most people prefer it existing and so we all live together and try to make decisions about how to live our lives and coordinate our societies. We say: Tell me what things do; I will tell you if I like it.
Discovered rights don't help much in this calculus.
Who thinks they would be there if they just made straight time or normal contract rates?
knowbelieve tends to suggest the opposite.Fixed.
Whatever honesty has to do with it, I read the link--just about every one of the quotes.
There is no evidence supporting that contention, and plenty of evidence against -- to wit this little tidbit of self-confession:
What does it even mean to have a right to one's own life? It's vaccuous.
I was mistakenly under the impression that you were not a troll. My apologies.
Hmm, this gives me an interesting idea for a story...
Sure it's enough time. Take gas. One guy has half a tank and wants to top it off. The other guy is running on fumes and would love to buy half a tank. The guy with the greatest need will pay more. The market allocates supply.
The thing is, a market of temporary shortages doesn't allocate resources efficiently either, because geographical and income distribution effects rather than the price system control allocation. In other words, you could have a population in the lower 9th Ward who desperately need gasoline in order to evacuate and are willing and able to pay the national market price for it, but they cannot obtain any of it. Meanwhile, you could have a population in the garden district that doesn't need the gasoline but can purchase all of it that it wishes to.
Over time, of course, various market mechanisms will sometimes remedy at least some of these distributional efficiencies, but the problem is, you don't have time in an emergency.
Look, if you simply believe, as Seerak apparently does, that any restriction of buying and selling under any circumstances is immoral, you very well can conclude that even temporary price regulation during a time of grave public emergency is a nonstarter. But the economic efficiency case against this sort of a price control is quite thin.
I would add, however, one more point where I agree with the libertarians. There is a serious vagueness problem with what constitutes "gouging".
Exactly. So the moral illusion here is in excoriating the gas station that stays open during a serious emergency and sells $8 per gallon while remaining silent on all those business owners who decide it is too risky or too much of a hassle to stay open (are they "libertarian douches" also?). If you want to advocate some public distribution system of gasoline and other necessities during emergencies, by all means do so. That would be a more effective remedy than expecting businesses who often trade on razor thin profit margins to perform public service during a serious emergency.
Incidentally, how do you think these stations manage to stay open during an emergency? I've had previous jobs where we were paid overtime to work during a serious snow-storm or hurricane. If workers get paid extra, why is it gouging to make consumers pay extra? Or are the workers guilty of price gouging as well by not showing up to work without an added incentive?
Eh what? even though there is a supply there?
You don't think the gas and water sellers would start lowering prices when they notice that none of people that are left can afford their current prices?
Whyever would they want to reach the end of the emergency or the point when they themselves evacuate, with inventory left? In the first case they would have to sell it for normal prices, in the second they would be abandoning it.
The rich are not to spend their money on yachts, extravagent parties, and four figure doggie carriers because conspicuous consumption is immoral, especially given the number of people living in poverty. Yet the rich are also not to spend money on gasoline in an emergency, because gasoline is a necessity, and it would be unjust for the rich to have more of it than the poor. What then, are the rich to buy with their money?
What, you think they are just freelancers who get in the truck and head down to Florida and start fixing lines? They work for other utility companies which have longstanding cooperative agreements with the Florida utilities to provide assistance in an emergency. And the utilities in Florida cannot arbitrarily jack up the cost of power for a couple months to cover the cost of repairing the lines and paying for all that overtime and out-of-state crews.
But here's the thing -- at higher prices, the people in the garden district don't gas up every single car they own and as many jerry-cans as they can buy. THEY conserve as well, leaving MORE supply for the others.
I don't want the govt. artificially controlling prices either, but I do want it to take steps to ensure orderly evacuations and distribution of goods, rather than letting people fight it out under survival conditions. Isn't it the government's job--one of its few jobs, even for libertarians--to keep order? Or is "preparedness" simply the solution here too, and if we all need to rob someone at gunpoint to get a bottle of water for our babies, so be it?
As we can see from the original article, adequate supply is not the issue here, so giving gas stations greater financial incentive to store more fuel is not the solution, even if we grant the dubious assumption that they could significantly ramp up available quantities. That's why we're left with rationing or price controls. Rationing is not help when there's still plenty of supply, so price controls are a lever for assisting with orderly evacuation. A perfect lever? By no means! But certainly better than nothing. Market forces aren't going to accomplish this in a sudden emergency, they are going to lead to looting.
There is no competition in emergency supplies only because anti-gouging laws prevent such competition. Otherwise, there would be guys on trucks offering as many $2,000 generates as they can sell, and next emergency they'll be out-sold by the guys offering $1,900 generators.
Worse, anti-gouging laws remove a critical incentive to emergency preparedness. If the government will make sure I can get gas when I need it, then I don't need to stockpile any. And then if it's not available because the gas stations are sold out -- who failed?
The argument for the government ensuring distribution of goods in an emergency is no different from the argument for such distribution under other circumstances.
In any event, my answer to your question is that I believe that price controls on transactions between individuals should be outside the government's legitimate powers, even emergency powers. If the government wants to provide its own gas, it can certainly do so. But if it wants to commandeer *my* gas, it has to pay for it. Anti-gouging laws only have an effect if they make me charge $x when the market would bear $y where $y > $x. This is a taking, and if the government wants to do it, it must pay out of its own coffers.
For example, they could determine a probability distribution of how much gas would be needed to evacuate residents by car. And then make sure that the 95th-percentile of that was held in a secure storage facility.
Of course, this storage facility, even if there were a handful of them, couldn't quickly distribute fuel to consumers, so they would need to distribute it to gas stations.
They could also cut out the storage step, and directly contract with many gas stations in the area to make sure that they are, in total, holding that same explicit reserve.
The city/country would in effect be renting storage space for its own gasoline in hundreds of places all over town. Individual gas stations (that are voluntarily participating) can only sell from these reserves when following certain protocols set out in the contract, and must have some level of availability guarantees for when emergencies occur.
The amount of fuel to be held varies by season. Stations may also borrow against these reserves in case of business emergency (say, fuel truck got delayed), but at a penalty substantial enough to dissuade them from using it as part of their regular inventory management.
Interesting concept, but the average gas station doesn't have any spare tank capacity that could be used for this.
I think the ability to "borrow" against the emergency reserve will make this cheaper for the gas stations. Now instead of running out of gas and alienating customers, they'll have the less severe consequence of a monetary penalty to keep the gas flowing.
You also overestimate how much shelf-life already-formulated oxygenated gasoline has. (The SPR stores crude oil, not ready-to-use product that would be the only useful things for gas stations to store.)
But maybe there's another way to approach your idea. What if the government subsidy wasn't for additional storage, but merely additional stocking by subsidizing an earlier reorder of replenishment such that the existing storage never goes below (e.g.) 50% capacity? I have no idea if this would be practical with existing service station tank sizes, product ordering cycles and lead times, delivery truck sizes, etc. Does anyone here have some experience in this area?
Yes. Many of them are independent contractors who do work for their local utilities. Some are small contractors who employ their own people and do work for the utilities. Take a look at who is doing line work. The same is true of the cable TV, gas, and water workers.