pull down to refresh
44 sats \ 3 replies \ @SimpleStacker 29 Jan \ parent \ on: Price gouging, then and now econ
Serious answer -- people have some moral intuitions about fairness that extend beyond traditional economic analysis. Thus, gouging someone in a time of disaster is looked on differently than gouging someone on their luxury trip.
I think when economists / libertarians / conservatives / anyone fail to acknowledge that, they undermine their own influence and credibility. (Fair or not.)
Instead, I usually communicate my price-gouging stance like this:
"Would I personally raise prices that much in a time of emergency? No, because I wouldn't feel good about it. However, I think if all the political energy is spent attacking price gougers, then that's a distraction. Because all anti price-gouging laws do is change who can get the housing... it doesn't change how much housing is available."
Good point. The whole "disaster" aspect of things adds a new dimension.
I wonder if I would say that though, if I were trying to communicate my stance. Cause for me it's actually not true.
If there were some disaster, and lots of people were desperate for housing, but I had a spare room, I actually would consider renting it out, and at a higher price than normal. Because otherwise, it wouldn't be worth it to me.
But it's certainly understandable, at a gut level, that the immediate reaction is not, "Isn't it great that economic incentives have pushed people to provide more housing".
Instead, it's "That price-gouging scum, trying to make money off people's suffering!".
I don't know how to communicate it any better though.
reply
Yeah, a bit of nuance.... I only meant that I wouldn't price-gouge during a disaster assuming I was already advertising a room for rent.
But if I wasn't already looking for a tenant, I wouldn't offer it up during the disaster either... unless there was a significant reason to do so, financial or otherwise. (Instead, i'd probably keep that room available for friends or family in need)
reply
reply