Price gouging during a disaster isn't immoral and is the best way to get supplies to people who really need them. amirite?

If someone wants to drive 5 states over in a Uhaul truck and sell generators/cases of water for double the price, what's wrong with that? The alternative is that no one gets anything because it's illegal?

by Vhaag 5 months ago

Just the opposite. If prices remain flat, the wealthy will hoard supplies that other people need. The market creates a much more fair system if we let it set the price.

by Anonymous 5 months ago

If there's a price on it at all, it's for sale and anyone can buy it. Under your scenario, only the rich could buy anything, regardless of need. Anyone's who'se actually lost everything is just SOL.

by Coleearnest 5 months ago

f that - this is why people just say screw it and steal. the system isn't fair and there are more poor than wealthy who can just afford to fly to europe and go on holiday

by Jazmyn94 5 months ago

You keep telling yourself that.

by kirstinkautzer 5 months ago

you are so stupid

by AstronomerParking 5 months ago

Most economists agree with me. It's hard for the public to understand because it feels immoral like I said. But prices going up actually benefits more people in the long run, including the poor, because it ensures that resources go to people who actually need them.

by Anonymous 5 months ago

this is a legitimate economic point of view. and most economists agree disaster price controls have this exact effect.

by Anonymous 5 months ago

So you're saying the poor guy and the rich guy from the same city have different "needs" than each other?

by Rose97 5 months ago

Nope. The examples you've given aren't even price gouging. Gas?

by Anonymous 5 months ago

Republican much?

by yflatley 5 months ago

Not even close. Classic liberal/libertarian.

by Anonymous 5 months ago

Every libertarian I have ever encountered was essentially a Republican who liked pot.

by Anonymous 5 months ago

I'm socially more liberal but economically more libertarian.

by Anonymous 5 months ago

Quasi-Republican much?

by yflatley 5 months ago

God I hope you're 14, adults shouldn't be this stupid.

by Rosalindalind 5 months ago

What do you say to people truly in need but unable to afford the item now? Bad luck? Or are they worth more dead than alive to you?

by No_Monk 5 months ago

What? The most in need aren't going to automatically be the one's that pay the highest prices. It will be the most wealthy people that can afford those things. Making things unaffordable to the general public only helps a few people, while barring the rest from resources they need. The resolution to hoarders is to create store rules in which people are only allowed to get a one-a few of a specific item per person, not to make those items, shelters, or services completely unavailable to the less financially privileged.

by Anonymous 5 months ago

Ah yes, because as we know the people who need things in a disaster situation can pay any price for anything.

by Typical_Struggle 5 months ago

In what world are the people who really need them also the people that will pay the most for them?

by MasterAfternoon 5 months ago

Wealth does not determine need in a natural disasters.

by Anonymous 5 months ago

This is in a perfect world. Do you know what we live in?

by Anonymous 5 months ago