Price Gouging or merely entrepreneurship
John Stossel notes that "hoarding" really shouldn't be a dirty word and that raising prices is a signal to industry that profits are to be had. Said another way: what incentive is there for manufacturers to produce an emergency supply of something if they aren't getting compensated any more for doing it?
If that is insufficient then the retailers can and should impose purchase minimums not maximums. Imagine if irregular Costco customers had to buy not just 48 rolls of toilet paper but 240 at 6x the regular unit price! That's how you stop 'casual' hoarders from peeling the shelves bare. Very few are going to lay out $1,000 for toilet paper.
Recall the Arab oil embargo of the early 70s. Recall the gas rationing & the odd/even day fiasco that caused long lines and 'NO GAS' signs at every station.
What caused the shortages? It wasn't that the fleet was using more gasoline, but the fleet was storing all the fuel in what is known as the rolling reserve. It's the difference between the amount of fuel that the fleet holds as the 'average' tank of gas, which is typically less than 1/2 tank per car, and the 'hoarding' quantity when everyone who thought that gas would dry up, filled their tank to capacity.
Foolish behaviour very quickly moved billions of gallons of gas from in the ground tanks to the trunks of Chevys, Fords, & Chryslers! The refineries couldn't refile billions of gallons on such short notice. So the big tanks were pumped dry. The fleet which would normally have carried 10 days of fuel, was rolling around nearly three weeks of capacity.
So as soon as the in-ground tanks were refilled, then gas stations actually had to refuse deliveries because the customers had filled up. this caused a rebound ripple disruption of the fuel supplies. Refinery production was curbed, and that in turn caused another surge of fillups.
It took a number of cycles for the panic to abate. But by then we were all paying 50% more for gas, and there was no relief in sight.
tl;dr Sheeple are Stupid!
My head says low stock levels and higher prices encourage more production.
Listen to your head!
It is the "Mind" that is able to keep an eye on the brain, which is primarily engaged in survival and wants and desires, (temptations.)
It's been my observation that many dems are governed by only 1/2 the brain...usually the emotional side.
However, I have met some that are in fact, unicameral...I ask them, why are you a democrat?...you have a mind, you don't like unions, you create your own value and sometimes share any abundance created cautiously.
The mind is achieved via the brain when both halves work in concert, unicameral...as one. The body and the brain is made up of the quantum fields, energy fields and at the same time we live in these fields...you don't think there is any interaction between it all?
The question is, are you "Aware" of this interaction, "introspection" or not, can your brain decode information gained from the field, environment?
It takes cooperation of both halves of the brain to become aware of one's own awareness.
Theory, of course, but this is the general direction integrated science is going in.
Nothing has been found inside your head that is able to view itself, control itself, beyond survival behavior.
Remember, the neurons in your brain are essentially compartmentalized.
1) I agree with John Stossel, that hoarding should not be a dirty word. I buy lots of something I value, nothing wrong with that.
2) When someone goes to a store for the sake of buying out the stock and then reselling at a 'gouge' level price, then there's a problem. The two men in Tennessee who went around and filled a delivery truck of products they cleared out of stores CREATED the shortage. They didn't add value, they artificially shortcut the supply.
Howard Roark added value. Henry Reardon added value. John Galt added value. Dagny Taggart added value. Nowhere in those novels were the hero's scrambling to create a market shortage just to gouge people who didn't get there first. That would be played out more by those characters depicted by the antagonists.
The science of getting a fermentation started is pretty simple - I've even started wine fermentation in a plastic trash can. Just throw in the fruit, some water, and a package of yeast (sugar too if you got it). If the goal is ethanol and not a good tasting adult beverage that's about all you need because you can leave out all the filtering and carboy steps. When the bubbling comes to a stop that usually means the fermentation has gone as far as it can for this batch - either the yeast ran out of sugar or the ethanol content has gotten high enough to kill off the yeast (usually before 20%). I'm writing in general terms here and this simple process will work almost all the time. Refining the process can result in more ethanol and prevent some things, like apples, from making vinegar instead of ethanol.
The last step is to get the ethanol out of the fermented "mash" you just created. This is the distillation step and is also easy if you have the right equipment and pay attention to what you are doing. Here you have to know the flash or boiling point of ethanol is near 167 degF (I didn't look it up writing this) and water is 212 degF.
A simple fermenting system can be a pot you can heat up equipped with a lid with a hose coming out of the top that can be spiraled down into a catch vessel. Now, heat the pot hot enough to flash off the ethanol and not the water. As you can see the hose has to be long enough so the flashed off ethanol can cool and condense back into a liquid. This method will never get you pure ethanol as it likes to bring water along with it. I think the strongest ethanol you can get with this simple method is maybe 70% ethanol with 30% water mix (140 proof).
I went to Bristol Farms and Whole Foods and found ample supplies of everything I needed, but at a higher (every day) price. Am I supposed to be ashamed for supporting "price gougers"?
But what about that guy who bought out the source of Epi-Pens and the raised prices by 1000 per cent? Your thoughts?
Regarding the individual who bought out the epi-pens, that individual abuses the notion of free trade. I would argue that the proper response is not to do business with him and sue him (when someone has a reaction) for gross negligence, with the judgement being confiscation of the epi-pens and distribution to those needing them. (I would also mention that in lieu of this, this guy is asking for somewhat justified vigilante justice...)
What is certain is that government edicts do not stop irrational thinking or rumors. A free market enables different actions, rational or not, which provides some smoothing for price and supply shocks.
para 2. Not convinced, maybe the fault was with the company who sold/invented the epi-pen. They did not price high enough thereby undercutting themselves as well as not providing sufficient incentive for a competitive product. With this argument, the new buyer priced right, but public opinion had by then valued the product at the (unrealistic and false) initial low price.
There's another consideration with the epi-pen that maybe doesn't work for the immediate need, but which in the long run solves the problem: another seller in the marketplace. The availability of substitutes is key to getting the price down. If I'm not mistaken, one of the problems with the epi-pen is that it is still protected under patent. So until the patent lapses and generic supplies become available, supply is going to be naturally constrained and prices high just as a result of that.
In a free market, however, doesn't this encourage entry into the market for competitors seeking to make a profit? What is the real barrier to entry? Is it resource or artificial constraint, i.e. government? Remember, it requires two parties for a transaction: a seller AND a buyer. If both do so out of their own free will, isn't that by definition the free market?
Deal makers are popular everywhere, but productive people are undervalued especially in government which has to watch election timings.