August 21st, 2024

Praise for Price-Gouging

John H. Cochrane argues that price gouging during crises efficiently allocates resources, incentivizes supply, and criticizes government regulations that worsen shortages, suggesting direct financial assistance as a better alternative.

Read original articleLink Icon
Praise for Price-Gouging

John H. Cochrane's article discusses the controversial topic of price gouging, particularly in the context of natural disasters and pandemics. He argues that price gouging, which occurs when prices rise sharply due to increased demand or decreased supply, should be praised rather than condemned. Cochrane distinguishes price gouging from monopolistic practices, asserting that it operates within competitive markets and serves to allocate scarce resources to those who need them most. He contends that higher prices can incentivize suppliers to bring in more goods and help manage demand effectively. Cochrane criticizes government efforts to regulate price gouging, suggesting that such laws can exacerbate shortages and discourage inventory holding. He emphasizes that while the cultural perception of price gouging is negative, it plays a crucial role in economic efficiency. Cochrane also highlights the importance of allowing market mechanisms to function without interference, arguing that moral disapproval of price gouging often leads to misguided policies that ultimately harm consumers. He concludes that rather than imposing price controls, governments should consider direct financial assistance to those affected by high prices.

- Price gouging is seen as a mechanism to allocate scarce resources efficiently during crises.

- Government regulations against price gouging can worsen shortages and reduce supply.

- Higher prices can incentivize suppliers to increase inventory and manage demand.

- Cultural and moral disapproval of price gouging often leads to ineffective policies.

- Direct financial assistance may be a better alternative to price controls.

Link Icon 4 comments
By @PollardsRho - 8 months
It's wonderfully idealistic to believe that the people who would pay $10 a gallon for gas are the people that needed it the most and not just the people with the most disposable income. I've known people who would happily pay $10 a gallon for gas they could have easily avoided using because it's pocket change to them, and similarly people who wouldn't buy it for essentially any reason.

Additionally so to believe that the government will hand out money so responsively in reaction to natural disasters that there's no reason to limit price gouging as a way of more effectively making sure poor people can buy food immediately after a hurricane. The government can't be trusted to set prices, but can be trusted to give everyone cash immediately after a hurricane knocks out the major road?

There are no good ways to allocate limited resources in the aftermath of natural disasters or similar acute supply shocks. Setting per-party quotas on buying toilet paper isn't perfectly fair, as the article points out, but to me it seems an awful lot more fair than "the rich get everything." As a limited, temporary amelioration of the kind of naked greed that the article admits most people find repugnant, in situations that are rare and have limited impact on the functioning of normal markets, it seems like common sense.

By @lesuorac - 8 months
I think the crux of their argument is "“Windfall” profits belong in the pantheon of saints along with price-gouging. In competitive industries, that’s what encourages people to enter and offer new supply.".

Which just isn't true. If you can only profit on toilet paper once every 100 years due to a pandemic who is going to build a new supply chain for it?

How many new oil refineries got built during the oil shocks?

How many new bottle water plants got build during Hurricane Katrina?

How many new [mh]otels got built after Woodstock II?

A short term shock (price gouging) doesn't cause new entrants.

By @pjkundert - 8 months
Price “gouging” always ceases, virtually immediately, in an open market.

Only with government interference stopping new suppliers from entering the market (eg. making it illegal to protect your store from looters) can “gouging” persist.

Let the leftist silent downvoting begin!