$5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA • Hacker News Board

Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA

#331

Post by pitaj » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 7:19 PM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #166

daenz wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that the supply/demand pricing isn't responding fast enough to the hoarders. If the price was fully elastic, as people began to hoard lysol wipes, prices would rise on the hoarders and make it much less profitable for them. But prices aren't rising correctly, much like an artificial price ceiling would do, making it possible and profitable for hoarders to create a shortage.

>I would argue that the supply/demand pricing isn't responding fast enough Yes, that's a failing of the real free market we live. It already failed so I don't see why suggesting the status quo is useful. In the real world we're not all omniscient, rational actors. Protections like this are useful in the short term.

> Yes, that's a failing of the real free market we live.

We don't live in a free market. Not even close.

I would argue that since these laws exist, commercial suppliers are unwilling to raise prices for fear of being penalized under this law. That prevents the market from working naturally, and allows these individual gougers to take advantage.

Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA

#332

Post by jmugan » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 7:27 PM UTC

I wish we could apply price-gouging laws to medical care. But I guess it just seems like normal practice at this point.

Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA

#333

Post by generalpass » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 7:34 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #231

generalpass wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what about Shopify?

I haven't seen them restrict anything yet. They're not a marketplace, just hosting websites and taking payments, so they've typically been far more hands off than Amazon/eBay.

Any predictions on Google Adsense revenue this quarter?

Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA

#334

Post by newen » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 7:34 PM UTC

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #156

avip wrote: post #79

Reading this thread is the official confirmation that Americans are out of their mind.

It really drives home to me, again, how prevalent right-wing libertarianism is in the computing community.

Yes! Especially the Hacker News Silicon Valley types. HN is becoming so predictable these days.

Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA

#335

Post by 34679 » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 7:34 PM UTC

EdgarVerona wrote: post #95

A lot of people in this thread are willfully ignoring some basic facts here. These products are being made in sufficient quantity for everyone. There is not a significant decrease in production. There is a significant increase in hoarding, and in many cases it is for the explicit purpose of creating artificial scarcity to increase the price of a product. This is not a case of toilet paper suddenly costing more to pro…

In times of increased demand, it becomes necessary to increase production. I assume you are aware of the concept of overtime pay? In California in particular, 150% pay is guaranteed for hours over 40 in a week and hours over 8 in a workday, increasing to 200% pay for hours over 12 in a shift and more than 8 hours on their 7th consecutive day of work.[1]

What options do they have? Hiring new employees requires training, and that takes time. Meeting demand quickly requires a significant increase in payroll per unit produced, so why shouldn't they be able to charge more? What incentive do they have to increase their costs for a diminished return?

[1]https://www.tsheets.com/resources/overtime-laws-california

Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA

#336

Post by salawat » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 7:37 PM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #185

CaptArmchair wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No, you can't have more pie. You have had enough already." Literally any exasperated parent who has to deal with little children having a tantrum because they can't get what they want. Yes, that sounds harsh, but it's exactly how this works. Your statement is simply saying that society - you, me and everyone - should obediently and without criticizing enable those who can't cater to their own emotional needs; those…

>Literally any exasperated parent who has to deal with little children having a tantrum because they can't get what they want. >Yes, that sounds harsh, but it's exactly how this works. Your statement is simply saying that society - you, me and everyone - should obediently and without criticizing enable those who can't cater to their own emotional needs; those who don't know how to deal with their own drive towards se…

>Having so little respect for other human beings that you compare them to little children is not constructive foundation upon which to base policy making.

You seem to be opposed to policy making at all. So what's your point? Furthermore, reasoning from past experience and generalizing the approach to a population is at it's essence what cultures do.

>So other people should do what you want, not what they want, because you know better than them? How would you feel if people compared you to "little children having a tantrum" just because your values differed from theirs?

How one feels is unfortunately somewhat irrelevant in the face of an existential systemic crisis. Learning and internalizing this is part of becoming an adult, or managing any social unit larger than oneself. That the train is barreling down the tracks at you does not change just because you feel inconvenienced. You and everyone else in your community are on the tracks, and need to organize to get everyone safely off in the time you have left. Part of that may be coming to terms with the fact that not everyone can get what they want (getting off the track right now) if the means of doing so is constrained.

By all means though, if you wish to give the finger to your society that's actually trying to do the best it can for everyone; go ahead. Just don't be surprised if it turns out that the fact you did makes life difficult for you down the road.

Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA

#337

Post by CaptArmchair » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 7:41 PM UTC

monadic2 wrote: post #232

logicchains wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Literally any exasperated parent who has to deal with little children having a tantrum because they can't get what they want. >Yes, that sounds harsh, but it's exactly how this works. Your statement is simply saying that society - you, me and everyone - should obediently and without criticizing enable those who can't cater to their own emotional needs; those who don't know how to deal with their own drive towards se…

> How would you feel if people compared you to "little children having a tantrum" just because your values differed from theirs? If one of those values is “society holds together during a crisis”, it’s a better value and I would feel deeply secure about my criticism. What is the value of individual, civil rights (as opposed to social rights, like not being unnecessarily infected or starved through artificially manipu…

I highly value my individual and civil rights, such as they are. Yet, I am prepared to temporarily relinquish a part of them if that helps overcome a clear and present existential threat to society as a whole.

Yes, I feel deeply secure about my criticisms thus far.

Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA

#338

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 7:43 PM UTC

armenarmen wrote: post #247

mattlutze wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price gouging is the supply side artificially raising prices significantly above normal to take advantage of a temporary imbalance in the anxiety vs actual threat being experienced by the demand side. The day congress declares war on Iran, if you significantly raise fuel prices at your gas station but the wholesale supply hasn't changed, you're generally trying to take advantage of the consumer's fear. We're for some…

Tangent sorry, but Congress hasn’t declared war since the last world war. America no longer declares war. It just invades.

[deleted]

Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA

#339

Post by salawat » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 7:48 PM UTC

EdgarVerona wrote: post #220

syshum wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully understand rationing, rationing is something done by Authoritarian governments, including the US and the UK... So it seems you are infact proposing authoritarianism as a solution to the problem Give up freedom for safety... wonderful. I see alot of that right now it is very sad

Just to make sure I understand your ideology: so you're saying the rationing that happened during World War II was a mistake?

I think shysum is making the case that the magnitude of threat represented by the pandemic != the same magnitude of that represented by WWII. Thereby seemingly endorsing that rationing now is unjustified.

I don't buy into it necessarily; temporary rationing seems an appropriate response so long as it is guaranteed to be temporary.

I can sympathize with his concern of embracing authoritarianism in exchange for safety; I do abhor the practice, but in this environment, rationing is by far the least intrusive measure in ensuring the widest swath of people maintain access to a minimum reasonable level of supplies.

If people want more, let them negotiate with the manufacturer for additional output after existing orders have been met.

A self-imposed limit per customer enforced by retailers should be sufficient. No need to start getting the government into the business of looking for hoarders.

Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA

#340

Post by jmckib » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 7:51 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #35

anikan_vader wrote: post #16

From an economics stand point, I don't understand why the government should ban price-gouging. Doesn't this place an artificial price ceiling that will ensure a shortage of goods? I would personally rather stores have items such as food/water at marked-up prices than not at all.

From a political standpoint, I see the point. Price gouging makes people extremely mad, and it redirects goods from poor people to wealthy people. When tempers are already fraying and maintaining social order is already difficult because of an emergency, the last thing a government needs is a nucleus for lots of pissed-off people to rally around. Remember that the first priority of any government is to keep itself in…

Letting supply and demand determine prices doesn't necessarily redirect goods from poor people to wealthy people; it redirects goods towards those that actually need them, because those people are willing to pay the higher price. If we're talking about someone living paycheck to paycheck who really can't afford toilet paper being 2x more expensive, they may have to use a substitute, but with price ceilings the shelves will be empty anyway.