$5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA

Post by gwright » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 8:47 PM UTC

salawat wrote: post #350

gwright wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should be charging increased prices. They should have charged increased prices the moment demand went up (like Uber surge pricing). That would have snuffed out the speculators right quick. One reason they don't do this is because of the attitudes illustrated in the comments here. People irrationally believe that surge pricing in this case is wrong and the negative response by their customers outweighs the benefi…

They should absolutely not have raised prices. The issue isn't manufacturers, and only retailers in that they failed to implement a purchase limit per customer given news of a pandemic. You want the maximum number of people with enough supply to get by. Not to have large swathes of the population to go without because someone decided to usurp the logistics network in search of price gouging opportunities.

Post by mitchdoogle » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 8:55 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #254

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amen. Price isn't even the issue here, just a symptom. Hoarding is the issue. Limit people to not buying 100 rolls of toilet paper, and suddenly the price everyone's willing to pay levels out. Price isn't the problem. Uneven distribution is.

The best solution is to increase production to the point where all those hoarders are left with tons of worthless inventory.

Post by mitchdoogle » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 8:57 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #288

yyy888sss wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australian supermarkets are refusing refunds on all of these hoarded goods.

I wonder whether that's legal or not. Presumably they bought the goods before this thing blew up and the terms of sale at the time of purchase allowed for returns. Are stores allowed to retroactively change their return ploicy? Do they have a "we can deny returns for any reason" clause in their return policy? Is that legal?

Post by grecy » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 8:59 PM UTC

magnusss wrote: post #357

grecy wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it's immoral, but I do have to wonder if there's much difference between what these people are doing vs Nike making a pair of shoes for $2 then selling them for $400, or hospitals in America marking stuff up 500 or 1000%. By definition capitalism is about making a profit. Sell things for as much as you can, and win. I find it fascinating how where there isn't a "crisis" then maximizing profit is just wha…

Or selling software with 0 marginal cost for $40k? :-) As with all moral issues, it is difficult to come up with an objective distinction between wrong and right. I tend to rely on Kant’s categorical imperative: Would society be harmed if everyone behaved in this way? In our situation where hoarders are attempting to profit from a crisis, I believe the answer is clear: It’s immoral.

Post by jimmaswell » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 9:23 PM UTC

gwright wrote: post #271

jimmaswell wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor people not getting to have toilet paper is not an acceptable solution.

And what is the end result of empty shelves? Is that an acceptable solution? I don't understand people who advocate for policies that almost guarantee empty shelves instead of a policy that would avoid shortages but at a higher price temporarily . In my mind the higher price followed by a return to normalcy is a much better outcome for rich and poor alike than a complete shortage with nothing on the shelves.