Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

$5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA

caloes.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 450 posts

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

#421

Post by UncleMeat »

gwright wrote: post #402
salawat wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Restocks will happen as quickly as possible, purchase limits will be put in place, and availability will be restored. Also, the privations created were entirely the results of these folks' poor behavior in terms of weighing the risks inherent to the logistics of their price gouging, and whether or not their sales platform would facilitate that behavior. Mayhaps they'd be well served returning their stock to the…

But if the price floated the empty shelf situation would have been mitigated.

But also a lot of people wouldn't be able to access supplies. In both cases a lot of people get screwed. In the "floating price" case it just isn't highly paid software engineers on HN.

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

#422

Post by nate_meurer »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #311
saghm wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People hoarding aren't trying to create artificial scarcity. They are buying because they anticipate scarcity, and want to either (i) be prepared, or (ii) profit from resale How would (ii) be a profitable activity if buying in bulk wasn't creating artificial scarcity? I mean, I guess you could argue that the scarcity isn't "artificial", but like, when someone is literally buying more hand sanitizer than they could…

It's a profitable activity if there is scarcity in the future, regardless of whether I can influence that scarcity. smallnamespace's made the same point as I made in the portion you quoted, but made it much more clearly: "To a very good approximation, the marginal impact of any hoarders on the scarcity of a product is zero. Hoarders are not trying to drive scarcity themselves, they are trying to buy a product now bec…

Both you and smallnamespace are using the same strawman. Who cares about the marginal impact of an individual's actions?

The situation in practice is dead simple: widespread hoarding is creating ongoing shortages of various products, and some of these hoarders are using that temporary scarcity to profit from other peoples' desperation. This is entirely predictable and uncomplicated, and it's both ridiculous and irrelevant to quibble over whether the profiteers are "trying to drive" the artificial scarcity to which they're contributing. I honestly don't even know what you're arguing about.

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

#423

Post by rahimnathwani »

nate_meurer wrote: post #422
rahimnathwani wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a profitable activity if there is scarcity in the future, regardless of whether I can influence that scarcity. smallnamespace's made the same point as I made in the portion you quoted, but made it much more clearly: "To a very good approximation, the marginal impact of any hoarders on the scarcity of a product is zero. Hoarders are not trying to drive scarcity themselves, they are trying to buy a product now bec…

Both you and smallnamespace are using the same strawman. Who cares about the marginal impact of an individual's actions? The situation in practice is dead simple: widespread hoarding is creating ongoing shortages of various products, and some of these hoarders are using that temporary scarcity to profit from other peoples' desperation. This is entirely predictable and uncomplicated, and it's both ridiculous and irrel…

'Who cares about the marginal impact of an individual's actions?'

Someone who is trying to understand their motivation (what they're trying to do).

'it's both ridiculous and irrelevant to quibble over whether the profiteers are "trying to drive" the artificial scarcity to which they're contributing'

It's not irrelevant. I responded directly to a claim in the comment to which I replied. No tangent.

'I honestly don't even know what you're arguing about.'

I'm really interested to know why some folks (not you) are so insistent that the hoarders/profiteers are trying to create a situation (rig the game) rather than just being players in it. I thought the logic of my original point was pretty obvious and, as you say, it's not even that interesting compared with the wider point about the collective effects of the individual actions. So why are people so interested in this small point?

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

#424

Post by gwright »

salawat wrote: post #419
gwright wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you value the idea of preventing people from meeting demand for a good or service? You are advocating for some magical price point that is morally virtuous regardless of the context and dynamic nature of supply and demand. Why? Why do you think that is better than actually incentivising people to satisfy demand by increasing supply or alternatively to signal to those people making irrational decisions that the…

Arbitrage does nothing to solve any issues in a situation of universal demand. What these people do is not satisfying overall demand. It's taking from one place, and reallocating to another output earmarked for distribution to a particular geographic area. They create problems ascertaining realistic supply and demand. If you cannot understand why this type of middleman profit-taking centric arbitrage by which no prod…

> You want to engage in arbitrage and play "the Free Market cures all ills"? You do that with your own community

Free market is already solving this problem. I was at my local store today and they were restocking the shelves with TP and paper towels. There was no line.

You seem to have completely missed my point that the price surge should have been happening in the regular stores. By not raising their prices, the stores enable the hoarding, speculation and secondary market nonsense you are blabbering about. By threatening to fine vendors when they raise prices, the government enables these arbitrage schemes. By arguing as vociferously as you are that the market can't solve these problems you also enable these schemes because this attitude changes the nature of the regular market in favor of these ad-hoc markets.

You and many like you seem to think that being in favor of price surges is the same thing as being in favor of the hoarding and speculation. But that is not true. I also am not arguing against sellers choosing to limit quantities, that is their prerogative. I'm arguing against government intervention when the market will address this all on its own. The Mayor of New York City seems to be in your club. He is arguing for the nationalization of industries to solve the shortages (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2020/03/14/de-blas...).

> Thankfully, we have this wonderful communication network, and mechanisms for modifying human behavior through social pressure and legal processes to be able to short-circuit these malevolent practices before things get too chaotic or too much damage is done!

> Information does not magically propagate. The manufacturer has to receive orders through their customer's acquisition processes; which is triggered through the data that feeds them.

Which is it? Information does or doesn't propagate quickly?

> I'm not the one encouraging irrational behavior. You are, by applying magical thinking to just how all that signalling has to get translated before any meaningful intervention can take place.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyfeldman/2020/03/12/how-kochs...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-companys-hands-on-effort-to...

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

#425

Post by gwright »

jimmaswell wrote: post #413
gwright wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your A: situation you are explicitly saying that the normal suppliers are not raising the price. I am saying that the best solution to this problem is for the normal suppliers to raise their prices so that scalpers are disencentivized and regular consumers are judicious in their purchases. So you are forcing a false choice between your A and B scenarios.

A is what was happening in real life before B started happening. Suppliers aren't gouging on their own out of a combination of looking out for their brand and existing laws. The best scenario is clearly where nobody is allowed to price gouge. Why are you so insistent on $100 toilet paper being a good thing?

> Why are you so insistent on $100 toilet paper being a good thing?

Why are you throwing up straw man arguments? I'm not in favor of $100 toilet paper. I'm in favor of letting market mechanisms resolve supply and demand imbalances. Anyone who thinks that restricting price increases is required to prevent $100 toilet paper really doesn't have a clue as to how the market works.

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

#426

Post by loeg »

nitrogen wrote: post #374
jbay808 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another example: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/03/13/amazon-blocks... > Ranga said that a six-pack of wipes, which might sell for $20 at Costco, could fetch four times that online, representing a “big opportunity.” He said the couple had spent about $70,000 on Lysol wipes and liquid cleaners over the past few weeks I don't think someone buying $70k of Lysol is doing it because they're worried they'll run o…

I don't think "hoarding" is the right term to describe this behavior. "Profiteering", "scalping", "gouging", etc.

"Arbitrage."

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

#427

Post by loeg »

techslave wrote: post #341
pascalxus wrote: post #265

The crazy thing here is that they go after these gougers so aggressively for just selling a 20$ bottle of soap. And yet, predatory hospitals in the US can do x1000 times worse and not even get a slap on the hand. Hospitals are the #1 cause of bankrupcy in the US.

they aren’t gouging. gouging is a reaction to a disaster or event of some sort. hospitals always charge the absurd prices.

So if Arnold Arbitrage changes his name to Henry Hospital and always charges a high markup, that's A-Ok with you? This point of view seems inconsistent.

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

#428

Post by syshum »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #251
syshum wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Perhaps the law we need is one to control hoarding behavior or the rate of change. Aside from an authoritarian system of governance where all purchases are tracked, and one must only purchase their "allotted" amount of goods, how exactly would one control hoarding? i hope you are not proposing such a dystopian future.

I saw a post on reddit where a costco was only letting you buy one (giant) case of TP per purchase. https://i.imgur.com/m0Efz3E.gifv There are obvious ways to cheat it, but it still means more people end up with TP. You don't have to go full police state to make the distribution of goods more even.

But that voluntary action by individuals, in the context of our discussion here we are talking about laws and government regulation, not voluntary actions by business.

It is perfectly fine for a business to choose to only sell 1 package per customer

It is not fine for government to mandate a business only sell 1 package per customer.

This was my entire point, people here are advocating for GOVERNMENT action when none is needed

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

#429

Post by loeg »

rtkwe wrote: post #219
leptoniscool wrote: post #151

In a free-market, sellers and buyers will find an equilibrium price at which goods can be exchanged for money. When an outsider such as a government artificially sets the price (or forces the price to stay constant), there will be shortages or overproduction.

Stores and manufacturers aren't actually charging increased prices in the majority of cases here. It's people buying out those stores and selling. If manufacturers don't see the increased prices the Econ 101 logic breaks down.

People are businesses; businesses are people. It's not illegal to go into business as an individual and there's no special magic about stores and manufacturers that doesn't apply to arbitragers.

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

#430

Post by syshum »

salawat wrote: post #339
EdgarVerona wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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;…

>>A self-imposed limit per customer enforced by retailers should be sufficient.

That is NOT what people are calling for in this thread, I am fine with that

People are calling for Government imposed rationing and price controls

Post reply on HN