$5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA
caloes.ca.gov
$5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA
1–10 of 450 posts
Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA
#2$5,000?! That’s price gouging!
Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA
#3An argument supporting gouging: https://reason.com/2019/01/31/price-gouging-is-supply-and-de...
Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA
#4Price isn't just the cost of buying something, it's the reward for producing it. If we see too many price gouging laws, then you can expect shortages as companies find themselves unable to justify extreme measures that would otherwise increase production (at great expense). Secondly, I would expect that localities with price gouging laws will discover that their goods are being re-routed to other places without those laws, exacerbating shortages further.
Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA
#5An argument supporting gouging: https://reason.com/2019/01/31/price-gouging-is-supply-and-de...
The main pragmatic problem with anti-gouging laws (or even just anti-gouging policies within retailers) is that when manufacture and distribution are not supported on the back end to keep up, it leads to shortages (as can be seen at most grocers in the U.S. and Canada right now). My local Wal Mart closed yesterday because they were cleaned out.
Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA
#6An argument supporting gouging: https://reason.com/2019/01/31/price-gouging-is-supply-and-de...
Yes, that is an an argument. It's just not terribly convincing if you don't already subscribe to the idea that markets are always right, externalities be damned.
Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA
#7Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA
#8[flagged]
Re: $5000 per violation of price-gouging in CA
#9An argument supporting gouging: https://reason.com/2019/01/31/price-gouging-is-supply-and-de...
That's just poor reasoning on multiple levels: it assumes supply, the argument that it prevents hoarding misses that as prices are driven up the incentive to hold increases, and it overlooks that some populations night need the good immediately so real harm is being done.
The gain is personal, the harm is social, this is ethics 101 and solipsistic pseudo-libertarion reasoning doesn't make it right.