The way I would put it is, there's no "gouging is bad, no gouging is good". It's not that simple.
Gouging is a really good example of the complexity of free markets vs non-free markets. You can see how many factors are involved in a simple economy, even when talking about one product.
You could probably argue finer points of many of my statements below, but here are a bunch of factors:
Gouging distributes based on how much people can and are willing to pay. No gouging distributes based on lines (first come first serve, who has more time, who wants it more), or relationships, or knowing the right people, or theft).
Gouging encourages people to save up what they can. If you can store money, water, food, expertise, or gas, you can trade these resources for other products, and if there are free floating values for goods, you can trade high demand water for high demand gas. No gouging encourages people to save any and all resources you would want in case of emergency (you need gasoline, but your stored up water is only worth $2/gal despite it being in extremely high demand, so you don't work with others to accomplish betterment). Or save none and make sure you're at the front of the FEMA lines.
Gouging encourages people from outside of the market to enter the market to make money and bring goods to the needy area, which not only provides the goods to the need/want, but brings prices down. No gouging depends on people behaving out of the kindness of their hearts to go help.
Gouging doesn't require creating criminals out of expected behavior. No gouging laws takes productive members of society who are prepared and makes criminals out of them.
I'm not sure how these laws work. They say "charging x% higher"...does that mean preventing the barter system to charge higher rates? I suppose that would be an argument for anti-gouge laws. It promotes bartering vs simply using saved up dollars for resource allocation. I think this is the best argument (thought I've never heard someone make it).
During an emergency, there's no "good" scenario. I get we all want the feel good stories of people helping out the needy. I think that's actually the motivating force for people wanting no gouging laws. Reinforce the Good vs Bad. Bad people gouge. Good people help. I totally understand that. Remove that mindset, and gouging is far more efficient at allocating resources.
Make no mistake, this scenario is a micro-chasm of how free market economies function (ie politics).
The topic of gouging gets old to me, and my point is not to argue, just to pointing out the complexity.
Gouging is a really good example of the complexity of free markets vs non-free markets. You can see how many factors are involved in a simple economy, even when talking about one product.
You could probably argue finer points of many of my statements below, but here are a bunch of factors:
Gouging distributes based on how much people can and are willing to pay. No gouging distributes based on lines (first come first serve, who has more time, who wants it more), or relationships, or knowing the right people, or theft).
Gouging encourages people to save up what they can. If you can store money, water, food, expertise, or gas, you can trade these resources for other products, and if there are free floating values for goods, you can trade high demand water for high demand gas. No gouging encourages people to save any and all resources you would want in case of emergency (you need gasoline, but your stored up water is only worth $2/gal despite it being in extremely high demand, so you don't work with others to accomplish betterment). Or save none and make sure you're at the front of the FEMA lines.
Gouging encourages people from outside of the market to enter the market to make money and bring goods to the needy area, which not only provides the goods to the need/want, but brings prices down. No gouging depends on people behaving out of the kindness of their hearts to go help.
Gouging doesn't require creating criminals out of expected behavior. No gouging laws takes productive members of society who are prepared and makes criminals out of them.
I'm not sure how these laws work. They say "charging x% higher"...does that mean preventing the barter system to charge higher rates? I suppose that would be an argument for anti-gouge laws. It promotes bartering vs simply using saved up dollars for resource allocation. I think this is the best argument (thought I've never heard someone make it).
During an emergency, there's no "good" scenario. I get we all want the feel good stories of people helping out the needy. I think that's actually the motivating force for people wanting no gouging laws. Reinforce the Good vs Bad. Bad people gouge. Good people help. I totally understand that. Remove that mindset, and gouging is far more efficient at allocating resources.
Make no mistake, this scenario is a micro-chasm of how free market economies function (ie politics).
The topic of gouging gets old to me, and my point is not to argue, just to pointing out the complexity.
“Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.”