Thomas Sowell makes a pretty strong case for “price gouging” because people don’t buy supplies they don’t need. If they do need something, they are resourceful and find alternatives. And if no alternative exists, people begin bartering for things they may need more.
Historically, bans on “price gouging” have led to more scarcity and more waste.
you’re missing a few pieces critical to the argument. First, capitalism requires capital. Speculation and risk taking suggest there is something to lose. But laws, regulations, and oversight have been so modified to let speculators gamble with “potential” capital and profit from loss. If they can gamble with something they don’t have, to profit from a bet they failed to win, how is that capitalism?
Second, you have price-fixing right now, but not from government: from ‘Goldman’ - hoarding supply (petroleum, chocolate...) and controlling prices. And Interest Rates - you’re old enough to remember LIBOR is fixed by traders, right?
Third, the “free-market” deals with price gouging when the consumer retains the leverage to take his business elsewhere. If supplier has undue leverage over his customer — through exclusive contract, monopoly, or critical life support (medical equipment) then the market is not “free.”
There is a constitutional role for government: to balance the rights of the individual with the rights of the group. Sometimes the individual needs to be protected from an unruly mob; sometimes the group needs to be protected from a psychopath. But when the mob and the psychopath make the rules and determine what behaviors are allowed, you don’t have a free market, you’ve just “legalized” predation.
Thomas Sowell makes a pretty strong case for “price gouging” because people don’t buy supplies they don’t need. If they do need something, they are resourceful and find alternatives. And if no alternative exists, people begin bartering for things they may need more.
Historically, bans on “price gouging” have led to more scarcity and more waste.
you’re missing a few pieces critical to the argument. First, capitalism requires capital. Speculation and risk taking suggest there is something to lose. But laws, regulations, and oversight have been so modified to let speculators gamble with “potential” capital and profit from loss. If they can gamble with something they don’t have, to profit from a bet they failed to win, how is that capitalism?
Second, you have price-fixing right now, but not from government: from ‘Goldman’ - hoarding supply (petroleum, chocolate...) and controlling prices. And Interest Rates - you’re old enough to remember LIBOR is fixed by traders, right?
Third, the “free-market” deals with price gouging when the consumer retains the leverage to take his business elsewhere. If supplier has undue leverage over his customer — through exclusive contract, monopoly, or critical life support (medical equipment) then the market is not “free.”
There is a constitutional role for government: to balance the rights of the individual with the rights of the group. Sometimes the individual needs to be protected from an unruly mob; sometimes the group needs to be protected from a psychopath. But when the mob and the psychopath make the rules and determine what behaviors are allowed, you don’t have a free market, you’ve just “legalized” predation.
So what you’re saying is you can’t counter? All I’m saying fixing problems from unfair or corrupt business practices does not equal socialism.