Originally Posted by
livedarklions
You're wildly overstating the case that the term "gouging" doesn't have a meaning. We can agree that the tire price increases aren't that, but I think your assertion that allowing people to charge $20 per gallon for drinking water is a good solution to a temporary shortage is Chicago school taken to an absurd degree. . We do actually have governments for a reason.
Is $2 per gallon "gouging"? $3? $4? Any such threshold is arbitrary and subjective.
And still no one has explained how it helps people (especially in an emergency) to dramatically limit any incentive for resources to flow to those who most need them. Likewise, only one or two posters seem to recognize that price ceilings won't actually prevent high prices, as goods will sell on the black market for whatever prices people are willing to pay. (Do you really believe that, after a devastating hurricane, local authorities are going to be enforcing 'price gouging' laws? I sure hope they have better things to do.)
I think
Maelochs , who went silent after being asked a pretty basic question in post 149, is sort of a poster boy for the people in this thread who want to deny reality -- which is that stuff goes to those who will pay the most for it. A lot of the time, for a lot of the stuff, I think this is a pretty lousy way to do it...But I'm reminded of the Winston Churchill quote about democracy. In modern times, we're stuck with capitalism. If we want to fix those problems, price ceilings are a lousy mechanism -- it'd be much simpler and more effective to simply ensure that everyone had enough money to buy the things they need and let the market do what it does best. But here in the US, extreme income redistribution seems about as popular as leprosy.
PS: This isn't "Chicago School." It's econ 101, almost anywhere it's taught.
PPS: By the way, we're now up to 163 posts, and still no one has shown us an example of any commonly-used tire that can't be purchased for <$100.