... but when people are starving and thirsty and in the need for medicine...

With anti-gouging laws, they will remain starving, thirsty, and in need of medicine.

 

With anti-gouging laws, they will remain starving, thirsty, and in need of medicine.

Again, you cannot apply the normal supply and demand market laws when an abnormal situation presents itself ... that would only lead to a collapse of the economic system itself.

 

What gets me is the total mishmash of various local, state, and federal edicts. There is no consistency whatsoever. And while we see on the news Isolated Incidents of those edicts being enforced, for the most part, they are NOT being enforced and therefore ignored with deadly consequences.

 

My man -- Walter Williams -- on price gouging.

Some people might reluctantly agree that allowing prices to rise during a disaster helps allocate resources. But they’ll complain that’s not the intention of greedy sellers who are out to profit. I say, so what? It’s not sellers’ intentions that count but what their actions accomplish that’s important — namely, getting people to conserve more and suppliers to produce more.

---EMPHASIS ADDED---
?

Not really? - I should think It'll mean consumers will purchase all they want but at the higher price... With no change save for the merchant's 'bottom line'...

Best regards
HP

 

you cannot apply the normal supply and demand market laws when an abnormal situation presents itself ...

This is the quintessential error made by all statists: that there is a normal supply and demand market. This is why certain countries feel free to nationalize business: if we just keep doing what the private owners did, everything will be fine.

Economic reality is a moving target. Only Adam Smith's Invisible Hand can keep up with the changes.

 

---EMPHASIS ADDED---
?

Not really? - I should think It'll mean consumers will purchase all they want but at the higher price... With no change save for the merchant's 'bottom line'...

Best regards
HP

http://www2.harpercollege.edu/mhealy/eco212i/lectures/5es/5es.htm

 

This is the quintessential error made by all statists: that there is a normal supply and demand market. This is why certain countries feel free to nationalize business: if we just keep doing what the private owners did, everything will be fine.

Economic reality is a moving target. Only Adam Smith's Invisible Hand can keep up with the changes.

I agree with everything you've just said. I just don't feel it applies for a situation in which life and death of the population is at stake, i.e. war. In times of war a government must interfere in a country's economic activity, orienting it to the effort of winning said war. Remember, it's people that make the economy, and not the other way around.

 

When faced with $100 for a bag of ice or a jug of water under dire circumstances, people's trigger fingers get itchy.

 

When faced with $100 for a bag of ice or a jug of water under dire circumstances, people's trigger fingers get itchy.

... and there goes the civilized method of economic exchange of resources ...

 

When faced with $100 for a bag of ice or a jug of water under dire circumstances, people's trigger fingers get itchy.

And what happens to those trigger fingers when a bag of ice or jug of water is not available at any price?

 

Let me put it another way:

If government allocation of scarce resources is superior (which it must be if it can do so better in times of emergency!), then why do we even have a "free" (scare quotes intended) market during "normal" times? Wouldn't it be better for all of us if we let our governments provide all the time?

 

If government allocation of scarce resources is superior

I don't know if that was address to me, but I never said that. I do think that at times of crisis the market will definitely adjust itself eventually. I just think it will not do that fast enough, and many people will go through extreme unnecessary suffering before that happens.

 

http://www2.harpercollege.edu/mhealy/eco212i/lectures/5es/5es.htm

Hey, Joey, please! I don't come here to 'chase links' and 'sift through' off-site 'dissertations' -- I take it that you disagree with me on the point in question? So... If you've a counter-point to make I respectfully ask that you please include any (off-site) relevant text with your reply... -- Many thanks!

Very best regards
HP

 

Hey, Joey, please! I don't come here to 'chase links' and 'sift through' off-site 'dissertations' -- I take it that you disagree with me on the point in question? So... If you've a counter-point to make I respectfully ask that you please include any (off-site) relevant text with your reply... -- Many thanks!

Very best regards
HP

Sorry. It appeared you required a lesson on basic economics.

 

In times of crisis you can really learn what monsters humans actually are.
Brzrkr

 

In times of crisis you can really learn what monsters humans actually are.
Brzrkr

You left out the word SOME people, most are rather helpful and courteous to others.

 

In times of crisis you can really learn what monsters humans actually are.
Brzrkr

Nope. Everyone knows this about me -- even during "normal" times.

 

You left out the word SOME people, most are rather helpful and courteous to others.

Your right Sam. As I said sometimes my words can be taken wrong. I wasn't implying the whole human race but rather those few that seem to prey on others. As some people were caught off guard by the suddenness of the food, toilet paper and such and did not have the money to go right then and stock up on supplies. Others snatched up these items without thinking of the older/senior citizens that had to wait for the first of the month to try to obtain these items.
Brzrkr

 

Others snatched up these items without thinking of the older/senior citizens that had to wait for the first of the month to try to obtain these items.

Isn't that when they get their S.S. checks?