Long-time readers know I cringe when I hear the term "price-gougers" or something similar. When I hear that term, I see visions of populist demagogues dancing in my head. A Las Vegas Review Journal editorialist explains:
Even though she admits the "problem" has not arisen in Nevada in
recent memory, state Sen. Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, now offers Senate
Bill 82, which seeks to ban "price gouging" by classifying as an
illegal "deceptive trade practice" the sale of a consumer good or
service "for an unconscionable price before or during a state of
emergency."
What's "unconscionable"? Selling at a price 25 percent higher than
the average price of said good or service over the past 30 days "unless
approved by an appropriate government or governmental entity." Or so
the bill says.
Though, reading further down, there's an exception if the price hike is
justified by "an increase in the costs incurred" by the seller.
I wonder if the "costs incurred" include opportunity costs. Some say price gouging is unfair. What's unfair about people engaging in voluntary exchange at the prices they face?
Then there's the unintended consequences:
"Consider -- if a gas station owner has gas, someone has to decide
who gets it. If the price remains at pre-hurricane levels, many will
fill their tanks, because they can afford to do so, against the chance
(and even likelihood) that gas will later become completely unavailable
(a self-fulfilling prophecy if the price is not allowed to rise).
"Many will do so even if they have no immediate need for it. But
after the first few people do this, the gas will be gone, and none will
be available for those who come after, because it's now tied up in the
gas tanks of those who didn't really need it.
And what about anti-price gouging laws?
The best -- in the long run, the only -- way to sustain
price-gouging is to give the activity the imprimatur of a government
guaranteed monopoly -- which Sen. Titus and her cohorts do, all the
time.
If you don't believe this, just try to offer some lower-priced
competition to Nevada's taxicab operators, or barbers, or any of a
hundred other "regulated" professions, without first seeking a
government license or permit -- a permitting process that often
requires you to demonstrate to a regulatory board made up of the very
people with whom you hope to compete, that you won't hurt the people
with whom you want to compete by stealing away any of their customers
or undercutting their prices!
So here come the biggest "price-gougers" of all, offering to make it
illegal for some small-time entrepreneur to load his pickup with
bottled water and baby food, race the stuff to the scene of a disaster
days before bumbling government bureaucrats can get there, and
compensate himself for the risks thus sustained by selling these
life-saving supplies to those who need them most for whatever the
traffic will bear.
All to "protect Nevadans" by making sure that instead of being
charged more for vital supplies at times of emergency -- there won't be
any to buy at all.
Who's going to protect people from the bureaucrats and politicians?
HT to Craig Newmark