Economics: The Value of "Price Gouging"

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

It doesn't matter. The point of the price control is to make sure no one is able to take advantage of the temporary price bubble brought on by desperation. It isn't just about the first person to bring water into the disaster area, the initial price isn't all that important.
This idealized and simplified scenario is apologetics for the free market faith, not much more.

Now it doesn't matter? Why did you post your 10k scenario then?

What is the price point that ensures a more equal distribution of resources?

The point was the inflation, not the initial price. I just used the 10$ starting point provided in the OP.

Besides, the assumption of the rational consumer making informed decisions in a free market economy don't hold up at all well in a disaster area, so the whole premise is absurd.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

If the vendor really cares about fair distribution of resources rather than simple profiteering he can set a limit of how many bottles each customer can buy. Simple, and it means anybody can buy water not just those rich enough to afford it.

You discount the risk involved in getting those bottles to market. The money upfront to purchase said bottles and the potentially harrowing journey to transport those bottles back to a disaster zone. What's that worth? Altruism is a myth, mind you.

There is nothing wrong with the initial supplier profiting. Every one after that is just rent seeking, driving up the price, and creating market inefficiency.

[Haumana]

It doesn't matter. The point of the price control is to make sure no one is able to take advantage of the temporary price bubble brought on by desperation. It isn't just about the first person to bring water into the disaster area, the initial price isn't all that important.
This idealized and simplified scenario is apologetics for the free market faith, not much more.

Now it doesn't matter? Why did you post your 10k scenario then?

What is the price point that ensures a more equal distribution of resources?

The point was the inflation, not the initial price. I just used the 10$ starting point provided in the OP.

Besides, the assumption of the rational consumer making informed decisions in a free market economy don't hold up at all well in a disaster area, so the whole premise is absurd.

Oh? "the assumption of the rational consumer making informed decisions in a free market economy don't hold up at all well in a disaster area" based on what? Citation forthcoming?

[Haumana]

If the vendor really cares about fair distribution of resources rather than simple profiteering he can set a limit of how many bottles each customer can buy. Simple, and it means anybody can buy water not just those rich enough to afford it.

You discount the risk involved in getting those bottles to market. The money upfront to purchase said bottles and the potentially harrowing journey to transport those bottles back to a disaster zone. What's that worth? Altruism is a myth, mind you.

There is nothing wrong with the initial supplier profiting. Every one after that is just rent seeking, driving up the price, and creating market inefficiency.

So you agree with the OP? There will be a market equilibrium that will expose itself as more and more resources avail themselves?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Now it doesn't matter? Why did you post your 10k scenario then?

What is the price point that ensures a more equal distribution of resources?

The point was the inflation, not the initial price. I just used the 10$ starting point provided in the OP.

Besides, the assumption of the rational consumer making informed decisions in a free market economy don't hold up at all well in a disaster area, so the whole premise is absurd.

Oh? "the assumption of the rational consumer making informed decisions in a free market economy don't hold up at all well in a disaster area" based on what? Citation forthcoming?

You are right, desperate people in desperate situations are well known for their rational choices.
/shrug

[Montegriffo]

About 20 years ago fuel tanker drivers went on strike in the UK. Within hours most petrol stations had started to run out of fuel. Many were requisitioned by the police to ensure the emergency services could continue to function. Some rationed the amount of fuel each customer could buy in order to mitigate the effects of panic buying. Others raised the price from 90p a litre to £10 a litre. After the crisis was over those places which had exploited the situation were boycotted and many went out of business. The free market has a way of biting you in the arse if you take advantage of customers purely for greed.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

You discount the risk involved in getting those bottles to market. The money upfront to purchase said bottles and the potentially harrowing journey to transport those bottles back to a disaster zone. What's that worth? Altruism is a myth, mind you.

There is nothing wrong with the initial supplier profiting. Every one after that is just rent seeking, driving up the price, and creating market inefficiency.

So you agree with the OP? There will be a market equilibrium that will expose itself as more and more resources avail themselves?

Eventually...

The short term problems caused by the disaster is what we are talking about. As more and more resources avail themselves, obviously gouging isn't really an issue you nit.

[Haumana]

The point was the inflation, not the initial price. I just used the 10$ starting point provided in the OP.

Besides, the assumption of the rational consumer making informed decisions in a free market economy don't hold up at all well in a disaster area, so the whole premise is absurd.

Oh? "the assumption of the rational consumer making informed decisions in a free market economy don't hold up at all well in a disaster area" based on what? Citation forthcoming?

You are right, desperate people in desperate situations are well known for their rational choices.
/shrug

I am? You are the one who proposed a crafty investor of 10k for a case of water with the intent of selling it to the second in line for double.

Could it not be equally as viable that that desperate people will take care of their immediate needs and then use that relief to plan for a more prudent long term plan? /shrug indeed

[Haumana]

There is nothing wrong with the initial supplier profiting. Every one after that is just rent seeking, driving up the price, and creating market inefficiency.

So you agree with the OP? There will be a market equilibrium that will expose itself as more and more resources avail themselves?

Eventually...

The short term problems caused by the disaster is what we are talking about. As more and more resources avail themselves, obviously gouging isn't really an issue you nit.

Is it really gouging though? That is the question you have yet to address, shitdick. (since we are hurling insults now I might as well use my favorite)

[Haumana]

About 20 years ago fuel tanker drivers went on strike in the UK. Within hours most petrol stations had started to run out of fuel. Many were requisitioned by the police to ensure the emergency services could continue to function. Some rationed the amount of fuel each customer could buy in order to mitigate the effects of panic buying. Others raised the price from 90p a litre to £10 a litre. After the crisis was over those places which had exploited the situation were boycotted and many went out of business. The free market has a way of biting you in the arse if you take advantage of customers purely for greed.

Sounds divine.