Here's where your hand sanitizer went

[Gumby]

People have been killed for less...

Best not to feed the trolls.

 

[Gumby]

Sanitizer isn't the only option available to disinfect your hands. Buy some soap and let him sit on the 20,000 bottles. If people think that hand sanitizer is their only option, then they are the idiots.

You may disagree, but that doesn't make it any less against the law. If you can mobilize your fellow citizens to change the law, go right ahead. I predict you will be unsuccessful.

 

[gerntz]

Bourbon working well. Smells great. Bit expensive.

 

[MRG]

Bourbon working well. Smells great. Bit expensive.

Everclear and vodka are cheaper.

 

[Music Lover]

You may disagree, but that doesn't make it any less against the law. If you can mobilize your fellow citizens to change the law, go right ahead. I predict you will be unsuccessful.

I don't care about the law as it has no effect on my life one way or the other. If someone wants to hoard sanitizer I'll just find a less expensive option. It's the fools who pay panic and pay $50 for hand sanitizer that encourage this kind of behaviour.

 

[Gumby]

Actually, both Bourbon and Vodka are typically only 40% alcohol. IIRC, the CDC recommendation was that a concentration of at least 60% is required.

Everclear would, however, fit the bill.

 

[NW-Bound]

Bourbon working well. Smells great. Bit expensive.

Everclear and vodka are cheaper.

You need 70% alcohol to be effective. Most liquors fall way short. Everclear is an exception.

On the other hand, in a post a few days ago, which is a long time now, in one of the threads that were closed, I shared a study in 2010 or something like that, showing a mere 5 part-per-million solution of sodium hypochlorite, the main ingredient of common bleach, can kill SARS virus. And the SARS virus is one in the family of the coronavirus.

Now, 5ppm is about what is in my backyard pool. To disinfect, I go luxurious, and put some pure strength bleach in a small vial to keep in my pocket when I go to the store. I think I will have to dilute it out to 1:10 or something. How many ppm is that?

 

[Fermion]

I don't care about the law as it has no effect on my life one way or the other. If someone wants to hoard sanitizer I'll just find a less expensive option. It's the fools who pay panic and pay $50 for hand sanitizer that encourage this kind of behaviour.

You think it doesn't have any effect on your life because you just see it in one small aspect.

What if gas stations decided "hey it is a free market!" and called each other and colluded to set the price of gas at $40 a gallon during a time of crisis? Would that have any effect on your life?

 

[Gumby]

You need 70% alcohol to be effective. Most liquors fall way short. Everclear is an exception.

On the other hand, in a post a few days ago, which is a long time now, in one of the threads that were closed, I shared a study in 2010 or something like that, showing a mere 5 part-per-million solution of sodium hypochlorite, the main ingredient of common bleach, can kill SARS virus. And the SARS virus is one in the family of the coronavirus.

Now, 5ppm is about what is in my backyard pool. To disinfect, I go luxurious, and put some pure strength bleach in a small vial to keep in my pocket when I go to the store. I think I will have to dilute it out to 1:10 or something. How many ppm is that?

The bleach bottle in my cupboard says it is 6% which is 60,000 ppm. If you dilute it 1:10, you'll be down to 6000 ppm, which should be more than adequate.

 

[ERD50]

In my state, price gouging in a declared emergency (as is the case now) is illegal, and the Attorney General's office will prosecute violators. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/AG/Press_Releases/2019/Price-Gouging-in-CT-handout-final-(2).pdf?la=en
It is a very popular law and I expect that he will receive many complaints. Some other states have similar laws. If "Eric" the truck driver thinks Amazon is his main worry, he may be in for a rude awakening.

So here is another one of those areas where someone might be persuaded to change their mind (remember we had a thread on that recently?).

Before I get into this, I will say that this would not apply to a "cornering the market" approach, which is what this guy apparently has done.


Economists tell us that price gouging is a good thing, and should not be outlawed. We are seeing this hoarding going on now, and it's ridiculous. People buy more than they need for fear of going w/o. But if we let prices go high, people will think twice and three times before stocking up. And if they know that stores will raise prices in an emergency, they'll plan ahead and keep stores on hand, rather than emptying shelves when it is hardest to restock them.

Let's say we let the price of rubber gloves and masks go up 10x. That not only provides some rationing because people will be less inclined to buy more than they might reasonable need, but it provides additional motivation for the suppliers to ramp up production. Margins may be so slim that it just doesn't make economic sense to pay overtime, or hire part time staff to fill a short term need. But at 10x, the profit margin opens up and it all makes economic sense.

When an emergency is localized (say a hurricane/flood), if you let prices rise, some people may be motivated to drop their current activities, and bring supplies into that area. It might be worth it for a construction worker to load his pickup truck up with water or generators, if he can legally ask 10x to whoever will pay. Without that incentive, that guy will probably stick to his day job, he has a family to feed too. But with the motivation, more water, generators, etc, are delivered to those in need.

Now I suppose some people will say "But they should just do it anyhow, for the common good." Well, no one is stopping charity work, so you get as much of that as you would anyhow. But the extra incentive provides even more goods.

Does this discriminate against the poor? Well, what good does an empty shelf do for the poor? I bet the wealthy are more able to get to the store first (not hourly workers, more flexible with time). And it's the people with money doing more of the hoarding (more money and probably more storage space, freezers, etc). They would do less of if prices were higher, and maybe the shelves would not be empty for the poor.

One source: https://freakonomics.com/2010/05/04/in-favor-of-price-gouging/

Really, most price gouging comes down to "it feels wrong", but results are what matters. If outlawing price gouging on average makes things worse, than it is the outlawing that's bad.

Again, the case described where this guy hoards it to drive up the prices is different, that's market manipulation. And if the store was allowed to raise prices to meet supply/demand, he probably couldn't do it profitably anyhow.

Don't shoot the messenger - think about it. Price gouging is good. Outlawing it is bad, even (especially) if it feels good.

-ERD50

 

[Fermion]

So how about when this guy gets injured from the mob, the hospital he is taken to decides to raise their treatment price on him by 10,000% because, hey, "free market, yo?"

 

[ERD50]

You think it doesn't have any effect on your life because you just see it in one small aspect.

What if gas stations decided "hey it is a free market!" and called each other and colluded to set the price of gas at $40 a gallon during a time of crisis? Would that have any effect on your life?

Collusion is different. Supply/demand should not be illegal. Or will they need to burn my Econ 101 text book?


-ERD50

 

[Fermion]

Sweet, so next time there is a hurricane, those states with toll roads should be able to use the supply/demand justification to raise the tolls to $100 per car. Hey, if you don't like it, walk!

 

[Gumby]

S
Don't shoot the messenger - think about it. Price gouging is good. Outlawing it is bad, even (especially) if it feels good.

-ERD50

Oh, I understand the economic arguments against price gouging laws. You have stated them clearly and concisely. But it's still the law unless and until it is changed. And I would bet that not a single one of those arguments crossed these people's minds when they were doing this. They just saw an opportunity to profit and took it.

And, yes, the attempt to corner the market by buying up all supplies also could potentially result in liability under the state and federal antitrust laws.

 

[ERD50]

So how about when this guy gets injured from the mob, the hospital he is taken to decides to raise their treatment price on him by 10,000% because, hey, "free market, yo?"

Hospitals are a bad example, they don't have transparent pricing now!

But if word got out that a hospital did that, there would be repercussions.

Let's take another example. Towing charges are pretty transparent, The tow truck doesn't show up and try to get more money because they sense you really need to get your car towed and be on your way. If you want to pay for expedited service, there might be a transparent charge for that (like a plumber probably charges double ti,e on a Sunday?).

They could, but I think they realize that for ongoing business, a set rate works best for them, or they would get a bad reputation and lose customers. They don;t take advantage because they are greedy, and want to assure their long term success.


Emergencies like this are different. There's a short term need, and limited short term supply. Letting prices float motivates the supply side, which is good for everyone.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Oh, I understand the economic arguments against price gouging laws. You have stated them clearly and concisely. But it's still the law unless and until it is changed. ....

Sure, but I'm saying it's a bad law, with bad consequences.

But unless people realize that, they will support that law on 'feelings', and unknowingly (ignorantly), be hurting people, while patting themselves on the back for "caring about people".

-ERD50

 

[Fermion]

No, it is cornering a market. A really rich person could devastate an area. What if Bill Gates was evil and decided he would buy up the entire inventory of all of the grocery stores in a area during a crisis? He could do it with sofa money. There is no way it would be good for the market as it takes time to refill supply channels.

 

[ERD50]

Sweet, so next time there is a hurricane, those states with toll roads should be able to use the supply/demand justification to raise the tolls to $100 per car. Hey, if you don't like it, walk!

The fact that you go to ridiculous examples demonstrates how weak your case is.

In a hurricane, they want you to evacuate. If it would help, they should eliminate the tolls, not raise them.

It all depends what action you are trying to motivate. If we want to motivate people to not buy 10x what they might need, just to be sure, let the price rise. It will discourage the level of hoarding It's really basic economics and is also covered in the field of "behavioral economics".

-ERD50

 

[Fermion]

The fact that you go to ridiculous examples demonstrates how weak your case is.

In a hurricane, they want you to evacuate. If it would help, they should eliminate the tolls, not raise them.

It all depends what action you are trying to motivate. If we want to motivate people to not buy 10x what they might need, just to be sure, let the price rise. It will discourage the level of hoarding It's really basic economics and is also covered in the field of "behavioral economics".

-ERD50

My case isn't weak, I just have not had enough coffee or time to think of the 10,000 examples where your logic fails. I'll spend a little more time and point it out to you in a few minutes.

 

[Mdlerth]

Sometimes karma is quicker than we expect

Speculations can go sour. I'll bet a beer that in about three weeks those guys are gonna be sitting on over ten thousand containers of sanitizer that they can't give away.

 

[ERD50]

No, it is cornering a market. A really rich person could devastate an area. What if Bill Gates was evil and decided he would buy up the entire inventory of all of the grocery stores in a area during a crisis? He could do it with sofa money. There is no way it would be good for the market as it takes time to refill supply channels.

I was clear. I'm not talking about cornering a market.

Bill Gates can do anything he wants. Let's talk real life, and what happens on average.

As I said, the only way that guy could attempt to illegally profit by buying up everything was because prices were kept artificially low. That created a black market for him to attempt to profit. If the prices floated, he couldn't compete.

It's completely different for the examples I gave, where the price float creates motivation for more supply. That helps everyone.

-ERD50

 

[Fermion]

Well here is one point. If you consolidate a widely needed product that is normally widely available into one location, it increases the time needed to obtain that product and increases the risk the product can be obtained at all. It is not "good".

If this guys buys up all the hand sanitizer then gets ill, or decides he will wait six months to sell it because he *thinks* the situation will only get worse, he has damaged the market, at least temporarily, until trucks can deliver more sanitizer.

I guess it is so hard to come up with examples because the logic seems so sound that anti-gouging laws and market cornering laws are a good idea.

 

[ERD50]

My case isn't weak, I just have not had enough coffee or time to think of the 10,000 examples where your logic fails. I'll spend a little more time and point it out to you in a few minutes.

I'm sure you can find examples/exceptions, no system is perfect. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

But on average, it is clear that allowing markets to float does the most good, overall.

-ERD50

 

[Fermion]

I was clear. I'm not talking about cornering a market.

Bill Gates can do anything he wants. Let's talk real life, and what happens on average.

As I said, the only way that guy could attempt to illegally profit by buying up everything was because prices were kept artificially low. That created a black market for him to attempt to profit. If the prices floated, he couldn't compete.

It's completely different for the examples I gave, where the price float creates motivation for more supply. That helps everyone.

-ERD50

He was totally corning a market and creating panic.

 

[NW-Bound]

The bleach bottle in my cupboard says it is 6% which is 60,000 ppm. If you dilute it 1:10, you'll be down to 6000 ppm, which should be more than adequate.

That was my point.

I am going luxurious meaning overkill, because I am rich and just want to kill the virus 1000x over. So, I asked a rhetorical question.

PS. Well, even a dilution of 1:100 will be 600ppm, which kills the virus 100x over. If there is a run on bleach, I may have to dilute it out further.