![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI suppose it’s appropriate that we get this truly scary, fanged, and drooling glimpse of the face of modern capitalism on October 31st. CNBC Senior Editor John Carney has decided to weigh in on the subject of price gouging during a disaster.
What’s striking is the bland cluelessness, a level of naivete that, feigned or not, borders on the murderous. After pointing out that, once a few of these layabouts experience having to pay, say, $100 for a case of bottled water, they’ll have received a salutary lesson in being prepared for disaster, Carney observes:
Right. The poor never have to do without “necessary goods and services” in normal times, so they certainly won’t have to do without them during disasters like floods and hurricanes! For the most part, anyway. And if a few poor people are unlucky enough not to be part of that “most,” seeing a few bodies of neighbors who’ve died from hypothermia or thirst will teach the rest of those lazy beggars a lesson about the dangers of overconsumption!
Carney apparently believes the plight of many people during a disaster is about dickering over prices rather than access to resources that could save lives. “This is a problem better resolved,” he declares, “through transfer payments to alleviate the household budgetary effects of the prices after the fact, rather than trying to control the price in the first place.”
Of course, this is only going to help those people who managed to survive in a "marketplace" where the prices of goods are jacked up to the point where they end up having to choose what live-saving goods to purchase. Potable water? Uncontaminated food? Dry warm blankets? Hey, if you can't afford all of them that's just now how the marketplace works, buddy, and if you or a member of your family ends up not making it because you chose wrong, those are the Randian breaks.
Surely the transfer payment you get later will compensate for having to watch them die.
But wait! There's more! Carney has followed this post up with another mentioning merchants giving away perishable goods, in which he asks:
Is this man from another planet?
*
What’s striking is the bland cluelessness, a level of naivete that, feigned or not, borders on the murderous. After pointing out that, once a few of these layabouts experience having to pay, say, $100 for a case of bottled water, they’ll have received a salutary lesson in being prepared for disaster, Carney observes:
One objection is that a system of free-floating, legal gouging would allow the wealthy to buy everything and leave the poor out altogether. But this concern is overrated. For the most part, price hikes during disasters do not actually put necessary goods and services out of reach of even the poorest people. They just put the budgets of the poor under additional strain.
Right. The poor never have to do without “necessary goods and services” in normal times, so they certainly won’t have to do without them during disasters like floods and hurricanes! For the most part, anyway. And if a few poor people are unlucky enough not to be part of that “most,” seeing a few bodies of neighbors who’ve died from hypothermia or thirst will teach the rest of those lazy beggars a lesson about the dangers of overconsumption!
Carney apparently believes the plight of many people during a disaster is about dickering over prices rather than access to resources that could save lives. “This is a problem better resolved,” he declares, “through transfer payments to alleviate the household budgetary effects of the prices after the fact, rather than trying to control the price in the first place.”
Of course, this is only going to help those people who managed to survive in a "marketplace" where the prices of goods are jacked up to the point where they end up having to choose what live-saving goods to purchase. Potable water? Uncontaminated food? Dry warm blankets? Hey, if you can't afford all of them that's just now how the marketplace works, buddy, and if you or a member of your family ends up not making it because you chose wrong, those are the Randian breaks.
Surely the transfer payment you get later will compensate for having to watch them die.
But wait! There's more! Carney has followed this post up with another mentioning merchants giving away perishable goods, in which he asks:
Clearly, people could pay market prices for the perishing goods. Does the fact that they aren't mean consumers are gouging merchants? Should this be illegal?
Is this man from another planet?
*
(no subject)
Date: 2/11/12 17:52 (UTC)It's about convincing those people who can make different choices to make different choices. When the people in North Houston clog I-45 so that it takes 18 hours to make a 4 hour trek, the people trapped closest to the storm are stuck staying in their unsafe houses.
And like I said, I am all for immediate cash assistance for the poor so that they can afford essentials.
You act as though we can prevent shortages, which we can't.
How do you decide who is shit out of luck? You've been riding my ass about how unfair it is to make that decision, but it's a decision that has to be made. Anti-price gouging and anti-hoarding laws have not stopped shortages in disasters, so additional policy is clearly needed to make your policy work.
What is it? If you don't have one, don't try to make me feel guilty about the poor when you have no better answers for them.
(no subject)
Date: 2/11/12 18:58 (UTC)The other scenarios still leave a lot of the poor "shit out of luck." A good disaster response needs to take into account the most vulnerable citizens. That's why there are laws against price-gouging and hoarding.
pk: It's about convincing those people who can make different choices to make different choices.
I don't think that getting rid of price-gouging during a disaster is going to do that. To borrow an analogy used by that very smart professional mocker, Stephen Colbert, it's like taking down the stop signs at a busy four way stop on the grounds that, without them, rational self-interest will kick in and traffic will eventually move smoothly. First of all, the "learning process" would be lethal for some people. Second, the result is likely to be more or less permanent gridlock.
The reaction to outrageous price-gouging of someone rushing to get away in advance of an oncoming Category 5 storm is not likely going to involve stepping back and thoughtfully working out what would be best for everyone. If the person has the money, they're likely to mutter some curses, pay it and load up their car. If they don't, they are not going to hang around dickering. They're more likely to panic and try (probably vainly) some place with items the can afford, OR just give up and go back home, OR organize a few like-minded pals with base-ball bats to break a few windows and grab stuff.
Yes, people will sometimes wait until the last minute to evacuate in advance of a hurricane, sometimes because they underestimate the danger of a storm, sometimes because they honestly have little choice. People will make dumb decisions because they have a false sense of invulnerability. People will make unsafe decisions because they don't have many options. A good, humane disaster response takes those factors into account.
pk:And like I said, I am all for immediate cash assistance for the poor so that they can afford essentials.
And what's to prevent profiteers from just raising their prices even more?
pk: You act as though we can prevent shortages, which we can't.
No, we can't. We can, however, minimize their effects.
Anti-homicide laws don't prevent all murders. Anti-theft laws don't prevent all theft. Anti-rape laws don't prevent all rape. The existence of these laws, however, do reduce the incidence of murder, theft, and rape.
pk: How do you decide who is shit out of luck?
I leave that decision to aid agencies who do that kind of triage. I do know that it's way beyond the point of that person saying "I don't have enough cash to pay for that bottled water the guy is charging $100 a case for."