|
Send to a friend
Printer Friendly PDF Format
Subscribe to FFF Email Update
Subscribe to Freedom Daily
Freedoms Fair-Weather Friends
by
Sheldon Richman,
September 30, 2005
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, some members of Congress are talking about passing a national law against price gouging. One problem should stand in their way:
there is no objective definition of gouging. Whatever the law says will therefore be arbitrary and unfair.
The 20 states that forbid gouging limit price increases
after an emergency to 1025 percent. Did the legislators
consult some occult power?
When politicians get suspicious because the law
of supply and demand works as the textbooks predict, we
may wonder whether they are pandering for votes. Do they
really believe they know what the price of gasoline
should be?
At any given time, supply and demand, as perceived by
sellers and buyers, determine the prices of gasoline and
other goods. Under the threat of Hurricane Katrina, the
supply of gasoline suddenly dropped (or was expected to)
and the demand suddenly increased (or was expected to).
Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that the
price could go in only one direction: up.
The question is, Who should determine how high prices go,
the politicians or the millions of participants in the
marketplace? If the politicians do it, we can expect
consequences even they might dislike.
In a world of scarcity each good must have some price. Of
course, everybody would like all prices to be lower,
except for the price he charges for his goods or labor.
The price system works to balance supply and demand,
ensuring that no buyers or sellers are frustrated in
their attempts to obtain or sell the product. When the
gasoline supply suddenly shrinks and demand stays the
same or increases, the only way for the market to clear
is for the price to rise. When politicians interfere, the
smaller supply disappears quickly, leaving some people
with none at all. While regulators can control the money
price, they cannot control the real cost of buying gas.
Time spent waiting in line or looking for an open gas
station are part of the cost, but that time will increase
whenever the money price is held below the market price.
Anguish over whether gas will be available when needed is
also part of the cost, but that will also increase.
Thus, despite even good intentions, harmful unintended
consequences must follow from price controls.
Free pricing, on the other hand, also has unintended
consequences beneficial ones. Higher prices
attract additional supplies of gasoline (unless
environmental rules interfere), as sellers cash in on new
profit opportunities. As supply increases, prices come
back down. At the same time, higher prices prompt buyers
to economize more severely by prioritizing their needs.
This ensures that there is more gas to go around. Both
effects hasten the return of normal conditions.
The envious may despise peoples earning profits
during disasters, but the benefits of the market process
cannot be denied. Further, laws that prevent
extraordinary profits during disasters discourage
entrepreneurs from preparing for supply
interruptions.
We can see the benefits of free pricing in the most
extreme example. As people jammed the interstate to get
out of Houston when Hurricane Rita approached, officials
complained of gouging. Nevertheless, only rising prices
could ensure that the maximum number of motorists would
obtain gasoline. Is it better to have some gasoline at $5
a gallon or none at $3?
Theres a moral dimension to this issue as well.
Gasoline is owned by individuals. Are they to
lose their right to set the terms of sale because of a
hurricane? If rights can be washed away by the weather,
all freedom is in peril.
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Send him email.
|