When I published my column
That was making the case
Against bans on “price-gouging”,
There were palms to the face.
Some were outraged
That I’d pick this to write,
While others said MY view
was common to cite.
But look at these photos
Of line-ups for gas,
In messed-up New Jersey
And you’ll see I can’t pass!
Christie brought fines
And talked to the press
Warning retailers that
They should not charge to excess.
But stopping the gouging’s
Not some magic spell!
The citizens wind up in
Long-line-up-hell.
And what’s worse?
When they get to the front of the line
They buy all they can
Just like hogs, just like swine.
Without price-gouging
Folks won’t gouge prices
And won’t try to ship you
The fix for your vices.
Worse than that the gas stations
Are just selling gas
And nothing much else
(Pulled that out of my ass).
It’s a gas-supply crisis!
And people want that!
(But not water or munchies
or food for the cat.)
Long story short,
What’s now rare should be rarer
The poor won’t waste time!
For the rich that’s much fairer.
10 comments:
Huh. I thought it was a pretty interesting conversation. It is a fact that allowing higher prices would have a beneficial effect on both the supply and demand sides of the problem.
It is also worthwhile to consider which approach would have a better social impact, but there is certainly nothing inherently "wrong" with asking the question.
Shirley you're not recommending stifling and uncomfortable academic inquiry??
It is a fact that allowing higher prices would have a beneficial effect on both the supply and demand sides of the problem.
It depends on what you mean by supply and demand. It's not necessarily a "fact" given other measures.
And regardless, the supply and the demand is going to people: optimizing the flow isn't the ideal in the end (it may only mean that helicopters for the WSJ board continue flying), the ideal is getting stuff to people. It's like dollars-for-health-care arguments that ignore "should treatable sickness kill you" lines of inquiry.
I think that's obviously not true - if prices were higher, demand would be lower (that's how it works) and there would be an incentive to deliver more gasoline in the affected region (pretty hard to argue against that).
It's certainly reasonable for you or me or anyone to take part in the discussion and disagree with the premise or the suggested outcomes, but it always amuses me that when it comes to Yglesias, people just HATE him and don't engage with the concept but just try to ridicule him. The man writes a blog called "Moneybox" fer crissakes. It's a perfectly appropriate topic to explore in that venue. I don't get the venom...
I think that's obviously not true
But it is! The problem with the argument is that the frame is the market, while government action could do more in some circumstances. And the price rise obviously fucks the people who can't pay for it: people who may, like me, be riding the line and have to run off and do an unexpected daughter pick-up.
The US has a strategic oil reserve and has the means to ship it. Seems obvious to me.
Gotta run!
Shirley you mean "Scansion is scanty".
Is that not what the title says?
GASP!
There's no damn "free market" here (OK, there) it's a disaster zone!
No increased profit will incentivize gas to get somewhere it can't.
Nor is Big Refined Oil mere Mall★Wart/Big China extrusion to be admired, consumed & thrown away. People need civilization's blood to get to jobs, doctors, supermarkets, day care yada.
Supply & demand works for various definitions & conditions, but it's not the economic concept that should be applied there (Ha ha.) & now. (We'll get ours later, I'm sure.)
See also.
As seen here.
If you make fun of the Magic Market, you will hurt his feelings, and then everyone will be sorry.
~
Post a Comment