He's capturing availability, the manufacturer made the availability. There is no value-adding middle man role with a 10x value here (well value to anyone other than the middle man).
Because he bought them all. This is why, in states where disasters are probable due to natural issues (hurricanes, earthquakes), price gouging is a crime. Not only is it a crime, but it is one where there is full bi-partisan support for the continuance of the law. If you want to put a smile on the face on someone suffering from calamity, first help them, and then arrest the bastard who tried to profit off of it. The first smile will be gentle and gracious, and the second will be of pure glee.
If the gouger actually bought them all then you have a monopoly, which is a different problem. The gauger, instead, bought some. So did many other people. The difference is he's willing to sell his. That's the value to me he's providing. Could you retry your analysis with this corrected information?
I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about whether or not a price gouger provides the service of making some product available on the market, albeit at a higher price. I feel that fact is indisputable and I personally find that valuable. You seem focused on whether or not you consider this action of making something available to me is moral/legal. That's a different question altogether. One which I'm explicitly not commenting on.
Your position is moot. Without the emergency, there would be no incentive for the gouger to source and acquire the product. By acquiring the product, the gouger removes the product from the market for those who are following ethical guidelines, so he's not providing a service at all. You can't disentangle the moral or legal aspects of this just when it suits your whim.
The fun thing about a lot of people dying is that the government will take care of the bodies for you. Try another strawman tactic, my dude. That one missed the mark.
>...The first smile will be gentle and gracious, and the second will be of pure glee.
What kind of smile is there when there is nothing to buy at any price?
Before all these laws, in natural disasters there used to be marginal producers (people with a pickup truck etc) who would load up on some supplies like ice etc. and bring them to the area that was hit to make a quick profit. When the electricity is out and someone wants $12 a bag for ice it would anger you if you just want to keep your drinks cold, but you would think it is a bargain if that way you can keep your insulin chilled.
There are tons of people out there who will handle these things for their communities without expecting an exorbitant amount of money. Your scenario is also completely different from someone trying to buy up the existing supply so that he can gouge people.
>...There are tons of people out there who will handle these things for their communities without expecting an exorbitant amount of money.
The article I linked too was the personal experience of an economist who was in Raleigh after a hurricane hit the area. As he writes:
>...The problem for Raleigh residents was all about price, at that point. The prices of all the necessities that I wanted to use to “preserve, protect, or sustain” my own life shot up to infinity. Within a day after the storm, there were no generators, ice, or chain saws to be had, none. But that means that anyone who brought these commodities into the crippled city, and charged less than infinity, would be doing us a service.
There were not tons of people bringing supplies into the city. The state had to actually beg other states and the federal government for supplies.
In the long run, high profits during a shortage also mean that suppliers in general will be incentivized to keep a larger stockpile of things that have a good shelf-life since they know they will be able to make good money the next time there is a shortage (more than the storage costs). If you are going to literally make it illegal to try this, then you better have a government be willing to spend its tax dollars on creating a stockpile rather than spending money on more immediate things that are more likely to get votes. (We've now seen that all the talk of the national stockpile the federal government supposedly had was greatly exaggerated.)
Right and yet most everyone in this thread can agree that it wouldn’t be the most prudent use of it when there are other lives more at risk than yours.
In reality I have not gone out and purchased overpriced goods. I'm wearing a cloth mask when I go out.
In the hypothetical, you have no idea whose life is more at risk. And the central planners who want to implement price fixing, purchasing quotas, etc. do not have much if any more insight than you.
It’s likely people forget what economy was even for. It doesn’t exist solely to serve itself, well I suppose it could if you are a true masochist, but instead a means to an end: health, happiness, freedom, etc