Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Consultant32452 2254 days ago
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?
2 comments
birdyrooster 2254 days ago
No, gougers working completely independently can achieve a similar, regrettable end.
link
MisterBastahrd 2254 days ago
Doesn't matter if he bought all or some. If he is attempting to profit off of a disaster, he will be seeing a fine or jail time in plenty of states.
link
Consultant32452 2254 days ago
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.
link
MisterBastahrd 2254 days ago
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.
link
Consultant32452 2254 days ago
Your position is moot because gougers are not the only ones buying up supply they don't personally need. The gougers price the hoarders out of the market.
link
Chris2048 2254 days ago
Should for-profit grave-digging be illegal too?
link
MisterBastahrd 2254 days ago
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.
link
Chris2048 2254 days ago
A strawman is an irrelevant argument, but this one is perfectly relevant: A grave-digger makes money in the event of death, it needn't be during an epidemic, "my dude" (or whatever patronising, PA phrase you prefer)

If people shouldn't profit off disaster, why profit from any misfortune?

link