25 thoughts on “Price Gouging Saves Lives ‌‌ – Lee Doren”

  1. they call it gouging because its bad its a way to take advantage of a
    situation…an easier solution would be to limit the amount that a person
    could purchase instead of raising the price

  2. A limit on the amount a single person can buy would accomplish the same
    thing and poor people wont have a hard time either. All price gouging does
    is make sure only the well off can afford to buy an entire shelf of
    groceries in an emergency and screw the rest over.

  3. I predicted what your argument was going to be before watching this. I
    don’t really buy your argument HtWW but at the same time I’m not against
    business owners that want to price gouge and would see myself doing the
    same thing. It’s a natural business phenomena.

  4. You all are missing the point. If you ration supplies that still doesn’t
    incenticize anyone to come in from outside markets to *increase* the supply
    of water. If water sells for a higher price, truly representing the higher
    demand for it, that higher demand can be answered by higher supply, in
    other words you ask for more water, you get it. If you want something which
    is hard for you to find, offer a bigger reward, it is only logical, and
    perfectly fair.

  5. in short.. 🙂 come on guys.. we all know what happens when shit hits the
    fan.. cough.. do you want to atleast have goods on the shelves to take away
    in the chaos when it actually hits! yeah… from like katrina when it hit..
    like anyone pays for anything when the disaster hits anyway! yay price
    gouge~ that way atleast stores will have some extra cash to restock after
    everyone cleans them up and the dust settles.

  6. All the more reason to be prepared and try to keep some non-perishable
    necessities on hand throughout the year so u don’t have to scramble when
    supply becomes strained and demand rises. I’ve seen similar activities at
    stores when a big snow storm is predicted. It’s best to keep supplies in a
    root cellar so u don’t have to deal with a rush of people or the risk of
    not affording something I need or there not being the item.

  7. Example: A family of 4 or more might get one room and have kids sleep on
    the floor rather than taking up two or more rooms. This frees up rooms for
    other people who need it.

  8. Libertarians/fiscal cons/Teapartiers would replace the gubmint stepping in
    and giving water to citizens, regardless of how much money they’ve got with
    private companies coming in trying to take advantage of American disaster
    victims during their time of need. Vote libertarian/fiscal con/Teaparty, if
    you’re an anti-American sociopath.

  9. Hope that poorly worded first line of my last post didn’t sound like a
    brush-off. I meant to clarify my position as specific to one example, not
    general to all. I had to actually rethink my position in order to respond
    to your points. Thanks for the mental work-out.

  10. To clarify that point: Not only have I not conflated the two, I don’t even
    see causation (cause and effect), which is an even weaker relationship. The
    solution can be reduced to the following: Allow price gouging when it
    provides a useful incentive and restrict it when it doesn’t.

  11. Sounds simple enough. When do you think it’s good for the government to set
    the price of goods and services? What knowledge would police and
    politicians have that two free individuals agreeing on a price together
    would not have? How do you compensate for the lack of knowledge that those
    same politicians and police have about the individual circumstances of
    those two people?

  12. Because “hotels” was the topic. (See above, Zaxintel: “How would that work
    with hotel rooms?”). “Useful” refers to creating incentives, in the
    macroeconomic sense. If that’s still vague, you’re still off topic.

  13. Fair enough. I will say it’s a cop out not to explain your difference in
    opinion. I feel I’ve been detailed in my responses.

  14. im a little late to the party on this vid, but have you heard of the idea
    that price gouging is a political construct? basically, when a consumer
    gets a “50% off” we say they got a good deal. when the producer get a 50%
    increase in profit, we say he is price gouging (or profiteering).
    apparently it is only producers who can “price gouge”….this idea that
    producers somehow exploit the consumers is a remnant of Marxism that does
    not acknowledge the agency of the consumer.

  15. There seems to be a lot of people who wish to have government mandated
    rationing instead of prices. Let me explain why it is a bad idea.
    1. The rationing is NEVER going to be fair anyway. People have too much
    intensive to buck the system, especially in an acute emergency. Side deals,
    corruption, nepotism, special favours, all inclusive.
    2. It is never going to be efficient. All people will end up having to
    stand in a queue for 6 hours to buy that bottle of water, just as in the
    soviet union. What a waste of energy.
    3. It is very hard in an acute emergency to maintain any rule of law. If
    the government has enough control of the situation to clamp down against
    the free market and impose trades at a set price, it also has enough
    control to organize a relief effort. It is either or. You either want the
    government running after the exploding black market or focusing on the
    disaster.
    4. Price Gauging rewards preppers. Before hurricane Sandy, warnings were
    issued to people to get a supply of necessities for the upcoming days. It
    was established that 60% of people did absolutely NOTHING to prepare
    themselves for the trouble ahead and they were already starving on the
    third day. The more people engage at least in soft prepping before a
    foreseeable disaster, the easier the relief effort and the better off will
    be even those few who did not have the possibility to prepare.

  16. I’m sorry, but I’ve been watching this guy’s videos and all I’ve been
    hearing is the same excuses the corporate entities have been using to rip
    off the middle class and the poor. This guy sees there’s a lack of supplies
    and he attributes that to the prices not being high enough? That doesn’t
    sound like a logical approach to me.

    How about the fact that our government is supposed to be providing these
    supplies to its people in times of emergency? If the government would
    always distribute emergency supplies and services in a timely manner, then
    price-gouging wouldn’t even be an issue. Unfortunately, too many government
    services are being cut due to anti-government lobbyist actions in the White
    House and across the country.

    When an emergency happens, we shouldn’t expect businesses to save us
    because their main focus is PROFIT. My taxes pay for government services,
    so they should be providing me with emergency assistance and food and water
    during a disaster. If I go to a business during a time of emergency,
    they’re just gonna take advantage of me to make more money. 

  17. I don’t believe that you are right because what they should do is limit how
    much someone can buy because even if you raise the price to $10 a
    bottle,for someone who is rich that’s just pocket change. Anyone who has a
    decent amount of money can buy it all. Resonable price goundging (let’s say
    10 to 20 percent) with limitation on how much one can buy would be the
    ideal way of doing things

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *