At 07:58 AM 10/3/00 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
I also thought of an example where a famine was averted due to government intervention. The current hurricane in Belize. Had the government not stepped in and 'price fixed' the stores would have been depleted and cached by the few a week ago.
Doesn't make sense. If the government imposed rationing, that would have kept a few people from buying up everything, or if they required the price to be very high, it would do that, but I assume you're saying they artificially kept the price low - in that case, it's *easier* for somebody to buy up everything and hoard it.
Why in major disasters do prices go up, when it is clear this is contrary to the best interest of the market?
Duh - basic supply and demand. Major disasters imply that obtaining more stuff in the near future will be difficult or impossible, so buyers have an incentive to pay more money to get anything they can right now, and sellers have an incentive to ask for more money for the stuff they've got. If the sellers gouge too hard, they risk alienating customers and losing future business to their competitors, but the goods they have are worth more now.
That without price fixing the majority of people will be left without. Why is this hands-off philosophy not held accountable for its failings? I must assume that the resultant famine due to price inflation by the individual resource owners is still a result of that government interference. ;)
Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639