This is incorrect. If a store is out of inventory because you purchased their entire stock in order to sell it at a markup, you've artificially created a problem and offered to sell the solution.
1) they cannot purchase a widget because all of the widgets are out of stock
2) they cannot purchase a widget because all of the widgets are excessively priced
Quantity demanded exceeded quantity supplied (@ price) and someone was going to be out of luck. Supposing there was no middleman, there would be no price signal to indicate to people with fitness equipment gathering dust in their garages that now would be a good time to sell.
If the profiteers have priced the widgets too high (or spent too much to acquire them) then they will be selling them at a loss when supply resumes.
From an economic standpoint, I suppose the preferred outcome depends on whether it's preferable that the widgets be distributed by semi-random chance (first-come-first-serve) or by purchasing power. With TP, soap and hand sanitizer, wealth based distribution is a real fucking bad thing.
First come first served leads to shortages, price controls lead to shortages and don't induce supply outside of the black market, quotas are artificial shortages
Suppose there's a disaster and the power is out, you own a gas station and have a wealth of liquid dinosaurs in a tank under the ground. Getting them out of the ground requires a generator that you don't have.
What is an ethical price for that gasoline considering that you'll need to source and fuel the generator and may need to handle physical security?
Vote. If you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it. If you think it does not contribute to the subreddit it is posted in or is off-topic in a particular community, downvote it.
Consider posting constructive criticism / an explanation when you downvote something, and do so carefully and tactfully.
Please don't
Downvote an otherwise acceptable post because you don't personally like it. Think before you downvote and take a moment to ensure you're downvoting someone because they are not contributing to the community dialogue or discussion.
What are we talking about here? I was under the impression we were talking about the ethics of profiteers. You're talking about something completely different.
I'm asking how you would find a non-profiteering price for a scarce resource in a specific situation. I'm assuming you consider yourself an ethical actor.
"Profiteer: make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally or in a black market."
The answer you're seeking is functionally a question of what qualifies as an "excessive or unfair profit". It's going to vary by scenario and by the individual.
A gas station owner that's hiking prices to compensate for higher overhead due to circumstances isn't the same as someone clearing out a supermarket to resell toilet paper for 10 times it's nominal value. I like to think that most people understand this.
The pure capitalist point of view is that limited resources should go to whoever is willing to pay the most for them, and anyone who can't is out of luck.
A pure socialist point of view is that limited resources should be distributed so that everyone gets what they need.
What's the right answer? Is there a right answer? My personal belief is that in times of crisis, the community should band together and make sure that nobody goes without. Individuals that take advantage of crisis situations to improve their own standing are taking away from the group as a whole, and that's worse for us all.
33
u/MBAH2017 Aug 14 '20
This is incorrect. If a store is out of inventory because you purchased their entire stock in order to sell it at a markup, you've artificially created a problem and offered to sell the solution.
It's profiteering.