Price Gouger Is Left with Thousands of Products!

[MJ DeMarco]

A price gouger gets punched back in the face?

He deserves to go bankrupt, giving entrepreneurs a bad name.

Zero sympathy.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[million$$$smile]

That's the difference between @million$$$smile and the guy in the article. One's an a**hole. The other an opportunist that miscalculated the oncoming severity of the virus in the U.S.

Yes, at the time there were no reported cases in the US.
I sold many masks online. Every single mask was purchased domestically, though I am sure many were shipped overseas.
I also donated masks to those that I felt might need them or decrease their stress levels. My prices were similar to other sellers. Yes, they were radically higher than what they were once sold for. And they were unavailable in many areas of the US.

If I would have listed them all online for the old standard amount, I would have sold out within 24 hours. and possibly all would have gone to one or two buyers, because THEY would have most likely resold them at a much higher amount.

I've even sold some hand sanitizer and nitrile gloves for a decent profit.
In fact, I've been selling them for years. So what?

I find it ironic that @EVMaso puts me in the same company as others when he doesn't even know what I was selling the products for.
Sad.

Someone once said, those who can; do, those who can't criticize

 

[MJ DeMarco]

Someone tagged me for my opinion on this...

Here it is.

I'm all for people profiting off a perceived demand increase, or profiting on their prediction on an uptick in demand.

However...

And it is a BIG however...

When the line goes from a matter of opinion and economic speculation (hey, selling these hand sanitizers to preppers is a great idea!) to a matter of life or death (hey, selling these hand sanitizers to people desperate to stay healthy) is when things change.

Selling a product to a prepper for a premium who might be overreacting (before the demand curve changes from linear to exponential due to reality) is OK.

Selling a product for an enormous premium to a common citizen who just wants to protect his family, well, that's the line that I feel should not be crossed.

A-holes like this guy is why capitalism (and by association, entrepreneurs) in this country is besmirched.

Not sure how anyone could sleep at night knowing they sold a 2 oz bottle of hand sanitizer for $50. If that's you and you call yourself an entrepreneur, you deserve CV19.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[RazorCut]

“It’s been a huge amount of whiplash,” he said. “From being in a situation where what I’ve got coming and going could potentially put my family in a really good place financially to ‘What the heck am I going to do with all of this?’”

Well ain’t Karma a bitch. Hope he goes broke with the rest of the parasites.

 

[AgainstAllOdds]

There was some guy in the forum doing the same thing with masks, got a lot of kudos for it.

HOT! - SIDE HUSTLE - My Latest Experience Selling N95 Masks

I finally decided I would share my recent experience selling N95 particulate masks online. I really debated about this as I thought some would regard me of being greedy or taking advantage of people. And yet some of these same people don't mind finding a product on Alibaba and selling it for 10...

www.thefastlaneforum.com

Yeah, but what you're leaving out is that @million$$$smile was providing a service. At that time, the virus wasn't serious in the U.S. Most of us were laughing at it.

He was taking supply that had no ready demand, and offering it indirectly to the Chinese who needed it - he was brokering the exchange between small shops in Missouri and China.

What these assholes like in the OP were doing is taking a product that has demand, rounding up all of it, creating an artificial scarcity, and then forcing people to pay the price gouging for the product. Zero value is being created. None.

That's the difference between @million$$$smile and the guy in the article. One's an a**hole. The other an opportunist that miscalculated the oncoming severity of the virus in the U.S.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[xps2340]

He has 17,700 Bottles of Hand Sanitizer and Nowhere to Sell Them

This is what happens when you jump into one product and use one channel to resell. He will probably end up donating everything.

Uhh....what? This is what happens when you pricegouge and do something that is clearly unethical. Most of the biggest companies have "one product" (CocaCola, BMW, Boeing, Purell). He has multiple channels (ebay, amazon, CL, FB, google ads etc). Which doesn't matter because, I repeat, he is pricegouging during a time of crisis and that something is clearly unethical.

This was the first feel good news story I've seen recently. This huckster was gonna screw people at their most vulnerable and now its almost like he wants people to feel sorry for him. I'd be 100% for law enforcement to arrest him and seize all his hoarded stock. That'll relieve him of his overstock problem.

It's easy to forget that there are REAL consequences to REAL people for his actions. How many of those 18000 bottles would've gone to (perhaps elderly) people who are now going to get sick?

 

[EVMaso]

I don't like ruffling feathers online, and I didn't mean to (and I apologize if it did), but I'll continue this discussion because it seems like it will be informative.

He was taking supply that had no ready demand

There was plenty of demand for the masks. Just not in the US at the time.

and offering it indirectly to the Chinese who needed it - he was brokering the exchange between small shops in Missouri and China.

Is the line between astute businessman and parasite gouger related to geographic location? I don't even know if that sentence makes sense in this day and age of e-commerce.

Also, the parasite gougers were listing them online as well, just like @million$$$smile. They are brokering the exchange between small shops in Missouri and China (and the rest of the world).

What these assholes like in the OP were doing is taking a product that has demand, rounding up all of it, creating an artificial scarcity, and then forcing people to pay the price gouging for the product. Zero value is being created. None.

You can apply that statement to million$$$smiles too, minus the forcing part. But then again it doesn't seem like the price gougers were forcing anyone to pay anything. They set a price for their good, and if someone was willing to pay, it goes to them.

What if the price gougers, instead of driving around to local stores to pick up these sanitizers and wipes, instead went to the regional supplier warehouses and bought them wholesale direct there?

Also, what's the line between price gouging and marking the price up on something for more than it's usually sold due to a crisis?

That's the difference between @million$$$smile and the guy in the article. One's an a**hole. The other an opportunist that miscalculated the oncoming severity of the virus in the U.S

I just finished reading (again) million$$$smile's thread, and I'm finding the line blurred between what he did and what the price gougers are doing. To me the only thing he did different from the gougers is that he was quicker than them, and thus was more under the radar. That (rightly) makes him the more astute businessman, but it puts him at least in the same class as them.

I find it ironic that @EVMaso puts me in the same company as others when he doesn't even know what I was selling the products for.
Sad.

Someone once said, those who can; do, those who can't criticize

If you have absolutely no qualms about what you did, ask yourself this: if a reporter from a major newspaper of record (NYT, WaPo, etc.) wanted to interview you for the business section over how you made a quick side hustle for $______ profit due to the Coronavirus, to inspire the next generation of entrepreneurs, would you do it? If you have any reservations, there's probably something to think about.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[The-J]

My solution is price discrimination, because the person who's willing to pay more probably needs it more.

Price discrimination is VERY illegal. And there's a reason for it: the reality is not that 'whoever pays more needs it more', it's that 'whoever pays more has the resources to do so'; especially in situations where demand is inelastic.

Of course, the form of price discrimination that is illegal is the kind that selects people and chooses different prices for them.

Companies can quite literally shut customers out of the market by hoarding supply and charging the profit maximizing price & selling the profit maximizing quantity. Demand is inelastic for a reason: it's because without it, people are clearly worse off to a great degree. In a pandemic situation, if N95 masks cost $100, there's going to be people who quite literally can't afford them. In your worldview, you posit that they don't deserve to have them because if they really needed them, they'd find a way to pay. But that's not how it turns out. People end up going without.

The free market's morals mirror those of its participants. If everyone thought like you, N95's would be prohibitively expensive for many.

The fact that someone is willing and able to pay $70 bucks for some squirty soap is because they (or their relatives) provided enough value to society to be able to do so. End of story.

This is also natural selection in a way, which has been around since the beginning of time.

This is where you and I fundamentally differ. I don't believe that some people deserve to live more than others because of their value to society. I think that we as humans have gotten to a point where we no longer have to make such value judgments to live good, meaningful lives. And I think it's up to people like @million$$$smile who are selling at fair prices on purpose to make sure that everyone who needs, gets. The price, and the intent, makes the difference, and that's why I don't condemn Randall for what he did. Good people go into business because they believe they can distribute benefits to the market more efficiently, and that's what he did. The fact that Randall stood to profit gave an incentive to do it. What the person in the article did was only see dollar signs, not caring if people went without.

Sometimes I get sad at the way people think, because I know that if I were worse off due to circumstances out of my control, I'd be considered less worthy of life.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kak]

This belongs in this thread.

Price-Gouging Laws Will Do More Harm Than Good During the Coronavirus Pandemic — Reason

High prices for sought-after goods cause temporary pain, but not as much as government efforts to "help" frustrated consumers.

apple.news

A very clear perspective on “price gouging” laws.

Basically they are bullshit.

First there is no such thing price gouging. It is not a definable circumstance. If you charged too much, people wouldn’t be interested.

Ken Paxton. My socialist attorney general has used the word “unjustifiable” over and over to describe the prices people sell things for. No. If goods are actually selling, it is justifiable. The market price of these goods now reflect the fact that you are dealing with a precious commodity.

Want to know the reason the shelves are empty? Price gouging laws.

Let me paint this picture for you. Let’s use laundry detergent as an example. Stores have been forced by economically illiterate Paxton to continue selling at last month’s market price instead of this month’s. People hoard at ridiculously low prices. Now there is none available and a legitimate shortage. If you want laundry detergent you’ll probably have to buy it on craigslist for 60 bucks now.

The government policy backfired. The black market price is artificially propped up by government making it impossible for legitimate sellers to compete. Supply needs to be considered. Not just demand.

There is a curve of supply and demand equilibrium relative to pricing. There is a point on that curve where people would buy product and also leave some on the shelves. That is what intelligent people should be striving for.

Now, let’s take that even one step further. Let’s send the profits through the supply chain instead of lining an enterprising hobo’s pockets with black market profit. What happens then? Walmart charges customers a little more. Tide charges Walmart a little more. Tide can seriously ramp up production. The market price eventually recovers A LOT FASTER because the shortage will be satisfied faster.

Everyone who is pissed off that there is a shortage of affordable consumables can thank their socialistic state governments for moving the entire market for these goods to the black market.

A sky high BLACK MARKET price was NOT caused by capitalism. It was caused directly by price controls. Capitalism would have reflected a true market price.

@MTEE1985 stuck a bottle of Purell on eBay. Purely as an experiment. Auction format. The bidders took it over $20 before eBay took it down. I suppose they price gouged themselves?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[EVMaso]

We had a local couple do the same thing here, and because of public backlash they stopped.

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-cou...ed-at-costco-amid-C0VlD-19-pandemic-1.4852363

There was some guy in the forum doing the same thing with masks, got a lot of kudos for it.

HOT! - SIDE HUSTLE - My Latest Experience Selling N95 Masks

I finally decided I would share my recent experience selling N95 particulate masks online. I really debated about this as I thought some would regard me of being greedy or taking advantage of people. And yet some of these same people don't mind finding a product on Alibaba and selling it for 10...

www.thefastlaneforum.com

 

[Salama2017]

He has 17,700 Bottles of Hand Sanitizer and Nowhere to Sell Them

This is what happens when you jump into one product and use one channel to resell. He will probably end up donating everything.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Fox]

There is a big difference...

@million$$$smile took on risk to ship the masks across the world and sell at a fair price locally. There was a chance they might never be needed or that many others did the same.

He provided value - if no one did this the amount of masks available in the US would be a lot less. His risk is protecting local lives right now.

These other folk did not provide any value. They simply rounded up all the local supply and tried to gauge people.

What have they added to help people? Nothing.

If anyone is going to complain about people shipping stuff from china and increasing the price then they might as well start with the whole dropping shipping model.

@million$$$smile saw a need coming (probably not on this level though) and put in work to be ready. I think he said he charged fair prices to willing buyers so I don’t see the issue.

I can see why they might look similar but there is a big difference.

 

[Johnny boy]

Shutting down sales of necessary products in a pandemic is the unethical practice.

People are in need of something and amazon thinks they're the "good people" by blocking sales between two willing parties just because someone is making a big margin?

This is why I like my more traditional businesses. When I profit off of someone else's labor, it's just business. I feel like I'm getting away with murder. But when someone else tries to turn a profit and offer products to people who really need it, they're "scum"? I can make $2000 from a few hours of work and arguably little skill just off of perceived value, but these guys are jerks? lol. These dudes sell necessities to people willing to pay those prices in a free market. That's how it's supposed to work.

Artificially low prices results in people who have the least need buying up supply which limits supply for the people who need it the most and are willing to pay. Part of the point of the free market is price discrimination to allocate resources properly and find natural efficiency. Now, teenagers with low risk are buying up things because it's cheap and still worth it, leaving less for elderly people who are much more at risk and more willing to pay for what they need.

That said, it is not the truth we are judged by, but the opinions of those around us, regardless if those people are stupid or not. It's their responsibility to understand that idiots will call it "price gouging" and cockblock their profits.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[RazorCut]

That said, it is not the truth we are judged by, but the opinions of those around us, regardless if those people are stupid or not. It's their responsibility to understand that idiots will call it "price gouging" and cockblock their profits.

Maybe you need to buy a new moral compass as yours is sadly broken.

These dudes sell necessities to people willing to pay those prices in a free market. That's how it's supposed to work.

What they are doing is depriving other people of those resources just so they can profiteer. This is hand sanitizer, not toffee popcorn.
i.e. something that could save lives. I think the swell of public condemnation should be enough for you to maybe rethink your moral code. If not, well I’m happy to stay way on the other side of the fence.

 

[RazorCut]

It is something that could save lives. And now you can't buy it in many places. And that's the problem. There's limited supply. How should it be distributed?...

That’s a very good question Johnny. I know the answer is not through the greed of an individual who wants to charge $70 those.

I was in a store this morning and they had signs up on all checkouts saying the maximum number of a single item of purchase was being capped at 4. That’s all items and I think that was a good response. Then I hear someone complaining that what if they had 5 children and wanted to get them each a bar of chocolate. I have 5 children. So one gets something else. So bloody what!!

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[RazorCut]

The thing is those that are at most risk are more often than not the poor. They can’t take time off work because they have little or no savings or they are old and living on welfare. They can’t pay $70 for a bottle of sanitiser because they need that money for electric to keep warm or food for their kids.

 

[RazorCut]

The fact that someone is willing and able to pay $70 bucks for some squirty soap is because they (or their relatives) provided enough value to society to be able to do so. End of story.

Well I’m glad all the world doesn’t think like you. You should thank your lucky stars that you were born healthy and not with a major disability or in abject poverty, or happen to be 10 and reliant on disabled parents to care for you.

Your outlook will probably change as you get older, travel more and hopefully become wiser in doing so. In the meantime why don’t you and all that side with you pay over the odds to those profiteering so those of less financial ability can get their needed products at a store at normal rates?

I’m sure they would thank you for your contribution.

 

[Voice Angel]

Gouging is just disgusting. Greed, plain and simple.

People have plundered every Costco and grocery store in the area for tp and other essentials.

Those hoarding drove a second tier of people (us) to have to head out and pick up what we need for our regular supply or risk getting nothing whatsoever thanks to the hoarders.

I have nothing against entrepreneurship but never let “economy override humanity.”

Given that this pandemic will get worse before it gets better, several of us in our area have started a FB group where we volunteer to buy, donate and deliver supplies to the elderly or disabled. And yes, that means donate from our personal non-hoarder stocks if not available in stores.

I sent an email to our building management asking if they would put notices in the building lobbies so those who need help can reach out to the office. We would then spread the word in our FB group, pick up / donate supplies and drop them off in a no-contact way.

Surprisingly, all our local stores have restocked pretty quickly which is great.

But at least we have a look-out-for-each–other plan in place as we go along, especially with the social distancing.

If any of you are interested in starting a backup support plan in your buildings too, feel free to pm me. I’d be happy to share the wording I sent and you can just copy and paste. We’re doing that now with multiple condos / apartments in the area.

Stay safe. xoxo

 

[Successful Steve]

What’s crazy is that we are talking how people need hand sanitizer to survive when life has been around for 10,000 years and hand sanitizer was invented what less than a hundred years ago?

Our ancestors have to be rolling over in their Graves knowing we are arguing about people hogging Purell and Charmin

 

[S.Y.]

I find it ironic that @EVMaso puts me in the same company as others when he doesn't even know what I was selling the products for.
Sad.

Someone once said, those who can; do, those who can't criticize

I don't think it is ironic at all.

I had a look at your thread and here what you said:

Even if it is for your own needs.

Is it morally wrong to sell this product 2,3,4 times the normal price?
How about 10 times?? 100 times?
The pharmaceutical companies are doing that every day.
It is just part of capitalism.

It basically is about supply and demand.

You demand it, Someone will try to supply it.

Focus on being the supplier rather than the consumer.

This is pretty much what the dude in the OP link was doing.

It will be informative for all to debate it. Where is the line? What makes someone an a**hole and not another - in this particular context?

From my point of view, both of you did this:

If I would have listed them all online for the old standard amount, I would have sold out within 24 hours. and possibly all would have gone to one or two buyers, because THEY would have most likely resold them at a much higher amount.

Wondering what @MJ DeMarco and @Kak opinions are on this.

This is not attacking or criticizing @million$$$smile. A friend of mine spoke to me about the masks before the price went up and when they had still plenty available, and I didn't move on it. Not because I am a saint or something, but because I didn't see the opportunity. Had I, I would have probably done the same thing.

 

[Johnny boy]

Price discrimination is VERY illegal. And there's a reason for it: the reality is not that 'whoever pays more needs it more', it's that 'whoever pays more has the resources to do so'; especially in situations where demand is inelastic.

Of course, the form of price discrimination that is illegal is the kind that selects people and chooses different prices for them.

Companies can quite literally shut customers out of the market by hoarding supply and charging the profit maximizing price & selling the profit maximizing quantity. Demand is inelastic for a reason: it's because without it, people are clearly worse off to a great degree. In a pandemic situation, if N95 masks cost $100, there's going to be people who quite literally can't afford them. In your worldview, you posit that they don't deserve to have them because if they really needed them, they'd find a way to pay. But that's not how it turns out. People end up going without.

The free market's morals mirror those of its participants. If everyone thought like you, N95's would be prohibitively expensive for many.



This is where you and I fundamentally differ. I don't believe that some people deserve to live more than others because of their value to society. I think that we as humans have gotten to a point where we no longer have to make such value judgments to live good, meaningful lives. And I think it's up to people like @million$$$smile who are selling at fair prices on purpose to make sure that everyone who needs, gets. The price, and the intent, makes the difference, and that's why I don't condemn Randall for what he did. Good people go into business because they believe they can distribute benefits to the market more efficiently, and that's what he did. The fact that Randall stood to profit gave an incentive to do it. What the person in the article did was only see dollar signs, not caring if people went without.

Sometimes I get sad at the way people think, because I know that if I were worse off due to circumstances out of my control, I'd be considered less worthy of life.

you are confused.

price discrimination means you set a price and who pay that price can buy it.
Like...the cost of a good or service...
Everything is discrimination. Anyone who wants to buy a McDouble for 10 cents is discriminated against. It’s economic theory, not racism... smh

 

[SEBASTlAN]

Karma is beautiful.

 

[million$$$smile]

Just imagine how many people got infected (and died) because they didn't manage to buy the necessary equipment to protect from the virus (whether these are masks, sanitizers etc.) due to the overpriced items. I know supply and demand, but the fact still remains

As well as just imagine how many people contracted the virus (and died) due to the fact that they didn't wash their hands?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Tourmaline]

It's literally supply and demand. Once supply catches up, the price falls again.

It's too bad the dude can't do something like make a shopify store...

 

[DeletedUser0287]

I don't like ruffling feathers online, and I didn't mean to (and I apologize if it did), but I'll continue this discussion because it seems like it will be informative.



There was plenty of demand for the masks. Just not in the US at the time.



Is the line between astute businessman and parasite gouger related to geographic location? I don't even know if that sentence makes sense in this day and age of e-commerce.

Also, the parasite gougers were listing them online as well, just like @million$$$smile. They are brokering the exchange between small shops in Missouri and China (and the rest of the world).



You can apply that statement to million$$$smiles too, minus the forcing part. But then again it doesn't seem like the price gougers were forcing anyone to pay anything. They set a price for their good, and if someone was willing to pay, it goes to them.

What if the price gougers, instead of driving around to local stores to pick up these sanitizers and wipes, instead went to the regional supplier warehouses and bought them wholesale direct there?

Also, what's the line between price gouging and marking the price up on something for more than it's usually sold due to a crisis?



I just finished reading (again) million$$$smile's thread, and I'm finding the line blurred between what he did and what the price gougers are doing. To me the only thing he did different from the gougers is that he was quicker than them, and thus was more under the radar. That (rightly) makes him the more astute businessman, but it puts him at least in the same class as them.



If you have absolutely no qualms about what you did, ask yourself this: if a reporter from a major newspaper of record (NYT, WaPo, etc.) wanted to interview you for the business section over how you made a quick side hustle for $______ profit due to the Coronavirus, to inspire the next generation of entrepreneurs, would you do it? If you have any reservations, there's probably something to think about.

Spot on mate

 

[Johnny boy]

That’s a very good question Johnny. I know the answer is not through the greed of an individual who wants to charge $70 those.

I was in a store this morning and they had signs up on all checkouts saying the maximum number of a single item of purchase was being capped at 4. That’s all items and I think that was a good response. Then I hear someone complaining that what if they had 5 children and wanted to get them each a bar of chocolate. I have 5 children. So one gets something else. So bloody what!!

Oh yeah they had that at my store too.

We just walked back inside 5 minutes later just like everyone else.

People that still don't need it as much can still buy the 5.

Everything is discrimination. You must choose who gets what in a situation with limited supply. The question is which form of discrimination should be implemented. Your solution is first-come first serve. So anyone who's late misses out. My solution is price discrimination, because the person who's willing to pay more probably needs it more. Also, it will put a more appropriate limit on the amount purchased. Even if the limit is 5 at a store, someone that only needs 1 will only buy 1 if the price is high. Price discrimination is more effective.

Is the young person buying them that doesn't need it as bad as the elderly being greedy by using up resources? I think that could be a fair argument. Or is it just the person selling it that's wrong? Is an elderly person angry that they are paying only a few hundred dollars to possibly save their life? Or are they extremely willing to pay that price? I would bet there's a lot of people who wish they could get some supplies but can't, and that they would be extremely thankful for an opportunity to pay a lot more for the things they need.

 

[Johnny boy]

The thing is those that are at most risk are more often than not the poor. They can’t take time off work because they have little or no savings or they are old and living on welfare. They can’t pay $70 for a bottle of sanitise because they need that money for electric to keep warm or food for their kids.

Then they don't buy it. The people who are otherwise the same but made better financial decisions get to buy it. That seems more fair than first come first serve. We just disagree on the best way to discriminate distribution. But it doesn't make me a dick.

 

[Tourmaline]

Price Gouging Laws by State - FindLaw

FindLaw's extensive state-by-state listing of price gouging laws.

consumer.findlaw.com

Typical law:

Selling commodities, household essentials, fuel, etc. after a declared state of emergency for more than 10% over the cost of these items immediately preceding the declaration.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[The-J]

you are confused.

price discrimination means you set a price and who pay that price can buy it.
Like...the cost of a good or service...
Everything is discrimination. Anyone who wants to buy a McDouble for 10 cents is discriminated against. It’s economic theory, not racism... smh

That's not what price discrimination is. That's just setting a price. Everyone pays the same price in that example. That's not price discrimination. In that example, the people who can't afford it don't buy it. (I will come back to this point)

Price discrimination is a single seller selling the same thing for different prices to different people. Your improper use of the term has indeed confused me. And yes, the semantics matter. Please be a little clearer when trying to argue your point. (And racism isn't even relevant here, why bring it up?)

@Kak raises an entirely separate point, which is absolutely valid. Setting an artificial price point and mandating that price point on threat of legal force causes businesses to sell at an inefficient quantity and price, meaning that supply limits itself. That is in fact a problem and creates an illegal arbitrage opportunity that the government was trying to prevent. The only way this solves the problem is if the supply is sufficiently high to meet demand, in which case the law is unnecessary in the first place.

The solution to this problem is an agreement among actors in the free market that the price the gouger is setting is too high. But what happens when demand doesn't care about the price? Then you have a problem of a portion people being unable to afford it. Whether you're talking about a McDouble or necessary preventative measures to prevent the infection of a potentially deadly disease. In a purely capitalistic libertarian worldview, this is perfectly fine. In a purely egalitarian communal (won't say THAT word here but you know what I mean), this is evil and the solution is mandates, market be damned! But as KAK pointed out that simply doesn't work (just as that idea which won't be named).

Unfortunately it's common to bring economics into a moral debate, and morals into an economic debate. When two people are arguing with different scoreboards, nobody wins and everyone's angry and they just direct that anger at each other. I have thus made this mistake.

 

[MoneyDoc]

My opinion:

If we are bashing people for selling hand sanitizers at a premium due to increased demand, we should be bashing the manufacturers and retailers as well for not giving them away for free with each grocery purchase during this time. Not only would this stop the panic buying (set a limit), this would not create an environment for price "gougers" to come about. That way, EVERYONE will have what they need. If I was a big retail chain, I would do exactly that. Do you know how much it costs to make hand sanitizer? Cents.