On October 9, as Hurricane Milton approached Florida, Kamala Harris offered a tax-funded "Statement From Vice President Kamala Harris Warning Against Price Gouging and Fraud" - which let people enjoy the hypocrisy of a woman who derives her salary from taxpayer cash telling storm victims that she is standing as a heroine against people being "ripped off."
She and her gang offered, in part:
"Let us all be clear: Americans impacted by a crisis should never be ripped off."
Yeah, a political parasite used your cash to say that.
And she had the unmitigated gall to add:
"I have seen firsthand the devastating impact of price gouging during an emergency. As Attorney General of California during devastating wildfires that displaced thousands of residents..."
Which can inspire some to recall that, as a U.S. Senator, she appeared with California Governor Gavin Newsom in a ghoulish photo-op on someone else's land - private property that had been ravaged by a wildfire, seen the home destroyed, and found the vacationing owners discovering their loss... only by seeing the photo of the opportunistic politicians STANDING IN THEIR YARD.
Yes, Kamala, preach to us about the evils of exploiting someone else's hardship.
For his part, Joe Biden made sure to add his "tough guy" idiocy at a White House appearance, telling reporters that, as Hurricane Milton approached Florida:
"Additionally, Vice President Harris and I said yesterday, we'll say it again. Anyone who seeks to take advantage of our fellow Americans in desperation - whether you're a company engaged in price gouging or a citizen trying to scam your neighbors - we will go after you and we will hold you accountable."
Which all sounds very "noble" and "protective". But, as NewsBusters' Curtis Houck noted in his post of the Biden statement:
"President Biden misleads viewers by saying he and Vice President Harris are on the lookout for price gouging in Florida, promising federal action. Price gouging in Florida has already been a crime for decades."
Curtis' statement is normative, taking no side on the morality of the statutes or on any benefits or detriments that it might provide or incur. He simply notes that Biden and Harris are posturing, and misleading people, and that is an important point to bring up in order to counter the Bidenista agenda of appearing to be the paladin of the "little guy."
The Florida statute is listed as 501.160, which is described by the FLA Attorney General's Office as:
"Florida Statute 501.160 states that during a state of emergency, it is unlawful to rent, sell, lease or offer to rent, sell, or lease, essential commodities, dwelling units, or self-storage facilities at an unconscionable price."
But in noting Biden's unconstitutional posturing (there's no enumerated power for him to dictate prices anywhere) and his factual error, people on the "side of freedom" must take care to avoid promoting the fallacy that centrally-planned "anti-gouging statutes" are, in any way, ethical, constitutional, or economically beneficial.
Let's start with one of the key terms involved: "unconscionable price."
Who determines that? The people who willingly want the products and/or services and the people who are willing to sell the products and services? Or the politicians?
On a moral level, one needn't go further than that, because the immoral imposition of it is obvious, absurd, and insulting.
But, as an economics writer and teacher, I try to stress to students that the practical economic problems are numerous, as well.
I wrote about it almost TWENTY YEARS AGO to the day, in an essay that later was included in my non-fiction book, "Live Free or Die." At that time, Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist wanted to punish people whom the politicians claimed were "price gouging."
And so, just like one can ask who determines "unconscionable prices," one ought to ask, just what is price gouging?
According to most politicians, price gouging is a sharp upward spike in the price of what said politicians typically call "essential products" such as food, water, energy, building supplies, and clothing. They are prices that rise above the "market norm" during a time of emergency (emergency, of course, defined by the government).
Related: Fire Victims IRATE As CA's Newsom & Sen. Harris 'Trespass' For Political Photo-Op
But, what is "the market norm"?
Simply put, the market norm is determined by those who participate in it. The market price for a product fluctuates based on the interplay between the wants and needs of each buyer and the wants and needs of each seller. This interplay can change due to various factors, including, but not exclusive to, location, weather conditions, popular notions of style, technological developments, and things like opportunity costs and inflation - i.e. what happens if you don't spend your cash NOW.
As a result, what is perceived by people OUTSIDE the ravaged areas of Florida to be the "market price" for essential products inside the ravaged areas of Florida is quite different from those living in the devastated areas.
Just as the scarcity of pineapples outside Hawaii makes their prices higher compared to pineapples sold in Hawaii, the scarcity of essential goods like food, fuel, clothes, and water inside storm-torn southwest Florida makes their relative value greater to those who seek to buy them.
Ethically speaking, it seems the height of conceit for a person outside the market to arbitrarily determine for those participating in it what is best for them, be they buyers or sellers. Just as one would not impose his will regarding the exchanges between buyers and sellers of pineapples in mainland America, even though the prices for pineapples might be higher there than on the Hawaiian islands, one should apply the same standard to the participants in the market for so-called essential goods in Florida or any other storm zone.
And it is not just good ethics to let one's neighbors determine how much they want to spend or accept for products. It is good economics.
Prices are essential carriers of information. They not only reflect preferences, but also the relative scarcity of goods in the market. Without the price mechanism, there can be no systematic determination of the value of a good, and no conception of the scarcity of that good. Even the concept of resources requires human beings to determine how much they value those things to make them resources. If they're "resourceful" to a person, then that will be reflected by that buyer being willing to spend more on it.
High demand will drive up prices, and these higher prices will eventually curtail purchases, preventing complete depletion of the goods.
Without the price mechanism, without so-called "suspicious price increases" for products people want very badly, those products quickly would disappear. Just as pineapples kept at artificially low prices on the mainland would disappear, leaving a pineapple shortage in the U.S., prices artificially kept under the market level inside storm-ravaged Florida will cause shortages of essential goods like food, water, clothing, fuel, and building supplies.
Without so-called price gouging, whatever it means to the politicians, there would be runs on "essential materials," and shortages would occur.
The ironic -- but natural -- end result of this situation is a high-priced black market for essential goods that have been purchased at artificially low, politically imposed, "legal" prices and resold at even higher prices than those of the gougers before gouging was made illegal.
Finally, if politicians can claim that buyers are "paying too much," what happens if politicians decide that SELLERS are at risk? In fact, politicians actually DO claim that consumers are paying too little, thus, they impose minimum wage mandates, and place tariffs on imports that we might buy at lower prices than the domestically made products the politicians are favoring.
Free trade is just that, TRADE, and on both ends, it is voluntary. Free trade requires freedom to produce price information that regulates the flow of resources.
Conservatives can remember this, any time there is a disaster that sees shortages. The moral approach is to enter the market, not tell others what they can do in it.