Coase Colored Glasses
From Cafe Hayek:
Profits vs. Love
Russell Roberts
In the aftermath of Katrina, some are condemning the mercenary motive that prompted some to help. From the Washington Post (sr):
The last winds of Hurricane Katrina were whipping the loblolly pines of southern Mississippi when Greg Newman showed up before 5 a.m. to open the Home Depot store he runs here. He found six customers huddled at the door in pitch darkness, wanting generators, and that afternoon, the line grew to 600.
He hit the phones to reel in truckloads of the precious machines. The store itself came to life on generator power, and soon the cash registers were ringing. By evening, Newman's customers had their lights and refrigerators working. "Nobody went home without a generator that night," he said.
In the days since Katrina hit, his store's sales volume has quintupled.
It's an unsettling but inescapable fact about natural disasters on the scale of Hurricane Katrina: Even before the tears stop flowing, the money starts churning.
Why is it unsettling? I think because we would prefer a world where people got up before 5 am out of love rather than self-interest, out of compassion and love rather than greed and profit. But isn't it both? Didn't Greg Newman feel good about doing his job that day, knowing he was helping people in a more dramatic way than usual? Do you think that when he was making those calls rounding up generators he was thinking, Boy, my boss is going to be really happy. I'm going to get a good raise this year? Maybe. But I'm sure it wasn't all he was thinking. I bet he was glad to be helping people in distress.
A few years back I wrote about the power of these two motives, altruism and self-interest when they work together. I was writing about people who drive down to Florida after a hurricane hoping to sell lumber at a profit. Both the saints and the mercenaries go:
Here's the key insight of economics—some of those folks who go down with a song in their heart because they know they're helping others would have stayed home if the price of lumber hadn't soared. It's hard to get in your car and disrupt your life and give up your lumber. The monetary incentive makes it easier. The higher price doesn't just induce the hard-hearted to go. It induces the altruist as well.
But if people are altruistic, won't they go without the monetary incentive? Sure, some will. Just not as many. You might be tempted to say that without the monetary incentive, only the saints will go. But even this misses the point. Some saints will stay home because they have saintly things to do at home. The monetary incentive applies to them as well. Even saints can do more good in the world when they have more resources than when they have less.
5 Comments:
Someone must play devil's advocate here, so here is my defense of limiting price gouging...
From an economic stand point there is efficiency and profit in allowing prices to soar, and businesses to gouge. But, let's be honest, in reality efficiency and profit aren't the only things that matter.
Say for instance that I am a poor college student trying to work full time and go to school full time (ok that's true). My long term plan includes the idea that I will work full time to allow myself some extra cash to save for the next semester. This is assuming that there is no major changes in my income. Suddenly, because of a natural disaster gas prices soar (and theoretically there's no laws barring gouging). My extra income that I was saving for the next semester is now necessary for my current gas consumption. Biking & busing are not attractive options (and in themselves cause inefficiency for me).
If this cycle were to continue, and prices are allowed to skyrocket. I suddenly cannot afford school and must quit. Suppose this is the case with numerous other students. Soon, graduation rates fall (because people can't afford it) and power is shifted to the hands of the businesses reaping huge profits. Would this not be a regression back to times of an aristocracy? Perhaps my example is a stretch, but nonetheless, it is possible.
I am neither for or against allowing markets to determine prices. I am inconclusive. But, what does anybody have to say to this?
Blair
(Law & Economics)
It appears a great deal of altruism has already been shown towards the people of New Orleans. Donations and professionals pouring into the area, some held back by local government unfortunatly, but the will and effort are there.
Spencer, I think that in you're excitement of being able to fight with someone you're missing an essential part of my statement. I made no mention of advocating socialism or even ending price gouging. For the sake of argument, I wanted to present a different point of view... even if it isn't what I necessarily think (which it isn't). So relax a little.
But to continue the conversation...
It is probably equally inconvenient for me to pay $3.10 or walk/bike. Therefore, neither of these solutions are appealing. What would work best for my own self-interest is lower gas prices. This may not be the economic solution, but for my own circumstances, it is the best solution.
You made some suggestions... What if I live in Tremonton and attend school in Logan? Suddenly biking, walking, and busing are no longer an option. The only way to conserve is to move to Logan, which presents us with another problem. Now my rent is higher. If I don't have a bike, I must purchase one. So I am still facing the same problem of cost of living.
Hybrid cars may not be a possibility if someone doesn't have credit. Internet classes are great, if you can get a connection. You may have to subscribe to Internet service, which will impose more on your cost of living. Certainly, not every class can be done over the Internet, anyway. What about labs?
Sorry, I'm getting technical here.
Anyway, it seems that the only cost efficient option for me is to quit school. The theory you represent is a great one...however, it may not be all-encompassing for every circumstance.
Lastly, this is for you Spencer...
THIS VIEW DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT MY OWN.
I make this argument for the sake of argument! Don't be the "likes to fight guy"...
Now we're getting somewhere!
J.Alexander, that was an EXCELLENT point. The best argument I've heard. Very well stated and hard to argue. But, once again, for the sake of argument, I'll try to counter again...
In your response, you have also made an unfair assumption. You are assuming that gas providers will not be able to make profit if prices are restricted. What if, perhaps, they will make a profit unless prices drop below $.50 per gallon. Keeping gasoline prices at, say, $2.00 gallon will still give them a 75% profit margin. That's pretty good! With price restrictions I would be able to continue my way of life, and producers would still be making a profit. Who's losing?
Granted, prices cannot be held back so as to make a business bankrupt. That would be stupid, regardless of price.
Now, Spencer...
You are absolutely correct! My arguments are weak! It's not easy to defend a viewpoint that isn't my beleif and is contrary to every Economics class offered at USU! Nonetheless, I'm taking a stab at it to see where the argument takes us...
The whining and complaining is very much reflective of the left wing, I agree. I am a laissez-faire right winger myself and get tired of the leaky arguments of the left too. Bear with me. I'm only taking this side for the sake of the conversation...
J.Alex,
See, now Spencer got it out of me that I AM a capitalist and it's not as fun, huh?! Shame on you Spencer!
With that capitalistic spirit I would agree that government should allow businesses the freedom of setting their profit margins, however, here's something to think about...
I'm afraid I can argue that government already does control profit margin to some extent. Is this not what taxing does? The businesses are forced to tack on a sales tax to their goods. With the supply/demand curve in mind, a consumer won't pay over a given price for a quantity supplied. When we throw a tax in there it raises the price of an item and therefore limits the profits that a business could make (since a consumer won't pay over the given price). Say we had an 8% tax. Without this tax, a business would be able to pocket that 8% themselves.
On another note, it appears that you have conceded the original argument. The original question was whether or not gov't should stop price gouging. Now, it would appear that it has shifted to whether government has the right to dictate profit margins. An entirely different topic altogether.
J.Alex, your points are great ones, and I agree with you. I'm impressed with your defense, but it seems that we've strayed from the argument.
Post a Comment
<< Home