Commentary: Price gouging has its defenders. They ignore morality


In addition to wind, rain and destruction, hurricane season also brings a practice that is almost universally repudiated: price gouging. Price gouging during emergency situations is against the law in several states, including Texas and Florida, where Hurricanes Harvey and Irma hit the hardest.

Several economists and political pundits have spoken in favor of price gouging. They claim that we should not mess with prices, whose job is to get goods to those who want them the most. If prices go up, buyers will think twice before purchasing something they may not need, while suppliers will be incentivized to go the extra mile and provide needed goods in order to make more money. If you take that extra gain away, you will have fewer goods and in the wrong hands.

HOW WE GOT HERE: Price gouging claims rise in Harvey’s aftermath.

There is some truth to this.

Markets are indeed a reasonable way to move goods around. Yet, the belief in markets often goes well beyond what they are. Economist Mark J. Perry recently argued that outlawing heavy price increases during hurricanes was as ridiculous as asking the government to outlaw temperature increases during heat waves. Another economist, Michael Salinger, equated understanding that price gouging is a good thing with learning as a kid that the moon was responsible for the tides. In other words, it is counterintuitive and you need to repress your gut reaction against it. These examples compare the price mechanism with natural forces that are beyond the control of humans. But this is wrong.

Markets are not equivalent to tides or temperatures; they are a clever human creation to allocate goods. Economist and sociologist Karl Polanyi argued in his 1947 book “The Great Transformation” that markets are a valuable form of organization, but one which can only remain valuable as long as we contain it and limit it in accordance with nonmarket considerations. All societies have had, besides markets, other ways of connecting people and goods, such as reciprocity and redistribution. It was only in the 19th century that we started believing market forces could and should self-regulate. Polanyi warned this was dangerous.

CONTINUING COVERAGE: Texas sues 3 businesses for Harvey-related price-gouging.

Some advocates of unfettered markets grumble that those who act self-interestedly and raise prices are contributing to an efficient allocation of goods. Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman stated that gougers deserve a medal. Yet, there are good reasons why they do not — and why we cannot be easily convinced otherwise.

The moral condemnation of price gouging is a recognition that in certain social situations, raising prices is kicking vulnerable people when they are down. Our reaction to price gouging is not some silly knee-jerk rejection from people who don’t know enough about economics, as it is sometimes portrayed. It is, rather, deeply reflective of the societal need for mechanisms other than markets.

There may be benefits to price hikes in terms of efficient allocation — and real difficulties in policing gouging.

But there is a long way between these issues and praising self-interest during an emergency. A realistic solution to the problem cannot involve mocking our moral reaction against gouging as well-intentioned but ill-informed. We should rather solve the problem of allocation while taking seriously our moral commitments.

This is not an easy task, but self-interested action is as much human nature as is the disposition to help others disinterestedly. We can encourage one or the other in different situations — and we routinely do so. Communities recover better from disasters when they preserve their trust and social bonds. During catastrophes, we are not just allocating goods; we are also asking who we are, what holds us together, and what we owe to one another as humans and as members of society.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER: Viewpoints delivers the latest perspectives on current events.

Fridman is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology and the Institute of Latin American Studies at the University of Texas.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Letters to the editor: Nov. 20, 2017

Re: Nov. 13 commentary, “Wear: MetroRail station late and costlier? Yes and no. Maybe.” Apparently, our local transit planners have never heard of “connectivity.” Pieces of our transit system don’t connect. The Capital Metro downtown rail station is blocks from both the Megabus terminal and the north-south 801 and 803...
Commentary: How Texans suffer without office of minority health
Commentary: How Texans suffer without office of minority health

During the past legislative session, Texas lawmakers canceled funding for the Office of Minority Health Statistics and Engagement (OMHSE) beyond Sept. 1, 2018. In effect, this means Texas could soon become the first state in the nation without an office of minority health. This is a bad decision by our lawmakers because Texas institutions continue...
Commentary: How NAFTA, immigration influence Texas’ economic future
Commentary: How NAFTA, immigration influence Texas’ economic future

Future challenges faced by the Texas economy with trade, immigration and border governance policies were the focus of a recent symposium convened by UT Austin’s LBJ School of Public Affairs and its Texas 2030 Project. Some eye-opening facts emerged. Today’s Texas economy depends heavily on international trade and is built around technology...
Herman: Uncertain times in a media industry with an uncertain future
Herman: Uncertain times in a media industry with an uncertain future

I recently manned a table at career day at North Austin’s Padron Elementary School. It didn’t take me long to confront, in my head, the stark reality that I was talking to kids about a career that (a) might not look like it does now or (b) won’t exist when they age into the labor force. I work at a newspaper, which these days means...
Letters to the editor: Nov. 19, 2017

Nov. 15 commentary, “What if Sutherland Springs had no ‘good guy with a gun’?” “The fact that a bystander armed with his own rifle chased and shot the perpetrator in Sutherland Springs crucially transforms the terrain of the political interpretation of the shootings.” Say what? Twenty-six people died. Children died...
More Stories