So... you passed over the entire point of a Negative Income tax.

Which is in fact, a more efficent social saftey net.

How does it make sense?  It's common sense actually, one just needs to actually think about it.  The  Research bears it out.

Two situations.

As it works now...

a Big Disaster is coming...

everbody rushes to the supermarkets and stock up.

The first 10 people or so through the doors end up buying 3-4 months worth of Fresh water and other supplies even though they have to and clean out the supplies.  Because that's exactly what happens in these cases because people panic and they're going to eventually use the water and food anyway. (Think of all the cases of cleaned out store rooms)

Companies have no incentives to rush product to the disaster areas ahead of the disaster area because they can make just as much selling their bottled water in a non-disaster area without having to pay their truckers disaster pay.

The government gets together aid and sends it down there.

Everyone outside of those first 10 people are screwed.

As it works in a "non" price fixing enviroment.  Word of a disaster is coming.  Stores jack up their prices.  People are forced to make real descisions and instead of buying 3-4 months of water instead only buy 2-3 weeks or so since the disaster is expected to last only 1-2 weeks.  

So more people out of the gate.  REGULAR people are saved, though it costs more per product.  (Hell all the rich people have probably left the area, because you know... they're rich, they have money to start again.)

Furthermore when stocks run out, drivers are sent to disaster areas to restock before the disaster hits because it means big profits.

In fact, areas and local buisnesses probably keep a larger stock then usual around disaster season... since if a disaster DOES happen, then it means big profits.  While in the above scenario, extra stock probably just means extra loss in storage space if a disaster doesn't happen which is more likely.  (Like Oil companies do with oil.  Which is why some oil companies have record profits even when gas prices are rising.  That's $5.60 for them to get gas to you with the gas they're buying now... however some of the gas your getting is gas they stored back when gas cost $3.20.  It's why private oil reserves exist and thankfully are so big.)

Entrepenures may come in from neighboring areas clearing out their local stores and start going door to door selling things like generators and water.  Or heck, maybe even locals stock up ahead of time knowing that not only will they be ready, but they can make a profit selling to their neighbors. 

Then, The government gets together aid and sends it down there.

Price is NEVER going to get so high that the product doesn't get bought... because the money makers need to sell their products to make money.  After the disaster it's all going back down to market value.

Makes sense when you really stop and think about it, no?  There are a lot of "Simple" issues there are huge misconceptions over, because people ignore the human element in economics. 

Formulas and charts create lots of flaws that never bear true in the real world, because Keynsian economists forget that the economy isn't non-living math.  The core base of the economy is people.  People are organic and can't be eaisly predicted.

Or, to put it in an economists words.

http://blogs.forbes.com/artcarden/2011/06/17/price-gouging-laws-hurt-storm-victims/

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: 6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.97

Your comment made no real sense at all. This situation would continue up 'till after the disaster, and would financially ruin people. Honestly, you libertarians are so paranoid when it comes to Government, but you sure love supporting the tyranny of corporations.

I will post a new aggregate once we hit 40 users (currently at 36)

The average is -0.91 for economy, and -2.89 for social issues. Last time we did this, I believe the average was around -2.0 for economy, so that has drifted quite notably so far.

Highest-placing for various issues are:

Economy-left: Rath (-8.00)
Economy-right: Mrstickball (+8.95)
Autoritarian: Joecool7 (3.79)
Libertarian: Rath (-8.9)

Most Conservative: radishead
Most Libertarian: SamuelRSmith (my hero)
Most Libertarian-Left (liberal if you will): Rath
Most Communist: Branko2166/Joecool7 (although no one is close to that at all)

Closest buddies: Blacksaber/okr
Most Centrist: Smeags

How doesn't it make sense?

Your lack of common sense when something is plainly explained out and you have no reasonable arguement against it is shocking.

It would continue up till after the disaster and would financially ruin people?  Again, why would this be?   It doesn't make financial sense for a company to bankrupt it's consumers... they need people to buy from them in the future as well.  Most stores afterall are run by small buisness owners who need to continue making a living. 

Furthermore if they gouge their prices to where people are going bankrupt, chances are that means they are going to be left with product.  Which if they're lucky will be worth regular market value shortly after the disaster.... and if their unlucky will be destroyed by the disaster itself.  Or you know.  Just taken in riots if too much of it stays around in stores.

Though even if your completely baseless statement was true...  which is worse?

A) A decent amount of people dieng and some being bankrupt

or

B) A lot more people dieing.

I'd take A all day long... I'd like to think you would too hence why you completely ignored the point.

This isn't some "crazy libretarian idea" so much as it is.... basic economics.

By greatly raising prices, it's far more likely that items will go to those who need it most... because only those who need them will pay the absorbant prices.  In areas with non-pricegouging needs.  Most goods end up wasted being bought up by people who's demand is minor, but who just happen to live closest to the stores.  After a disaster, if you usually drink bottled water... and your house was untouched, you'll probably still buy the same bottled water you'd always buy.  While those whose water is out, are deprived of water.  However if said bottled water costs 2-3X as much... you probably are going to drink out of the tap instead.

Loving this.

@Kasz216:

It would continue up till after the disaster and would financially ruin people?  Again, why would this be?   It doesn't make financial sense for a company to bankrupt it's consumers... they need people to buy from them in the future as well.  Most stores afterall are run by small buisness owners who need to continue making a living.

It makes no financial sense for a company to bankrupt it's consumers you say? What makes you think that companies have any financial sense? It's been proven time and time again that companies rarely think of the long term and preffer large short term gains. Honestly, and people say Marx had uptopian ideeas.

Though even if your completely baseless statement was true...  which is worse?

A) A decent amount of people dieng and some being bankrupt

or

B) A lot more people dieing.

I still find the argument that more people would die to be exaggerated and weak.

By greatly raising prices, it's far more likely that items will go to those who need it most... because only those who need them will pay the absorbant prices.  In areas with non-pricegouging needs.  Most goods end up wasted being bought up by people who's demand is minor, but who just happen to live closest to the stores. 

What if those who need them most are not able to pay? And why should those who need it most have to bankrupt themselves for basic supplies that normally affordabl? What about after the disaster, huh? Not only will they have possibly lost their homes and belongings, but also their savings (whoich they would desperately need AFTER the disaster to rebuild their homes) because they had to buy basic supplies for astronomical prices. In that situation they might as well be dead. Just shows you don't think long-term.

You also go by the assumption that businesses do this for the reasons given in that silly article. Businesses are profit-driven. They only care about selling their products, and in the situation we're talking about, as long as someone buys their product for that exorbitant price, it won't matter who it is. So a wealthier person could still come and clean out the store, and it will really be the wealthier people who will have the advantage whether they need those products more or not. People get paranoid in these situations, and every person will consider themselves then most in need.

You know what would be a better solution to this problem? Instead of raising the prices, keep them the same, but only sell a limited amount to each person, based on their situation (family members etc., eventually take into account  the toll the disaster had on them). Yeah, sounds like a communist ideea (gasp), but it will both make sure that products aren't maldistributed AND that people aren't prayed upon and go bankrupt.

Honestly, you libertarians criticise socialists for turning the Government into "Big Brother", but you do exactly the same thing to corporations (which is much worse, considering that the Government is at least theoretically suppose to serve the people, while corporations only exist to make money for their stakeholders).

It's not libretarianism.  It's economics 101 and supply and demand.    Supply prices will only ever go as high as demand.  What a company sets a products value at is what the consumer values the product at. 

If those people couldn't afford to pay for it.  The prices would of never got that high... and those people were probably going to not be able to get those products anyway.

For an easy to understand thesis with numbers and data of price controls causing problems to help educate you on the economics.  Though some of the economic equasions may be over your head.  You haven't been to college yet right?

http://etd.lib.montana.edu/etd/2008/davis/DavisC0508.pdf

if it is... just to put the nail in the coffin... actual cases of it happening note the shortages to disaster area due to price controls, but no shortages before price controls were implemented the hurricane before.

http://www.johnlocke.org/press_releases/show/413

If you read the first you'd note it's not libretarians, people who are right wing tend to inact price gouging laws as much as leftwingers.  The people who disagree with you are Economists and Data! 

Aside from which the "wealthiest people" don't stick around disaster areas!  They have money, they can afford to leave.  The only people who do stick around disaster areas are those without options.

And no... price rationining does not work.   Because again, you get a large number of people who don't need the product still waiting to get it.   Furthermore, people who need more then the specified quantity can't get it or who need it in a short time.   Additionally you create long lines that waste peoples time and can't get more items they need and can't spend time rebuilding/prepairing for the stores.  So the end result?  Maybe NOBODY gets everything they need cause it takes way to long in each line to get it before places just closes.  Oh... and who is at the front of the lines?  Those who have transportation to get their first, like cars and scooters and bikes.

Who's at the back of the lines?   Those who have to walk... aka the poor.

God forbid you spent your entire day in a bread line only for them to run out of bread before they get to you.  

Your family may be screwed and be unable to recover.   Too bad they aren't still allowing price gouging causing an increase in supply.  Which again, is an issue you keep skirting around, because you know your wrong and just don't want to fess up to it.

You still have no response for the fact that even if you were right (which you've shown no proof or economic backing)... more people overall die.  Period.  What's worse, one person dieing because they're poorer then a slightly richer poor person,(since the middle class and rich widely flee disaster areas) or two people dieing because there was no supply?   I'd go with the no supply issue myself.  Heck, i'd say the one person dieing because they were poor is never worse, because in situation 2... more people die.

Also It's not like quantity controls have never been tried.  They have been... and they were huge failures.  The reason is.  Instead of money, instead you are still causing a kind of price gouging, this time... it's time which tends to be undervalued, and in general greatly hampers the recovery effort because those who would be working for recovery are instead waiting in line.

ADDITIONALLY, there is no motivation to bring in or have extra product available in the area.

Buisnesses are profit driven.  Profit Driven over the long term.  There are few buisnesses that would sacrifice a long term consumer base for a short term gain.

Also Pro buisness price controls are also bad.  See Sugar Price controls, Ethanol subsisides, Farm subsidies... etc.  Those are actually must more widespread.  Libretarians aren't "Pro buisness" libretarians are "Lets make things work as efficently and as well as possible."

@Kasz216:

So your best argument against price rationing is that it takes up time? Really? It requires time and planning, therefore it's bad. Expected response.

I'm curious, if you're financially ruined after having spent a fortune on normal everyday products like water and bread what good is all that time you saved not standing in line gonna do now that you're broke and can't buy materials to fix your house? And what if the prices of the materials are inflated also? Then even if buying basic supplies doesn't bankrupt you, you're still not gonna be able to rebuilt your house. But you do have time of course. Time to stare at the ruins of your former house. Let's celebrate!

ADDITIONALLY, there is no motivation to bring in or have extra product available in the area.

Here's an ideea: people need the products and are willing to buy them. Since you make products and you make money that way, and it's pretty much guaranteed that people will buy your products, shouldn't this be motivational enough? Or are companies just upset that they can't take advantage of people's misfortune and screw them over by charging 10x as much?

Buisnesses are profit driven.  Profit Driven over the long term.  There are few buisnesses that would sacrifice a long term consumer base for a short term gain.

Yet businesses do this all the time. Price gauging is seen very negatively, and could very well be damaging to a company's reputation. In this day and age, when consumers care about their rights so much, and when activism is rampant, it wouldn't be that unusual for some people to get upset with a company that practices price gauging during a disaster, and subsequently leading to a massive boycott of the company's products (and I assume no company wats this). I understand that when demand rises, so do prices, however the real world isn't like the abstract economical model you envision. Such speculation is viewed negatively by most people. You're making the same mistakes you accuse communists of making: not understanding human nature.

Disasters are a time where companies should take advantage of the situation and try to improve their reputation, which will have long-lasting benefits for the company (customers will like the company, become more loyal to it, which are  very important today when emotional elements are the prime factors which differentiate companies). Of course, lots of companies don't take this into considerations, and I'm not surprised liberterians don't either, especially since you like to look back with awe at the capitalism of the beggining of the century, where you could screw the consumer over however you wanted, and no one said a thing.