Sounds like they're rationing availability to the most cash liquid users. This is nothing more than price hikes to profit from a tragedy and it's shameful.
> This is nothing more than price hikes to profit from a tragedy and it's shameful
If it's shameful to move more freight in a crisis than less, let them be shameful. This sort of armchair moralizing, without the consideration of unintended consequences of one's proposals, if enacted into policy, can cost lives.
I don't care about price increases for non essential things, but the part that seems shameful to me is that, if I'm understanding this correctly, it also costs 3x or more to ship essential medical supplies now? That's the part I'm calling price gouging.
> it also costs 3x or more to ship essential medical supplies now? That's the part I'm calling price gouging.
Price gouging is a specific form of market failure. This isn't that market failure.
You may not like prices going up. That's fine. But that doesn't make it price gouging. Providers aren't making excess profits, they're commandeering higher-priced supply to meet unprecedented demand.
The economic theory is extensive on this. You have to let the price float if you want the market to find the optimal way to increase capacity.
If you insist on the price remaining steady even when the market conditions have changed radically you are choosing shortages in order to satisfy your belief that the price shouldn't change.
