Posts Tagged ‘price gouging’

h1

Great strides have been made combating price gougers in Venzuela

April 24, 2012

Michael Giberson

Venezuela “President” Hugo Chávez  has put his government strongly behind efforts to combat price gouging, which in this context means selling a good for more than the government’s permitted price. The policy has had the usual effects: shortages of ordinary consumer goods and queues reminiscent of Soviet-style communism.

The New York Times reports, “With Venezuelan Food Shortages, Some Blame Price Controls.” Obviously those “some” are greedy capitalists and their economist lackeys, but Chávez isn’t buying into such corrupt and self-serving claims by economic elites. Instead, “[Chávez and his ministers] blame unfettered capitalism for the country’s economic ills and argue that controls are needed to keep prices in check in a country where inflation rose to 27.6 percent last year, one of the highest rates in the world.”

That’s the ticket: the more problems the government creates, the more reasons the government claims it is needed to solve problems.

HT to Paul Walker at Anti-Dismal, who offers a curated selection of quotes from the article.

MORE: A news story from 2010, “Venezuela closes price-gouging shops.”

h1

On the U.S. President’s role in economic highs and lows

April 23, 2012

Michael Giberson

SMBC on the president and the economy:

[HT to Rick Weber for the heads up.]

h1

Zwolinski: “Is price gouging immoral? Should it be illegal?”

April 19, 2012

Michael Giberson

Five minutes of Matt Zwolinski on price gouging (from Learn Liberty).

If you think price gouging should be against the law, watch this video. Are you persuaded by Zwolinski? Let me know in the comments.

MORE: Zwolinski has written serious philosophical works on price gouging,which makes the clarity of his position in the video all the more surprising. :-)   See links to some of Zwolinski’s work on the topic in previous KP discussions here and here.

h1

Are refiners and wholesalers price gouging on petroleum products in Alaska?

March 14, 2012

Michael Giberson

As the chart below shows, during the summer of 2008 gasoline prices in Anchorage, Alaska switched from following typical prices in the lower 48 to a modest but notable amount above such typical prices. Not shown, but you can check it out at Gasbuddy.com where I generated the chart, after the summer of 2008 Anchorage prices have tracked more closely with Honolulu, Hawaii prices instead of prices in the continental United States.

Anchorage, Seattle and Houston gasoline prices from March 2006-March 2012

Anchorage, Seattle and Houston gasoline prices from March 2006-March 2012

We’ve discussed this before. As noted here in a post in 2009, “For years, average prices in Alaska were about the same as the U.S. average price.  Higher costs of delivery in Alaska were mostly offset by the nation’s lowest gasoline tax, just 8 cents a gallon, and the result was a price that more or less tracked the U.S. average price.” More from that post:

That pattern changed beginning in June 2008.  Prices had been marching up everywhere, but the price march stalled in the lower 48, while in Alaska (and Hawaii) prices continued to rise for another month.  Prices fell sharply throughout the country from July through December – excepting a short pause during the late hurricane season in the lower 48 – but Alaska’s prices now seemed to track the higher prices of Hawaii rather than returning to the U.S. average.

The 2009 post reported the conclusions of an Alaskan investigation: no illegal collusion found, but oligopoly probably is minimizing competitive pressure.

Some Alaskan politicians want to do something about current, continuing, relatively high (compared to nearby Seattle) prices. A committee of the Alaskan state senate just held hearings on SB 28, an act that would declare it illegal to sell or offer to sell certain petroleum products at unconscionable prices. (More information on SB 28 here.)

From the Associated Press:

JUNEAU, Alaska — A bill aimed at gasoline refiners that would ban price gouging received a hearing Tuesday before a skeptical Senate committee.

Sen. Bill Wielechowski said his proposal is a response to the “unconscionable” disparity between the prices Alaskans pay for gas and heating fuel compared to rates elsewhere on the West Coast that have traditionally been similar. …

Under the proposal, prices could not exceed 10 percent of those charged by Seattle-based refiners. Alaska’s attorney general would be allowed to investigate claims against companies refining more than 1 million gallons of fuel per year, and companies guilty of price gouging would face a penalty equal to at least 10 times the profit gained from the practice.

Sen. Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage, said the proposal misses its target.

She said it amounts to a “jobs bill for attorneys” by setting up an environment for constant lawsuits, and that it would drain companies providing Alaskans a much-needed product. She also said Seattle isn’t a fair comparison. Tesoro has exorbitant transportation costs to get crude oil from the North Slope and elsewhere, she said, and they also run their production facilities on cheaper fuel.

“This appears to vilify refineries by saying that they’re ‘unconscionable’ and ‘disreputable,’” Giessel said.

h1

Super Bowl price gouging complaints

February 5, 2012

Michael Giberson

If you follow price gouging headlines, you become accustomed to seeing price gouging stories around big sports events: the Rugby World Cup, NASCAR races, NCAA basketball finals, and always the Olympics (a selection: Barcelona 1992, Atlanta 1996, Sydney 2000, Salt Lake City 2002, Athens 2004Vancouver 2010, London 2012, and finally this extreme example).

All of which serves as context to reports of Super Bowl price gouging.

Super Bowls usually produce price gouging complaints. But, as a story about today’s Super Bowl reports, rates in Indianapolis may have a particularly strong mark-up because of the relatively small host city. “This is what happens when the NFL books the nation’s largest sporting event in a city with only 6,000 hotel rooms. … By population, Indianapolis is the smallest Super Bowl city since Jacksonville, Fla., which hosted a disastrous game in 2005.”

Rooms are not in perfectly inelastic supply, non-traditional spaces from spare bedrooms to whole houses are being rented out for the week. Nonetheless, supply is relatively inelastic, and it is only the relatively high prices visitors are willing to pay that brings many of these spaces into the market. A surge in demand and relatively inelastic supply: elementary economics predicts a substantial increase in price.

Host city officials, league officials, and fans often lament price gouging, but it is easy enough to predict the effect of any law or custom that prevented it: more people renting rooms one, two, or more hours away, fewer people at game weekend events and pre-game events, and more people stuck in worse traffic before and after the game. (Or, perhaps in a language more relevant to host city officials, an effective anti-price gouging campaign would mean a smaller bump tax in local tax receipts from folks attending the game.)

The fundamental issue is the relative scarcity of rooms during the game weekend, and the question is how to match fans and rooms. Letting prices work earns price gouging complaints, but failing to let prices work would surely create worse problems.

h1

New York Attorney General proposes to prohibit use of business-related reasoning in gasoline wholesaling

January 2, 2012

Michael Giberson

It sounds kind of funny to say the New York Attorney General wants to prohibit business-related reasoning in gasoline wholesaling. After all, gasoline wholesaling is a business activity and generally business-related reasoning would be entirely appropriate. It sounds like asking a court not to act on law-related reasoning or asking a politician not to think politically. But read the report put out by the AG’s office, “Report on New York Gasoline Prices,” and see what it says on pages 37-39.

At issue is “zone pricing,” a practice by which wholesalers charge differing prices to retailers in different locations, usually based on an estimate of what the market will bear. A New York state law passed in 2008 tried to ban zone pricing for gasoline, but it didn’t seem to have much effect. The report noted, “Certain areas of the state that had relatively high retail prices before the law took effect in 2008, such as the South Fork of Long Island and northern Westchester, still tend to have relatively high prices.”

The problem, according to the AG’s report, is that the anti-zone pricing law prohibits only arbitrary price differences between different locations. (See New York’s General Business Law § 399-ee at 1 (m): “Zone pricing means the arbitrary price differences within the relevant geographic market.”) The report notes that wholesalers admit charging different prices to retailers in different locations, but say the price differences are not arbitrary because they are “based on business-related market and economic conditions such as operating costs, degree of competition, the specific location of a station, and other factors.”

The report says “the inclusion of the word ‘arbitrary’ in the definition of zone pricing renders the prohibition toothless.” The AG’s solution is to propose deletion of the word from the definition. Where the law now merely prohibits certain arbitrary price differences, the AG wishes to prohibit price differences. If the state legislature agrees, the law would then prohibit the use of all kinds of normal business-related reasoning in New York’s wholesale gasoline business.

The state legislature ought not to accept the AG’s recommendation, but rather ought to toss out the zone pricing ban.

As the AG’s report itself indicates, there is no evidence of any consumer harm from zone pricing. With zone pricing affluent consumers may pay a little higher price for gasoline than lower- and middle-class consumers, but there is no reason to expect consumer prices are higher on average due to zone pricing.  (As I put it back in November 2008, “anti-zone pricing legislation is essentially consumer protection for affluent customers unwilling to spend their time shopping around for lower prices”). The toothless zone pricing ban is apparently causing no harm either, so doing nothing would simply leave an empty law on the books.

On the other hand, prohibiting the charging of reasonable price differences by gasoline wholesalers in New York would serve to screw up the whole state’s wholesale gasoline market in an effort to keep customers in affluent areas from paying a few more pennies per gallon of gasoline. Seems like a too high price to pay.

 

[NOTE: The report also includes the AG's report on gasoline price movements in the state during 2011 and a discussion of price gouging. These other issues may be discussed here later this week.]

h1

Price gouging allegations on cancer drugs

November 7, 2011

Michael Giberson

If you think political interference in gasoline markets is excessive, try reading about drug pricing for a while. From the Los Angeles Times: “Shortage of cancer drugs tied to simple economics, experts say.”

And by “simple economics” they mean the perverse incentives created by government regulation that induce oncologists to prefer prescribing more expensive cancer drugs. Most drugs must be purchased through pharmacists, but government rules allow oncologists to sell cancer drugs directly to patients. These days the  sales amount to about half of oncologist’s income. Government reimbursements through Medicare will only pay 6% over wholesale for these drugs. On this point the Times quotes from a column in the New England Journal of Medicine, “Why use paclitaxel (and receive 6% of $312) when you can use Abraxane (for 6% of $5,824)?”

Last week the President ordered an investigation “to gather information from drugmakers about potential shortages so the government can respond before patients’ lives are threatened and help prosecutors head off ‘price gouging.’ ” If you are like me, you laughed at the phrase “so the government can respond before…” The problem has been created by earlier government responses to earlier perceived problems. Good luck to those who think the problem will be solved by layering on another government response.

In unrelated price hike news: peanut butter prices not so sticky.

h1

Price gouging laws wasted resources during the Hurricane Irene emergency

October 4, 2011

Michael Giberson

In a post at the Master Resource blog I point out another problem with anti-price gouging laws: during actual emergency conditions both state governments and consumers likely have much more important things to do that worry about whether particular price increases are unconscionable under the state’s understanding of that term.

Among other points, I note that just before Hurricane Irene hit New Jersey the state was warning consumers about potential gasoline price gouging, among other imminent threats.  When the storm was over, the state reported receipt of 103 price complaints. The result:

The investigation ended up finding no stations guilty of price gouging, though three stations allegedly violated the state’s law against changing gasoline prices more than once in a 24-hour period. The three stations have been cited by the state.

Several persons died in New Jersey due to flooding, and the damages may reach “billions of dollars” according to Governor Chris Christie. These are real emergency issues. In response, among many other actions, the state had investigators out counting how many times gasoline stations may have changed prices within each 24-hour period since the emergency was declared.

Concerns over price gouging can also lead to short-term gasoline shortages and consumers waiting in gas lines.

Waiting in line for gasoline is about as useful a response to an emergency as sending out state investigators to count the frequency of gasoline price changes, but with spot shortages and prices unable to go up to limit demand, gas lines and waiting are almost inevitable.

As the note at the end of the piece adds, “For more on price gouging, see Giberson’s article in the Spring 2001 edition of Regulation magazine and his op-ed appearing in the Washington Times on June 6, 2011. In addition, Giberson blogs frequently on price gouging law at Knowledge Problem.”

h1

Passage of Wisconsin’s anti-price gouging bill boosted by President Bush’s public remarks

August 22, 2011

Michael Giberson

Wisconsin didn’t have an anti-price gouging law in 2001, so the state government’s response to post-9/11 reports of gasoline price gouging was pretty limited. While the Wisconsin governor called for an investigation of gasoline retailers, for all practical purposes the investigation was limited to fighting collusion in price setting and instances in which stations may have changed prices more than once in a 24-hour period. (See the previous post for a related discussion. The state also had a law which prescribed a minimum 9.18 cent per gallon retailer margin, to prevent prices from becoming ‘too low,’ but that law was not an issue at the time.)

In early 2002, Wisconsin State Rep. Marlin Schneider introduced an anti-price gouging bill limited to petroleum-based fuels and providing for fines up to $10,000 and prison terms as long at 15 years, but the Wisconsin legislature did not pass it. Wisconsin did eventually pass an anti-price gouging law in 2006, largely in response to gasoline price increases after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (see regulation here).

One of Wisconsin State Rep. Josh Zepnick’s talking points in favor of the bill was President George Bush’s public call in April 26, 2006 for an investigation into “illegal manipulation or cheating related to the current gasoline prices,” which was followed up by a letter from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to state Attorneys General asking them to “enforce vigorously the laws of your State against any anticompetitive, anticonsumer conduct in the petroleum industry.”

Zepnick observed that Wisconsin lacked a law that would enable the state to support the President. More:

“Wisconsin consumers are worried about price gouging,” concluded Zepnick. “President Bush and Attorney General Gonzales are worried about price gouging. Legislative Democrats are worried about price gouging. Everyone is worried about price gouging except for Wisconsin’s Legislative Republicans. It’s time they get with the picture.

The law was enacted within a month.

ADDENDUM: Seven states did pass anti-price gouging laws in 2001 or 2002, primarily in response to post-9/11 reports of price gouging on gasoline and other goods and services: NJ, ID, IN, KS, SC, TN, WV. A few states passed anti-price gouging laws in 2003, 2004 and 2005, responding to both post-9/11 reports and hurricane-related price gouging: NC, KY, VA, UT. The other three states passing an anti-price gouging law in 2006 were ME, PA, and VT. Oregon followed with an anti-price gouging law in 2007.

h1

Post 9/11 gasoline price gouging in Wisconsin: two views

August 22, 2011

Michael Giberson

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, created a great deal of uncertainty and fear among Americans. In the retail gasoline market, some (but not all) consumers reacted to the uncertainty and fear by heading to a gas station to fill up their tanks. Some (but not all) gasoline retailers reacted to the uncertainty and fear by raising their gasoline prices, in some cases raising prices dramatically. A newspaper story published September 12, 2001, in the Madison, Wisconsin The Capital Times captured a sense of the concerns and reactions at the time.

One common response to 9/11 gasoline price increases was to try to shame retailers for their actions:

Citing reports of gas prices as high as $8 per gallon in Wausau and $4 per gallon in Waunakee, Gov. Scott McCallum said this morning that price gouging will not be allowed in Wisconsin….

“We are not going to stand for it. It is un-American for people to take advantage of other people for what happened yesterday, of such a tragedy,” McCallum said.

The story also includes a quote from a “Desert Storm veteran,” who called the price increases “war profiteering.” Another consumer said of gasoline retailers, “this is like them having blood on their hands and profiting from one of the worst situations we’ve ever seen.” These are the attitudes that politicians cater to when they call for state action to control price gouging.

Contrast efforts to shame retailers to these remarks by a University of Wisconsin economist, directed more at consumers:

But Mark Ready, an associate professor of finance at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and former chief economist at the Securities and Exchange Commission, said people who lined up for gas Tuesday night bought more than fuel.

“The people who paid a lot last night were buying more than gas. They were buying protection against uncertainty and they were buying the ability to hoard,” Ready said. “To me, I don’t necessarily see it as a problem that they were charged a lot. There were some people who rushed out and gave blood and others who rushed out and bought gas.”

Note the two parts: (1) consumers were buying a bit of physical insurance by getting fuel into their tank, which was particularly valuable to consumers fearful of subsequent market disruptions, but also (2) the implied but relatively mild criticism of consumer selfishness in the remark, “some … gave blood and others … bought gas.”

The moralizing impulse to cast price increases during emergencies as immoral attacks by the retailer against the community seems to be pretty strong, at least among many people. Since the laws implemented to cater to these moralizing impulses almost certainly make consumers worse off, the impulses have dysfunctional outcomes.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers