It's been corrected. Sorry for the typo; I feel a bit silly about that one.

I agree Chris. Attorney General Gansler, let's share the "informational only" price gouging business names wiith the residents of the state so the taxpayers can decide who they want to share their business

Excellent explanation!

First, I'd like to thank you for a well reasoned an put together argument against "price gouging".

I'd like to challenge your argument. Your point revolves around scarcity being the controlling factor. However, the commodity in question isn't going scarce, as much as its DEMAND is rising. Gas stations still had the same amount of gas on hand before the crisis as they would any other time (maybe more knowing it was close to the 4th of July holiday). Just more people wanted it than usual.

By raising prices you aren't lowering demand, you are only preventing those unable to afford the commodity from being able to buy it. Your solution, while effective, has a greater chance to negatively effect the system than another that doesn't raise the price. (No gas => no traveling, no shopping, no spending. It effects peoples budget.)

I'd argue, that a gas station who was better aware/prepared (either by having larger tanks, or keeping more lower grade gas than higher grade as lower is in more demand) would be the preferred behavior. Given our innovation abilities, I am sure there would be even better ideas on how to handle these situations. The reward of more money via more customers better suits everyone, rather than raising the bar thereby preventing someone from even having a chance.

Government should be rewarding those that select balanced solutions that benefit as many as possible, rather than the easy solution the usually only benefits those than can afford it.

Sorry, I don't think the economic principle is driving the business to gouge, just the greed factor. They try to make all the profit possible off a public that has no choice but to try to get supplies to sustain their families during an unexpected and far-reaching storm's aftermath. Many people can ill afford the added expenses of replacing spoiled food or running a generator for days or trying to keep their family comfortable in an hotel room. Tell them they should accept the gouge with grace when their lives are significantly disrupted like so many have been because of Friday's storm. BP on Rt 2 raised their prices, but it was the Mitchell's Chance Exxon that kept running out across the street with long lines ...... so what did it gain BP but the reputation of being greedy businessmen. A little kindness gains loyal customers. That's an old principle of business that is also in the books.

Mary Lou: I guess you're not greedy. I guess you don't shop for the lowest price or try to get the highest salary.

The best evidence in support of so-called gouging is...provided BY YOU!

The Exxon station (which you imply didn't gouge) ran out, while the greedy BP station did not. So I ask you, would you rather have gas available to you at high prices at BP, or not available to you at Exxon's low price?

The high prices also signal gasoline providers to bring more product into this area. They might have to ship it longer distances than normal to get it here, so higher prices are an incentive for them to do that. The additional profit from the higher prices makes it worth their while to divert it away from other areas and bring it here instead.

You have to be kidding me!...haha Wow!..We are ripped off each and every day by high gas prices when the supply is plentiful and has been for a long, long time...puts a big time hole in YOUR SUPPLY and DEMAND theory huhhh Get real! Are you an oil investor or speculator? Boycott them folks and watch the gas prices fall!...Boycott all price gougers!...Food For Thought!

Frank: You seem to know the gas station business pretty well. I'm wondering why, if gas station owners are so easily milking the public and making vast fortunes, you don't go into the business yourself. Seems like an easy way for you to make a fortune.

Do you actually know the profit margins for typical gas stations? I doubt you do.

Matt said to LeszX: "I'd like to challenge your argument. Your point revolves around scarcity being the controlling factor. However, the commodity in question isn't going scarce, as much as its DEMAND is rising."

Matt, the commodity in question is AVAILABLE hotel rooms, and they indeed grew scarcer.

Further, Matt said "Government should be rewarding those that select balanced solutions that benefit as many as possible, rather than the easy solution the usually only benefits those than can afford it."

Matt, government cannot "reward" anyone with any resources of its own, it can only confiscate resources by force and redistribute. This is known as "stealing." When it is done by a government, it is just stealing on a larger scale.

Free markets INHERENTLY make the best use of scarce resources over the long term. Government can only affect those markets with temporary, artificial measures that squander resources in the long term.

Case in point: as government steps in and sets more controls to hotel room prices, the fewer hotel rooms there will be. The existing ones will become long-term-rental flophouses, and no one will invest in new ones because there will be no incentive to do so.

What the reporter actually needed was spell check. I apologize for the mistake. It's been corrected.

If you needed a roof over your head, would you rather pay $600 per night and actually get a room, or have all the rooms taken already because the price per night stayed at the normal $120 per night?

At $120 a night some families might take two rooms instead of one. At $600 per night that same family might cram everyone into the same room, thus leaving another room available for another family.

You can allocate scarce resources in a number of ways...allocating them by price just happens to be the best way.

@Richard
I'll give you its AN effective way, but I don't see any proof or facts that say it's the best way. Especially if that $600 room never got booked. Unless you want to clarify who it's best for? (e.g. 10 $120 rooms sold at $600 more than makes up for the 1 un booked $120, raised to $600, room).

Fine Matt...which way is better? First come, first serve? Nepotism? Lottery? Threats and violence? Politicians deciding who gets a room?

That $600 empty room is available for someone that needs it. Would you rather find all the rooms booked and unavailable? A lower rate doesn't do you any good if someone else is already in the room.

Richard, Yes, I would prefer first come first serve. I don' think I had any more right to that room than anyone else did (regardless how much money they have available during a state of emergency). But, I think the discussion should revolve around what the best solution is, not which one suits you or me the best, but everyone.

Props to government controlled and supported BGE you guys did a GREAT job working in hard and in extreme conditions! Along with all the support crews that came in out of state. Thank you!

Under your philosophy, those who could afford to pay BGE extra $$ would have had their power back first.

Nobody has any "right" to any room owned by the hotel owner.

If you want to run your business on a first come, first served business go ahead. That creates it's own problems. It also leaves more people without rooms. Rising prices signal the market that demand for a resource is outstripping supply...thus encouraging other people to bring more resources into the area with the shortage.

Under your first come, first served (same low price) scheme, that signal doesn't go out. If additional profits could be earned, it might pay for hotels outside of the affected area to send buses or cabs to pick up people. If they can only charge their regular prices it wouldn't be worth while for them to do that.

You're a little naive if you think power and money doesn't affect which areas BGE fixes first.

If the governor's community and yours were the only two communities without power, which one do you think would be fixed first?

Richard I fail to follow your logic. If the hotel has 100 rooms @ $120 dollars and 100 rooms @ $600, how does the hotel have any more rooms for more people. Once they are gone they are gone.
To address another point, hotels are on a first come first server basis regardless of the price. In times of need, like the events of the past few days, businesses would be better served by having compassion than being greedy. To gouge the public in a time of need is short sighted business plan. People will remember the act of kindness done by that business and are more likely to spread the good word. I am sure you would agree that positive word of mouth does far more good than negative word of mouth when it comes to running a business.

Brian:

If a family of 5 or so is in need of a hotel room how many would they get at 120/night as opposed to 600/night. People more inclined to occupy more rooms would not have the luxury of doing so with the higher rate, therefore leaving more rooms accessible to others in need.

Brian C: I see that McGibblets has covered your main question. I ask you the same question I've asked others (using gasoline illustrates the point a little better than hotel rooms...but the idea is the same): when you arrive at the gas station in need of gasoline to run your generator in order to keep alive a sick relative, would you prefer that the price of gas is $3.50 per gallon but the gas station is closed because they've run out, or would prefer that the price is $7.00 per gallon...but at least the gas station is open and they have some gas left for you to buy. This is a serious question with real-life implications, so I look forward to your response.

I agree with you, Mr. Woods. Mr. Hertz is one of the greedy ones.....during war time, they are called carpetbaggers....I guess it's an appropriate term for disasters, too.

"I don't remotely see anything in his arguments except support for those that would use a natural didaster to line their own pocket"

Someone is having a hard time seeing the big picture then.

I'm not saying that the gas station owner won't make more money in this situation, and I don't see anything morally wrong with that. But just because he makes more money doesn't mean society at large is worse off. I'm sure if you had some expertise in re-connecting downed power lines your hourly rate might increase this week. That higher rate might be an incentive for you to work more hours, thus helping more people. If you weren't allowed to increase your hourly rate, maybe you'd just work 8 hours per day and then head home.

This is a simple question, but nobody seems to want to answer it: would you rather buy gas at $5/gallon to run your generator and perhaps save a sick relative's life, or would you rather that the gas station keeps the price at $3.50/gallon and runs out before you get there?

Limiting purchases to 5 gallons per vehicle is a reasonable method of allocating a scarce resource. But it's also not perfect. It's certainly not an efficient use of people's time or gas (having to drive back and forth to gas stations, waiting in long lines is not an efficient use of anyone's time in the middle of a disaster).

I will answer your question. Of course I would rather have the gas there to be able to save the family member. The only problem is I only have $21 and can only get 4 gallons of gas @ $5 a gallon. I need 6 gallons of gas to save the family members life. So if the prices stay at the lower price I have a chance of getting there early enough to get some gas to save the family members life. If the prices go to $5 gallon, it doesnt matter if there is gas or not because I cant afford to buy enough anyway.

If you only have $21 you're screwed anyway...whether the price stays low or goes higher. You're destined to run out. How would you feel about first come first served if you were second in line behind me, but I bought every single gallon the gas station had, so that I could run my generator for a month (just in case the power doesn't come back for that long) so that my food didn't spoil?

Clearly the best of all the purposed solutions is rationing. Equal distribution to everyone, not just to the people who can afford it. If this had been a catastrophic event where the community would have to pull together to survive, we would all be screwed. The rich would have all the resources and the poor who vastly out number the rich would just take what they need. Sham on all of us for not thanking of our follow man.

CC: You're only seeing one aspect of rising prices. Another aspect is that gasoline suppliers see a chance for additional profit, and will divert gasoline to the affected area (from areas where supply has not been affected by the storm). Without the increased prices it would cost them more to redirect the gas to the affected area, thus LOWERING their profit and removing their incentive to do it.

Also, the price per gallon isn't the only cost involved in purchasing a gallon of gas. There's also the cost of you time...waiting in lines....driving to multiple stations (and waiting in multiple lines) to fill your tank.

Lastly, in a disaster situation, do you really want equal distribution for all? Do you really want me to be able to buy the same amount as someone that needs gas to run a generator to keep someone alive, even though I'm just going to use it to play on my dirt bike all day long?

First come first served most definitely doesn't serve "everyone best." it serves the first people that get there the best. It also does nothing to have those people conserve space/rooms. What if the first person to get there was me, and I rented the entire hotel for my own family, so that everyone in my family had a room to themselves? How do you like first come, first served now?

Raising prices is not just a SIGNAL, it's an incentive. If someone can make more money per gallon of gas by bringing to a disaster area, they'll do it. But if you and your anti-gouging cohorts want to outlaw gouging (never mind that you probably couldn't even figure out how to define gouging), the incentive goes away. Since it would likely cost more to ship the gas to the disaster area, you would, in fact, penalize a business for doing it.

To me, your logic of your example doesn't really make sense (for either of our cases).

In both cases only those with extra money will be able to afford a hotel room (or all of them) at higher than normal costs. (During a state of emergency, otherwise cost are normal and we have no disagreement)

Ex) I have so much money I can buy the place out V.s. Rooms cost so much more money that only those with extra money can afford them.

So it doesn't matter in either scenario. If you don't have extra money you don't get a hotel room. To me this logic doesn't help either of us. 1) I have concern for those unable to afford the extra cost and those that would abuse the system for personal gain 2) I believe you have concern for the businesses and the market, which really can't and don't cater solely to the affluent.

Would you care to provide another example to better illustrate your point?
Also, do you believe there are incentives OTHER than making a profit? I do. There certainly other incentives to support a damaged community. Philanthropy, Its a + for PR, and healthy/stable/safe communities probably spend more.

Also, I am trying to have a rational, honest, and open discussion. I am enjoying the points of view your comments have given me. Thank you. But please don't take this discussion in to personal and/or negative directions.

Matt, I'm having a hard time understanding the post above this one. But I'll try to respond to the parts I understood.

There are definitely other incentives besides making a profit. But those other incentives might not help the supply of the scarce resource. For instance, if the gas station owner just gave away his gasoline to people the "needed" it, that would be an incentive for a lot of people to lie about "needing it" (after which, they might turn around and sell it themselves). He might get some good PR out of it, but the supply of gasoline would be distorted.

You seem concerned that some people wouldn't be able to afford a hotel room at >$120/ night. Well, there are plenty of people that can't even afford that price. What do you want to do about them?

Also, you still have not answered the question: when you show up at the hotel at 11:30PM, hot, sweaty, dirty, and hungry, do you want the room price to be $600/night with vacancies, or $120/night with no vacancies.

Your question is a false choice (as defined as on Wikipedia). The two options you present are extremes. Someone got that last room, not for free, but didn't have to pay more than normal. I had just as much chance as anyone else. Lines work! look at banks, grocery stores, check outs, even computers (queues). I don't buy your argument about the raising of prices being "good" for everyone, its only good for the owner. (No one, rich or poor likes paying more than they have to)

I think we can both agree that people will attempt to abuse/take advantage of either system. (People by lying about needing the room, or shady businesses practices such as hidden fee's, vague advertising, excessive cost ect..) Yes?

At issue, isn't raising the price so much a matter of the degree maybe? I'll grant you a minor increase could have the effects you suggest, but 5x increase ($120 to $600) seems like an abuse. While you might say they won't get business, I bet they'd still get enough to make up for the loss of not selling a few rooms due to high cost.

Most prosperous relationships are symbiotic, both being equal and balanced. (Consumer / Provider)

So all things being equal, there should be a way to hedge against both types of abuses. That, would truly benefit everyone. Would it not?

I suppose I'd like to see more discussion about the right regulations, rather than arguing about not having them at all.

How is it a false choice? Someone in one of the earlier comments said that the Days Inn in College Park had 2 rooms available at the elevated price. Well, that's a real life option for someone in need of a hotel room. Those rooms likely would not have been available at the standard $120/day rate.

The DEGREE of price increases is what causes people to gradually change the overall use of a scarce resource. If the cost of a hotel room increased by a nickel nobody would change their behavior. If it increased by $50 a few people might change. When it goes to $600 a lot of people will adjust...they'll drive farther for a cheaper hotel...they'll ask a relative or friend if they can stay with them...they'll move their vacation to this week instead of next week. You think it's excessive. I don't. If they increased it to $1000 a day I would find it excessive and find another option. But someone who could stay in this area and earn $2500 per day cutting trees or repairing downed lines might find it a reasonable option.

As for lines...sure they work. But they are most certainly not a valuable use of people's time. Do you want the BGE guys waiting in lines for hours a day to buy gas? Do you want the tree guys in line buying gas, or working on the trees that are blocking roads and power lines? Check with some old dudes who were around in the 70s when we had gas rationing...and huge lines.

You have continued to use that same argument over and over (higher cost vs no supply). While it supports your point of view, it is still a logical fallacy. There are more outcomes than you describe. I see these as the most likely outcomes: 1) I get there before others and I get my gas. 2) I get there after people, but have to wait in line but still get gas 3) I see long lines and decide to get gas another time (this is the option I picked) 4) The station runs out of gas, I get no gas. So I move on to another location, repeat options 1-4. For me the incentive was lines, not price.

You seem to support HIGHER gas prices, as a controlling mechanism. So then do you support raising gas prices as incentive to buy more fuel efficient cars?! Because your incentive logic works perfectly for that. Do you support this incentive? (my guess is no, but I'd like to know why - fuel efficiency helps everyone)

In a world where money was equally divided among the population, your ideas would be dead on. However, we don't live in that world. So when you SOLELY use money as an incentive (by raising costs) you instantly bias the system against those who have less than average amounts of money. This has nothing to do with rich or poor. Rich will always be able to afford the cost (spending it is whole other question), Poor will hardly/never be able to afford it. Everyone else in the middle is pretty much forced to make decisions about what basic life needs are more important.

I've never said the price mechanism is the only way to allocate scarce resources...only that it's the best way. I'm not committing a fallacy, I'm using a real-life example where two stations tried both methods...one ran out of gas, the other didn't.

There are certainly other methods to allocate resources. Limits on the amount you can purchase is one. The time required to wait in line is another. They both have limitations, the main one being that they don't force anyone to conserve a valuable resource. In fact, both of these methods end up wasting the resource at time of scarcity.

Regarding higher gas prices as an incentive to buy more fuel efficient cars...I don't personally support the govt forcing that option*. But it would certainly work. If the federal govt increased the price of gas by increasing the gas tax so that the price per gallon were now $10, I guarantee you that people would change their behaviors....not just in which car they bought either. They'd find jobs and homes that were closer to each other. They'd spend less time sitting in parking lots with the engine running. They'd combine errands to make fewer trips. They'd carpool to work more.

*I don't support any kind of coercion regarding gas prices or making people buy more fuel efficient cars. One reason is that we're not running out of fuel, so there's no need. The bigger reason is that I support freedom over coercion. I think people should buy whatever car their circumstances allow.

If Jennell Connelly really wanted to help people in need, she would open up her house for people with health conditions that can't afford a hotel.

Now, suppose you're the hotel owner Jennell and you decide to give away rooms to the sick and poor. Once word of your philanthropy gets out, what do you suppose will happen to your supply of rooms?

As I've asked of others above, would you rather pay $600 for a hotel room that's available, or have the guy at the front desk tell you that the price per night is only $120, but there aren't any vacancies?

Let's get one thing straight: people that own hotels are in business to make money. Just like you do your job to make money. There's nothing morally wrong with that. With a nod to Adam Smith, their pursuit of their own self interest is what ends up serving society at large. The guy that builds a hotel doesn't do it so that poor people with health conditions will have a free room in disasters...he does it so he can make money. But had he not built the hotel...there'd be no hotel rooms for anyone!

My assumption is that when prices rise, people will use scarce resources more carefully, thus making them available for more people. Under your first come, first serve scenario, those that get there first have no incentive to conserve the resource, thus making it available for fewer people.

Also, a doubling of gas prices doesn't put it out of reach of anyone. If you have a vehicle and can afford gas at $3.50 a gallon, you can certainly afford it at $7/gallon...you might just have to buy less of it. Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make.

Similarly, if a hotel room is really cheap lots of people will elect to get a hotel room. As the price rises, many will opt for other options...either driving farther out of the area or perhaps staying with friends or relatives. So higher prices, as they drive people with options to find other housing arrangements, leave more hotel rooms available for people that do not have other options.

I congratulate you for helping someone in need. Demanding the same of others, however, is not a noteworthy accomplishment.

On the other hand Richard you can criticize the greedy jerk who fails to do it for being a greedy jerk and not do business with his sorry facility and hold them up for public contempt for their lack of civility in time of crisis. In wartime this behavior would be deemed unpatriotic if it was done. Contempt is deserved in this case

It's funny when people talk about greed like it's some kind of immoral emotion. People like Chet always see greed in others...but never in themselves.

If the gas station owner wasn't greedy he wouldn't have bothered building his gas station. If the hotel owner wasn't greedy he wouldn't have bothered building his hotel. They didn't build those businesses so they could help others in times of need. They built their businesses so help themselves...to earn a living and support their families. Yet, their desires to help themselves provided things we all need, especially in times like today...gas for people to run their generators and hotels for people with no electricity and no generator.

Finally, not only do you only see greed in others and not yourself, but you also appear to be blind to your own lack of civility: "greedy jerk"? You don't know a single thing about that person or his circumstances, yet you think you're qualified to pass judgement.

nice try Richard, but yes I do see greed in myself etc, i also know that in times of trouble you either reach out or gouge others. I can surmise which one you are from your statements and I know which kind I am. You are welcome to live your life as you wish and I can consider you contemptible if you publically expound a philosophy that encourages and dignifies taking advantage of people in crisis circumstances. you can believe greed is good all you want.

Chet: I'm happy to see you publicly admit that you're a greedy jerk too.

Now, please answer this question for me: when you arrive at the gas station in need of gasoline to run your generator in order to keep alive a sick relative, would you prefer that the price of gas is $3.50 per gallon but the gas station is closed because they've run out, or would prefer that the price is $7.00 per gallon...but at least the gas station is open and they have some gas left for you to buy. This is a serious question with real-life implications, so I look forward to your response.

If the price of gas stays at $3.50 per gallon during these trying times, nobody has any incentive at all to conserve the scarce (and important) resource. At $3.50 per gallon some people might still be filling up their dirt bikes and 4-wheelers to ride for fun. Some people might fill up their tank and head over to Capitol Raceway for some drag racing. Teenagers might fill up for Friday night cruising. Increasing the price might discourage some of that...and leave some gas available for greedy Chet so that you can keep a sick relative alive.

So sure, the gas station owner might make more money off of these transactions, but that doesn't make you or society in general worse off. In fact, it's just the opposite...you're much better off because gas is still available for you to purchase.

Richard your assumption that one who can afford $3.50 a gallon can afford $7 a gallon is a failed assumption. So if the price doubles, that family member is dead. If the price stayed the same, at least I have a chance to save that person if i get there soon enough. If I dont the family member dies but at least i had a chance to save them with the lower price.
So where do you draw the line on the making money at the expense of others?

Brian C: I didn't invent this idea. Furthermore, it's not some far-fetched theory. This is real life. Earlier in this thread of comments someone posted that two nearby gas stations used the different approaches. One raised the price (gouged, as she said) while the other kept the price low. The one that kept its price low ran out of gas. If it wasn't for the fact that the other one raised its price it's very likely that both would have run out. The higher price discouraged some people from buying (or perhaps just drove them to the lower priced station).

When the price rises, you might have to adjust your behavior too in order to purchase the gas at the higher price. You might have to get a bank loan. You might have to ask friends for money. You might have to sell something to get the money to purchase the higher priced gas. But at least you have that option. If nobody has any gas, it doesn't matter how much money you have...you have no option to buy gas.

"Making money at the expense of others." We all do that, every time we go to work and clock in. You could offer to lower your salary so that your employer could make more money...but then he'd be making money at your expense. He could offer to increase your salary, but again, then you'd be making money at his expense.

How is this resolved? By voluntary contracts. You both agree on a salary. How do we resolve this at gas stations? If the price is too high for you, you can keep driving and try to find a lower price. But for you to demand that he keep his price low is exactly the same as him forcing you to pay his higher price.

Ok Richard, let me rephrase. Where do you draw the line on making money?

I don't draw the line anywhere...everyone in society draws there own lines. You're free to draw yours at the current price structure so that businesses can't make any more money than they did the day before the disaster. But the fact is, the supply/demand situation is not the same the day after a disaster as it was the day before the disaster.

But keep in mind that if everyone drew the line where you do, nobody has any (financial) incentive to reduce their usage, and suppliers have no (financial) incentive to bring more product to where it is urgently needed.

The current price of any item is the product of millions of interactions between millions of people with millions of different variables conducted over the course of years. When key variables (both supply and demand) change overnight, it's ludicrous to expect that all other variables will stay the same.

Enough said? I don't think so.

So they kept prices stable, which is fine. They can certainly do that if they please. But I wonder how many people in line ahead of you bought more bagels than they needed, only to throw them away later after they became stale. Word.

@Richard - Panera certainly could have tripled the prices for all menu items. I would have never been back. My guess is most others would also not be back. Local businesses also have to worry about their reputation in the community.

For a luxury item like bagels, where plenty of other food stores in the area are still open, you might be correct that tripling the price would do long term damage to their reputation. Obviously Panera made that calculation.

But running out of gasoline is a life or death matter in some cases. Allowing (or encouraging) people to purchase it for frivolous uses can have real consequences. Increasing the price serves to discourage frivolous uses in times of need.

Richard - I'm not sure if you're old enough to remember the oil embargo back in the 70's. I do. Did gas stations triple the price? No. If you remember, it was rationed to even and odd days. Other stations put limits on the gallons you could get - stopping people from showing up with 10 gas cans.

When I got gas this past Saturday it was a $40 limit. They didn't jack the price.

Limiting the price to $40 is certainly a valid option to conserve a scarce resource. But you have to decide if it's a rational use of people's time. If you just restrict the amount someone can buy, they'll just go to multiple stations to fill their tanks, sometimes waiting in lines at each location. Driving around to multiple stations, waiting in lines when you get there actually uses more of the very resource you're trying to conserve.

Regarding the 70s, the entire reason there was rationing was because of government price controls. Government would not allow the price to rise, so nobody had any incentive to conserve gas...thus the lines...thus the rationing to odd/even days. I don't think you intended to do so, but you just provided evidence to support MY position. I thank you for helping me out.

You lost me. I was in my late teens with a minimum wage job - $3.35/hr if I remember - still in high school.

So your solution in the 70's would have been to triple the price of gas meaning I would have given almost my entire paycheck to get to work and back?

Interesting solution.

John,

Controlling the price of a product wont make people question how badly they need it at a given time or whether or not they should conserve it.

When the govt wants to discourage people from doing something what method do they utilize to get their message across? They tax! They essentially make a product cost more to discourage its use, see cigarettes for an example.

The increase in price of gas and hotels etc discourages people who do not need it from buying it at a time it is scarce. Yes it costs more even to those that do need it but one tends to react accordingly.

When my refrigerator breaks the cost of keeping my groceries cold immediately skyrockets but i adjust my expenses accordingly to accommodate the 'emergency situation'. whereas if i used your method and 'fixed' my budget saying that no matter the needs i cannot allow keeping my groceries cold to cost anymore than it does any other month. My groceries would spoil and it would take months if not years to budget in a new 'fridge.

John: If you were spending your entire paycheck to buy gas to get to work, that would be a signal to you to change your behavior...find a cheaper way to get to work (a bicycle perhaps), find a job closer to home so you could walk, or find a job that paid better. If there's a shortage of gasoline, those are all valid considerations.

Or if you prefer the govt solution, you can spend time and gas waiting in lines and/or driving around trying to find shorter lines on your odd/even day. Just because the price per gallon didn't go up doesn't mean that your overall costs didn't rise.

I don't see how letting people buy gas for frivolous purposes helps anyone in desperate times.

This isn't about short term profits vs. long term goals. This is about conserving a scarce resource.

I ask you the same serious question I asked that greedy jerk Chet: when you arrive at the gas station in need of gasoline to run your generator in order to keep alive a sick relative, would you prefer that the price of gas is $3.50 per gallon but the gas station is closed because they've run out, or would prefer that the price is $7.00 per gallon...but at least the gas station is open and they have some gas left for you to buy. This is a serious question with real-life implications, so I look forward to your response.

I challenge you to test your theory MDBlue. Make a list of the alleged price gougers as well as those that allegedly did not.

In 3 months, 6 months, 3 years or whatever interval you'd like come back and assess who is still in business and who is not. Publish your findings in a Patch blog and we'll see who planned to stay around for a while.

Thanks, Jane. My goal is to simply put the information out there, but I enjoy watching the conversation that develops on Annapolis Patch. It's neat to see neighbors debating the issues with each other. I think it shows that people really care about what happens. (Makes a political junkie like me smile.)

I think thats an EXCELLENT idea Jane. Make a list, we'll call it The Blackball List, and when you do that make sure you document the prices being charged RIGHT NOW by the companies that are on that list as well as the companies that you refrain from putting on that list.

In doing so you can witness how the companies that are not on The Blackball List raise their prices due to less competition knowing blackballers wont patronize the businesses that are on the list. Also you'll notice that the blackballed businesses will lower their prices even more to entice the blackballers. Ultimately the Blackballers are worse off because they will be paying higher prices in an attempt to punish businesses who know how to ration and allocate scarce goods in an 'emergency' situation, and I will be better off because i will see lower prices from the blackballed.

Let me know how you're controlled 'public created supply and demand' works out for you in the end. I think a patch blog post would be a great idea when you have your conclusive data.

"Demand will be much less at these unethical and greedy businesses."

And the ones that don't raise their price will soon run out....leaving the greedy ones in an even better situation...now they have a monopoly in a situation of a shortage. Fantastic for them...but you just made things worse for everyone else. Luckily for you though, the higher prices charged by the now-monopoly station will induce other suppliers to bring more gas to this area right away...which will have the effect of lowering the price charged by the former monopoly supplier.

Rather than 'agree' with it, start it! Lets get this list created, isnt that what Patch is for?

I cannot wait to see the end result.

So which of these options would you prefer:

A. price per gallon of gas = $3.50 (the same as the previous day), but none is available
B. price per gallon = $10, and 1/2 the gas stations still have some available

I just got back from the store. It's pretty hot out there. I saw at least 5 people sitting in their cars with the engines (and AC) running...waiting in the parking lot for someone in the store to finish shopping. This is just one small thing that might change if prices were to rise. If the price of gas had just tripled I doubt all of those people would have been sitting in the parking lot wasting a valuable resource in a time of a shortage.

I don't mind being in the minority when I'm right. I would find it embarrassing though to be wrong, whether I was in the minority or the majority.

That's an unfortunate story and it's a shame that you had to go through it.

But the normal hotel price is set for normal times. The days after a storm like we experienced last weekend are not normal times. Supply and demand have both drastically changed.

I have no idea how many of the hotel rooms in the area were taken before prices started rising. Perhaps many. That means lots of people might not have had any economic incentive to economize on the number of rooms they rented.

As your story shows, people draw the line at different places. For you, the price was too high, so you adjusted your behavior and found an alternative option...going home and using ice to keep cool. That left a hotel room available for people for whom $500 - 1000 was not too high of a price to pay for a room...perhaps they were even sicker than you.

If they had agreed to lower the price for you because you were sick, and word got out, everyone who "needed" or just wanted a room would suddenly need it because they were sick. The price mechanism keeps the hotel from having to figure out who really needs it vs. who merely wants to be comfortable for the night. It's true that some people will be harmed because they can't afford the higher prices...but if the prices didn't rise there likely would not have been any rooms available.

I don't really mind it when an economic illiterate thinks I'm a jerk. Better that than to be thought a moron, which you have just exposed yourself as being.

What we're discussing here is how to allocate scarce resources during an emergency. If you think you can ignore supply and demand during such a time, my assessment above is correct and there's no reason for me to continue discussing it with you.

If you'd like to have an adult conversation about it, fine. But you'll need to adjust your attitude before that can happen.

Matt: I would like to direct you to the above statement by Ron Jennings. You have twice incorrectly accused me of committing a logical fallacy. What Ron has committed is a real logical fallacy. Because he can't argue his point with either logic or fact, he has committed an ad hominem attack.

Richard/Mike- as I stated I live in an over 55 condo on the second floor. They don't allow generators here. After 28 years working for Defense, and being a Christian Counselor as a volunteer, I was forced to retire because my Multiple Sclerosis came on suddenly at age 55 and has quickly robbed me of my abilities, For me heat=pain. I now live on a limited income,disability. I no longer have money to spend on a room @$500+ dollars. My medicine is extremely costly, I had to get a vehicle for a lift for my motor chair.I could go on and on.I am grateful it struck me after I had a chance to live and do things, This was a freak weather event and all I needed was a cool room. to sleep SAFELY. I was told if I paid that price there would be a room. I'm not the only one in this position. There are a lot of people who have an illness where heat at that level could cause death. It does happen. I don't understand anyone that lacks compassion for people who suffer and who's needs are greater. When I was financially able, I gave to those less fortunate. Think how you think, say what you say, but unless you are in my position and depend on others; and I pray it never happens to you; it seems you just won't get it. You may be the type where it has to happen to you, to make sense.What they did was WRONG!!. It may work for a business, but I have much more respect for those where human needs come before financial gain. I don't care if you don't understand, just don't disrespect those that do.

"I don't understand anyone that lacks compassion for people who suffer and who's needs are greater."

You say you "needed" the hotel room. But there are varying degrees of need. And while you say you "needed" the room, the fact is that your story reveals the very opposite...that you didn't actually "need" the room, you simply "wanted" a room. How do I know that? Because you went home instead and everything apparently worked out just fine.

I wonder if you'd be singing a different tune if your electricity never went out, but mine did...and since I was ill at the time I demanded that you surrender a room in your apartment for me to stay in. How is my demand that you open your apartment to strangers any different than your demand that the hotel owner give you a room at a discount over the current prevailing price? Renting a room is a completely voluntary contract. If you don't like the price you're free to find a cheaper option. Under normal circumstances you have the advantage over the hotel owner because of competition. You only object when he gains the advantage because of a surge in demand that limits your options.

Personally, if I had a health condition where heat = pain, I don't think I'd be living in MD, where thunderstorms and power outages are quite common, and summer temperatures routinely hit triple digits. If I did though, I don't think I'd have the nerve to DEMAND that others pay for my misfortune when I ran into difficult circumstances. But that's just me.

Melanie, the greed epidemic is with government and its cronies in big business. So long as politicians use force of guns to sell favoritism in the market, businesses will buy those favors. While you are semi-correct on one point in that there are huge favors for corporations, government cannot get rid of those, it can only create them.

The regulators ALWAYS get bought off by the regulated. Government's job, which it fails to do, is to STAY OUT, stepping in only to enforce contracts entered into by willing parties and to protect citizens from violence, force, and fraud.

When government stays out, businesses have no way to make a living except by PLEASING CUSTOMERS. When government intervenes, it picks winners and losers. It creates monopolies (like liquor licensing) that protect select friends from competition, punishing the consumer.

Another good example is mandated healthcare, the big winners are the cronies at United Healthcare, and the politicians to whom they kick back OUR STOLEN MONEY.

Liberty and limited government are the only answers. Asking for a better regulator (to replace the last one that got bribed, and the one before that that got bribed., and ..) is a fool's errand. "She swallowed the spider to catch the fly..."

First come, first served doesn't treat everyone equally...those that arrive first have the options, while those that arrive later don't (the supply might have run out). Furthermore, how would you feel if I arrived first and bought out the entire supply? I assume you'd head over to Patch and cry about some rich guy that bought all the gasoline (or hotel rooms) that was available and you had to leave empty handed.

Second, go ahead and disparage greed. But greed is what gives you a standard of living that is higher than that of 99% of the people on earth. Moreover, I don't believe for a second that you yourself are not greedy. If someone offered you double your salary because they desperately needed your skills, I find it hard to believe you'd offer to do the work for 1/2 of what was offered. Is that not greed? Or is it greed only when others do it, but when you do it it's a well deserved reward for all the hard work you've done in the past?

Regarding your first couple questions, I don't quite see how the two questions are linked, but anyway...of course I'm against universal healthcare. Corporate tax breaks are a different story, since corporations don't really pay taxes, only people do.

As for having a one track mind, I take that as a compliment...my one track mind is towards voluntary cooperation without the use of force...which seems a whole lot better than whatever it is that you're proposing.

Another excellent real world scenario!