A price increase that effectively stops people from hoarding gas would be equally as effective at stopping people who need gas from affording it.
We shouldn't have widespread shortages for the sake of theoretical people whose existences are structured around 5 gallon commutes and razor thin margins tied with no lines of credit to float a week of double gas expenses.
The reason, which is likely apparent to both of us and everyone reading this, is that such assistance would likely never be put in place, and the only help ordinary folks will have in the event of such an increase is wishful thinking.
and so you suggest hurting the vast majority of people even more?
That's right, your suggested approach of keeping artificially-low-prices-that-allow-hoarding leads to zero gas at the pumps, and zero gas at the pumps hurts the vast majority of people very directly and very effectively.
Allowing prices to float higher in a shortage solves the allocation problem for scarce resources by ensuring that people think twice about how they use it, while keeping it available. Ignoring that the resource is scarce not only doesn't solve anything, it makes the problem worse.
1. More people are hurt by price gouging of products with inelastic demand than hurt by limiting the price increase.
2. A completely floating gas price disproportionately affects disadvantaged folks who have no alternative, even when there are no outages.
I mean, I totally agree with OP, there's a straightforward solution: set up a government program that insulates people from the effects of a floating price proportionately to how disadvantaged they are, and then, after that, let the gas price float. That way we get your idea without hurting anyone! Win-win.
no, your statement is false.
Hoarding cheap gas results in zero gas at the pump, and that is MORE effective at stopping people who need it than high prices do.
That's right, market pricing solves allocation problems that your misguided approach creates.
Even simplistic rationing is at least relatively fair and can ensure at least a base level of availability. For the major necessities this can be pretty reasonably accounted for to ensure nobody suffers from some extreme deprivation.
It also lets you at least put some somewhat predictable cap on how fast resources are going out. Allowing price gouging doesn't let you predict much of anything, and I'm not sure it even slows the outflow given the uncertainty of these situations.
1. only those who really need it buy it
2. others are encouraged to increase supply
For example, before anti-gouging laws, when a hurricane interrupted the gas supply, people from a state over would immediately fill jerry cans with gas and drive into the disaster zone, selling gas out of the back of their pickups.
Anti-gouging laws put a stop to that. Now nobody gets gas until FEMA gets around to it.
I've talked to people who lived through WW2 gas rationing. It was a mess of mis-allocation. People who didn't need their ration turned into criminals selling it on the black market. People who needed it turned into criminals buying it on the black market. It was pure political theater.
Those who buy it are those who can afford it. They also (think) they need it, for some reason. That can include the intention to legally resell it. Buying suddenly comes with even more time pressure. Buying now becomes both a hedge and speculation, with zero legal risks.
Sure, people bringing in supplies on their own sounds good. It can even be good. But how much does it actually bring in? Does it come with other problems, like additional stress on infrastructure? If this really is such a great thing, I don't see how it should be wholly incompatible with anti-price gouging laws. If you want to specifically incentivize private transport of goods from out of the area, you don't have to allow them to be sold for any price, nor do you have to allow it for goods already in the area.
As for the black market, I'm not sure that's a bug. It makes it harder, and adds some risk, to acquiring more. If you actually need it enough, you'll do it. There some be some correlation between actual need and willingness to participate in the black market. With proper use of the discretion available to law enforcement, maybe this even enhances how well the goods end up distributed. That's a big "with" but still.
Rationing implies a black market must be illegal. Besides, it enriches random people who don't need gas, at the expense of the people who went to the effort to supply it.
If that isn't a topsy-turvy unjust, inefficient and inequitable way to run an economy, I don't know what is.
Rationing suffers from the delusion that bureaucratic rules can distinguish who needs something and who doesn't, and denial of the existence of normal human motivations.