Hacker News Reader

Comment by slg | Hacker News Reader

I was being general. Lumber might not have had supply shocks, but the pandemic did cause many supply shocks across industries.

I wasn’t offering a solution. I was remarking on the idea of we’re just selling to the highest bidder as a universal defense for this behavior. We can recognize it when a grocery store raises the price of water after an earthquake. We should be able to recognize it elsewhere.

View on HN

At the very least, you could have been a whole lot more clear than responding to a comment of "But for the first ~3 weeks of the pandemic, our sawmills ran flat out -- more production than ever. Notwithstanding that fact, we saw unprecedented pricing -- because demand was radically outpacing supply." with "What you describe is the definition of price gouging."

I'm not clear on what you think wasn't clear in my original comment. Are you suggesting that increased production can't happen in situations of price gauging?

My intent was to link the logic OP described with the logic behind price gouging. I didn't think it was expecting too much of the reader to have a negative view of price gouging and therefore view my comment as a criticism of OP's explanation.

If you were intending all along to be speaking generally, replying to the description of what they experienced with lumber prices and mills operating at maximum capacity with "What you describe is the definition of price gouging" could lead many readers (including this one) to conclude that you were speaking specifically about their situation rather than generally about the topic.

Even now I can't be sure whether you think the multi-quarter increase in price of building supplies in 2020 and 2021 was price gouging or not.

I was speaking to their specific logic and not their specific situation. Whether their situation qualifies legally as price gouging depends on the degree they raised prices and the jurisdiction in which they do business. Neither of those were mentioned in the original post, so whether their situation was truly and legally was price gouging was unanswerable to any of us.

I specifically used general terms in my comment. This included using "disaster" instead of "pandemic" or "COVID". I included an "or" in "supply shocks, demand shocks, or both". I also referred to "various industries". I thought collectively that was enough to make it clear that I was speaking more broadly than just referring to OP's specific situation. I don't know exactly were I lost you, was it just the fact that my comment was a direct reply to their and you took that as an indication that I wouldn't speak beyond that initial context?

I went astray when I read your first sentence as being in reference to the specific situation. "What you describe is the definition of price gouging." What percentage of the blame for that misread is on the reader and what percent is on the writer is surely a matter on which opinions could differ.

After an earthquake and when people have no access to tap water demand for bottled water goes up. Yet raising the price of bottled water in that situation is still considered price gouging.

Water is a life necessity without a comparable alternative. Nothing else in this discussion comes close to comparing. Eggs are just one kind of nutrient vessel, we have a lot of different foods. There isn't a right to have access to specifically eggs. Lumber is not a life necessity.

Water is worth more after an earthquake. Is this not obvious?

What point are you trying to make with this? Yes, it is obvious. I was not denying that. I was pointing out that raising the prices too much (10% in California) in response to that increase in value is illegal.

High prices for a product means there is an incentive to produce more of it.

Obfuscating the true value of something discourages new production, so California remains stupid.

I don't know what states you consider smart, but Texas is generally the polar opposite of California and they have laws on price gouging too. They just don't put a percentage on it and instead prevent "exorbitant or excessive" pricing.

If I'm considering a pricing strategy for my business, want to stay on the good side of the law, and am given a choice between a set percentage and two vague words in which there is no exact definition, give me California's stupidity any day.

You're free to be stupid. The probability that there will be less water available than there could be will be higher there than places that are less idiotic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com