Price Gouging: Ban First, Define Later
---
They know it when they see it?
I suppose the alternative would be worse, namely to borrow a page from antitrust law and make it up as they go along ("this merger is anticompetitive, but that one isn't" ... "you can merge, but you have to sell this or that unit" ... "redesign your product to make it less useful" ... etc.). A post facto definition is arguably better than no definition at all. (Whatever happened to the "void for vagueness" doctrine?)
There's a saying; I have no attribution to offer:
Meanwhile, here's my definition of "price gouging": anything that will give a politician a sound bite.
Fill 'er up.
More thoughts from Greg Mankiw, Truck and Barter.
---
Maybe this is price gouging? Even if, I don't think it's quite what the politicians have in mind.
---
Or maybe this is price gouging. I really don't think this was what the politicians had in mind.
---
Procter & Gamble reported quarterly earnings of $2.21 billion. Procter & Gamble's operating margin in the quarter was 19.4%; ExxonMobil's is about 15.0%. Procter & Gamble is either a monopolist or oligopolist in every single one of its markets; ExxonMobil produces only 3% of the world's oil.
Anyone in Congress calling for an FTC investigation of Procter & Gamble? No? Go figure.
Energy companies could be fined up to $150 million, and officials jailed, if found to be price gouging under legislation approved by the House.So, Congress has no idea what constitutes "price gouging," but they're going to ban it anyway? Complete with jail time and punitive fines for "unfair" profits?
...
The House-passed price gouging legislation directs the FTC to define price gouging and calls for penalties of up to $150 million for refiners and other wholesalers and $2 million for retailers who violate the law. It covers marketers of gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil and heating fuel.
Wholesalers and retail outlets such as corner gas stations and service station chains face civil penalties triple the amount of their unfair profit. Violators also could go to jail.
I suppose the alternative would be worse, namely to borrow a page from antitrust law and make it up as they go along ("this merger is anticompetitive, but that one isn't" ... "you can merge, but you have to sell this or that unit" ... "redesign your product to make it less useful" ... etc.). A post facto definition is arguably better than no definition at all. (Whatever happened to the "void for vagueness" doctrine?)
There's a saying; I have no attribution to offer:
If you charge more than everyone else, then you're gouging.Such is the Politics of Antitrust.
If you charge less than everyone else, then you're undercutting.
If you charge the same as everyone else, then you're colluding.
Meanwhile, here's my definition of "price gouging": anything that will give a politician a sound bite.
Fill 'er up.
More thoughts from Greg Mankiw, Truck and Barter.
---
Maybe this is price gouging? Even if, I don't think it's quite what the politicians have in mind.
---
Or maybe this is price gouging. I really don't think this was what the politicians had in mind.
---
Procter & Gamble reported quarterly earnings of $2.21 billion. Procter & Gamble's operating margin in the quarter was 19.4%; ExxonMobil's is about 15.0%. Procter & Gamble is either a monopolist or oligopolist in every single one of its markets; ExxonMobil produces only 3% of the world's oil.
Anyone in Congress calling for an FTC investigation of Procter & Gamble? No? Go figure.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- The Most Unconstitutional Law Ever?
- NYC Politicians: One Cent = Price Gouging
- Price Gouging: Oil's Well that Ends Well?...
- FTC: All Inflation is "Price Gouging"
- Price Gouging: Ban First, Define Later
- Illinois' "Price Gouging" Extortion Racket...
- Another Disaster, Another "Gouging" Claim
- Passover Price Gouging?
- Price Gouging: Touch the Toaster
Posted by Kip on
4 May 2006
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
