by aflurry » Fri 19 Aug 2005, 17:16:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'I')f you force companies to sell gasoline at under the market price, they will be far less likely to go and get more supply.
But this time we can't just find more supply, so the second impact of price controls comes into play. Consumers don't get the message that gas is in short supply given price controls. If gas prices are frozen at $2 a gallon, people will consume far more gas than if the price was allowed to rise to $5+.
Why bother to conserve if the price is kept artificially low?
If you ration gasoline, people will get around the rationing. Even in WW2, people tried to get around the gas rationing. They were willing to eat less meat, butter, sugar, and trade in their knickers for the war effort...but they were unwilling to give up their gasoline.
So if the government tries to keep prices down by force, we will find ourselves with empty shelves and empty tanks.
When the price of gas rises to $5+, people will begin looking at their lives and finding ways to cut back. But if you never allow that to happen, the problem becomes "those damn ration cards" rather than a real shortage.
Does that explain it?
Thank you. This is at least coherent theory.
It does seem like price controls and rationing have to be employed together to make any sense.
I think your predictions of behavior rest on fairly large assumptions. For example, you could always point to examples of cheating, but the question is, would the WW2 era you refer to have turned out better or worse if prices rationing were not employed? Who knows? Due to the indiscriminate nature of price volitility it may have become prohibitively expensive for the military itself to wage war at that time. People may have been more apt to say, "Bloody 'ell. Fill'er up with petrol quick, and bugger the lot a' ya," and now they'd be eating bratwurst and mash. Without showing that the alternative would have been better, the argument doesn't do much for me.
And I have a counterexample: Housing price volitility has not priced people out of the market despite prices being currently far outside people's ability to pay. They could always put gas on credit.
I think your first comment above points exactly to the destructive effects of unfettered market management of critical and limited resources. It creates cycles of scarecity and glut. During scarecity, the high prices promote exploration, which opens the trickle to a river, but once that river starts flowing and the prices go down, the oil companies are still paying for that infrastructure investment, so now must sell even more at the lower cost to keep up with the financing, which in turn promotes overuse and waste, then depletes the source fields at a greater rate until they dry up and once again the prices rise, only now it is more destructive than before because consumers have arranged their lives around the availability of the cheap oil that the oil companies were virtually shoving down their throats before. They can't afford the rising oil prices, but they can't move their whole family to a more sustainable living arragement either because they are dependent on jobs, sschools, friends, family, etc. So they start buying on credit, hoping for that coming glut to help them out of the hole they have dug themselves into.... which pretty much brings us up to date. Except they may have to wait awhile for that glut.
I think that is a more pertinent prediction of people's behavior, because that is what actually happened. Thanks free market.