And the doubled price would keep people who are least able to pay from getting necessary resources, also potentially encouraging them to continue working in risky conditions to earn extra income to do so, helping in some small way to perpetuate the pandemic itself.
If you're looking for a market-based solution to hoarding, there are others besides price gouging. Amazon's approach, at least in areas where they have complete control like their pantry, fresh, and whole foods services, can serve as an example: They want happy customers. Happy customers return and buy more stuff. Customers who can't buy what they need because it's sold out due to hoarding are not happy. Amazon institutes a policy for orders through fresh/pantry/whole foods that limit TP purchases to a single package. More customers get needed supplies, stay happy return to buy more, make Amazon more money in the long term.
Supply/Demand price curves & price elasticity are not the only rational market-based methods of price discovery. More subtle and long-term considerations breed other strategies.
A doubled price of TP isn't going to prevent almost anyone from not having enough. (Yes yes, I know there are edge cases where $5 matters, but weigh that against the alternative.)
On the other hand, a doubled price of TP means that hoarding 10,000 packages becomes far more expensive, and less profitable.
You have likely never been in a situation where you have to weigh the purchase of food against the prospect of eviction. I grew up that way, and labelling those circumstances "edge cases" is a tidy way of dehumanizing the situation that many millions of people find themselves in. I won't do the work for you: lookup how many people are on SNAP programs. These are not edge cases.
Think market forces can solve all economic problems? Fine. But don't let that blind you to the fact that they have not done it yet and large numbers of people live in poverty and misery at the bad end of the economic scale.
While not perfect free market/capitalism pulled up more people from poverty than any other system. It is usually about who you compare yourself to. If you compare yourself to 1% of the most wealthy country in the world then you are most likely going to look poor. But if you compare yourself to the bottom 1% of the poorest country you most likely going to turn out sickly rich. And when you do the same comparison to the poor in the far past then it gets even more crazy.
>While not perfect free market/capitalism pulled up more people from poverty than any other system
Nope not true - that award goes to communist China
>China lifting more than 800 million people out of poverty since the start of its economic reform is a "great story in human history", World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said today, underlining that there is "lessons to be learned" from this Chinese experience.
>Over the past three decades, China has successfully led the greatest poverty alleviation program in the history of the world. During that time, an estimated 500 million Chinese were lifted out of extreme poverty.
If it actually were exceedingly rare for the price of toilet paper the make a significant difference in people’s financial situation, then I suspect toilet paper manufacturers/retailers would realize that this means they’re leaving profit in the table, and they would raise prices.
That is not how markets work. As long as there is competition, prices drop to the bottom. It would take concerted effort to rise prices, e.g. by forming a cartel. That's illegal for that reason.
You can also calculate the situation for yourself. How much does a unit of toilet paper cost and how long does it last?
To me, the situation looks more like GP could be right and doubling the price of toilet paper doesn't kill people but rather stabilizes the situation. Besides, it's always possible to substitute the usage.
The 'edge cases' amount to probably at least hundreds of thousands of people in the US alone. Unless you're saying they're not "people who need toilet paper", dismissing them as outliers not to be worried about is just blatantly cruel.
If you're looking for a market-based solution to hoarding, there are others besides price gouging. Amazon's approach, at least in areas where they have complete control like their pantry, fresh, and whole foods services, can serve as an example: They want happy customers. Happy customers return and buy more stuff. Customers who can't buy what they need because it's sold out due to hoarding are not happy. Amazon institutes a policy for orders through fresh/pantry/whole foods that limit TP purchases to a single package. More customers get needed supplies, stay happy return to buy more, make Amazon more money in the long term.
Supply/Demand price curves & price elasticity are not the only rational market-based methods of price discovery. More subtle and long-term considerations breed other strategies.