They're finally bringing down the price of insulin tho

@boomsuga

4 жыл бұрын

Star Cherry come to 🇨🇦. Prescription medication is cheap. Sometimes you don’t pay at all.

@transon6655

4 жыл бұрын

abolish patent system and your insulin prices will go down. Stop blaming the free market ( the collectiv of free individuals) for something the government did.

@brandonbreunig6735

4 жыл бұрын

The weak suffer what they must.

@Oxazepam65

4 жыл бұрын

I'm a pharmacist in Quebec, Canada and I can tell you that insuline is a lot cheaper over here. The only downside of having cheaper medication is that we are affected probably more often by shortage (back order). Of course if a company sell a medication for 3x more in US, they will sell to them first... So yes, it's nice that we have cheaper price, as long as we have something to sell.

@elliottmiller3282

4 жыл бұрын

@@transon6655 this

1:28 that grammar flex

@Ojackbauer0

4 жыл бұрын

Anyone care to explain the grammar flex for the ignorant such as myself?

@sierrairick1704

4 жыл бұрын

Yammoto Julia said “attorneys general” instead of “attorney generals “

@riadburctoolla3251

4 жыл бұрын

@@sierrairick1704 Why is "attorneys general" correct but not "attorney generals"?

@sierrairick1704

4 жыл бұрын

Riad Burctoolla according to Google, the Brits say “attorney-generals” but Americans say “attorneys general”

@owenb8636

4 жыл бұрын

@@riadburctoolla3251 the noun is attorney, not general, so you would pluralize the noun. But we are used to the noun coming at the end of the sentence, so we might try to say attorney generals. I suspect that the origin of the word is french, hence why the adjective goes afterwards

I just want to say, the level of production for 2C is off the grid. They never cheap out on the animations, music, mixing, everything is great.

I agree with everyone else here, the doomsday prepper is a horrible analogy, the correct term would be panic buyer

@zzzanon

4 жыл бұрын

I agree. The only prepper I have ever met in person told me - at least when discussing food and bullets but I assume it extends to TP also - that he buys when there is a sale (which sounds like what normal/rational people to me) just in "bulk" quantities. But this is a sample size of one, so it may not represent ALL preppers.

@f.r.2275

4 жыл бұрын

A prepper has already got all the supplies he needs before a pandemic outbreak

@DavincisGirl66

4 жыл бұрын

There is a misunderstanding of the term "prepper". A prepper aims to be prepared and was shopping for needed items long before the general public. Last minute buying was mostly from people who were surprised and anxious.

@ezequielrenovato6608

4 жыл бұрын

I don't really blame "panic buyers". At least not here in the area I live in. The government and other official organizations were suggesting we stock up with at least two weeks worth of groceries before the country went on lockdown. The lockdown didn't go how many imagined it would but it did last longer than two weeks.

@DavincisGirl66

4 жыл бұрын

@@ezequielrenovato6608 Agreed.

There's a difference between a Dooms Day pepper and a Hoarder. That 2nd guy in the example is a hoarder, a doomsday prepper would always buy 2 packs pre pandemic and set the extra in a safe place.

We've seen some stores limit the number of items per customer rather than resorting to price gouging. Would you consider that a better system or do you think it results in desperate people going for multiple shopping trips that leat to unnecessary risks for disease spreading?

@lethanhminh8001

4 жыл бұрын

that's the free market at work. No need for the government to intervene

@10aDowningStreet

4 жыл бұрын

That, imo, it the civilized way of dealing with it... rather than economists right wing law of the jungle approach

@darkdudironaji

4 жыл бұрын

@@10aDowningStreet Limiting the number of packs is the right wing way of doing it. Because it was done by the businesses themselves, and not forced by the government.

@EmpressLilith222

4 жыл бұрын

Diogo Almeida better to limit since there are some who are greedy and buy more than they usually do because they are cowards.

@markpalmer2562

4 жыл бұрын

It is a way, and I think a reasonable way, but the definition of "better" is subjective. Limiting has downsides too. It treats some more unfairly than others. Assuming there is a designated shopper for each household, a household of one person would be able to buy the same amount as a household of six even though the second household would conceivably be using the resource six time faster.

That bidet comment though 😂😂😂

@kislayanand4641

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly!

@cindygiesbrecht3146

4 жыл бұрын

You could also use microfiber cloths that you can wash just like cloth diapers. It's the 'no waste' way.

@JCosio-bs9xr

4 жыл бұрын

It's the first thing I bought and now I wish I had bought it sooner.

@sensiblewheels

4 жыл бұрын

@@cindygiesbrecht3146 'Crap". Wish I never have to do that.

@SwordQuake2

4 жыл бұрын

@@cindygiesbrecht3146 So that was what my room-mate was doing.

In my country (Costa Rica) they just put a limit on how many items of “essential need” you could buy. That way there’s no need to increase prices in products and there is enough for anyone.

@MrHoggReads

4 жыл бұрын

Black Market

@vittocrazi

4 жыл бұрын

@@MrHoggReads thats a long term dynamic

@asadb1990

4 жыл бұрын

well there is an easy go around, just buy the stuff on multiple trips. most stores can't deny you for coming back specially at different times.

@Cr_airbnb

4 жыл бұрын

@@MrHoggReads No need! :D

@Cr_airbnb

4 жыл бұрын

@@asadb1990 Yeah, but why do that? There's also a cultural centric purpose which is thought through education: "Give what you can, take only what you need" and for the most part of the country and the people I know I can tell that it applies.

I live in Canada, and our stores set up limits on the number of items you can get. For example, I couldn't buy 3 sticks of butter yesterday, I was only allowed 2. And you can only buy 2 packs of toilet paper. No price gouging, just limiting the quantity. You can potentially go back to the store and buy items again, but not many people want to do it during coronavirus.

As soon as I heard there was a toilet paper shortage, I ordered a bidet toilet seat online and now I only wish I had gotten it sooner!

@raftash5279

4 жыл бұрын

A watering can would also do just fine.

@mr.boostang2064

4 жыл бұрын

I just wash the chocolate starfish in the shower

@ayingchanda

4 жыл бұрын

@@mr.boostang2064 hahahaha

@patitarem

4 жыл бұрын

Boostang holy shi-

@jarlfenrir

2 жыл бұрын

In my country people were more aware that toilet paper shortage is not real so it really never gone out of stock. But soap was really hard to come by.

Re: "DOOMSDAY PREPPER"- Someone who is buying supplies in an emergency is by definition not a prepper. Preppers get their resources ahead of time. Preppers are the ones sitting back during emergencies laughing at the short-sighted folk who live paycheck to paycheck, and have no store of essential items at home. If there weren't more forethoughtful people and preppers, then shortages during emergencies would be even worse, since that would also be in the market for the limited items. Lesson- when the skies are blue and everything seems great, and the store has a sale on toilet paper- that's the time to grab a few extra rolls. Also- check out Economics In One Lesson

@leenva

4 жыл бұрын

Prepare for the worst, and hope for the best.

@nunyabusiness896

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah, just spend a few extra thousand a year for extra storage space for the toilet paper you saved $1 a pack on /s In today's world, especially if you live in a city, the cost of extra storage space is far higher than even the worst gouging prices during times of shortage. I've done the math and it's often cheaper to throw away (or donate, preferably) larger, less expensive items you don't use regularly and re-buy it later than it is to rent a storage locker or bigger apartment. And if society destabilizes so much that supply chains are completely toast, you probably need a gun more than a roll of toilet paper and some stale canned food because it will be an all out Mad Max world.

@iloveprivacy8167

4 жыл бұрын

@@nunyabusiness896 Hello, fellow city dweller! If you're in a 200 sqft "efficiency" in NYC, then I see your point. But you don't need as much stuff as the nutters are showing off: even a two-week supply of canned goods can help keep you sane when everyone else is bugging out. And lots of apartments have crannies that can be put to use: the back of bottom cabinets, under the bed, on the shelves behind the books & DVD's.

@Swordsman52

4 жыл бұрын

@@nunyabusiness896 I live in an urban area(inside Beltway, NOVA), in an apartment, and am easily able to pad out our homegoods. Re: toasted supply chains. They can happen as a result of a natural or man made disaster, not the end of civil society. If not having to wait in line in a walmart parking lot for bottle water with hundreds of my closest friends means I have some spare bottled water under the bed, then so be it.

@Swordsman52

4 жыл бұрын

(I'll add that I topped off our homegoods back in Feb before it really hit the US and some friends/family were making fun of me, and by the end of March some were sending me snarky comments about how I "hoarded" because I bought two CostCo things of toilet paper instead of my regular 1 and they can't find TP anywhere).

2:06 who ever hangs toilet rolls backwards like this can watch the world burn.

@martinfamily546

4 жыл бұрын

Ivraj Plaha 😂

@masterimbecile

4 жыл бұрын

Uh oh. Here we go again. TP hanger wars!

@JacobAnawalt

4 жыл бұрын

^+++ Beards are cool, mullets lame!

Counterpoint: Setting a reasonable per customer limit may be better, as it increases the opportunity cost of the item while maintaining the financial cost. Also, your scenario is flawed. The prepper would walk away empty handed. He would by as much as he could afford. Now, put a 2 per customer limit. In order for the prepper to by the same amount, he would have to complete his transaction, leave, and return. It takes him longer to buy the same amount so he will buy less, and while he is going through the line, other person will get the item. The opportunity cost could go up so much, the prepper buys less than simple gouging.

@Zagrid

4 жыл бұрын

The issue with that is there are still ways around it. I think setting a limit just encourages people to buy more than what they need by having each member of a family buy some or buying some from the store every day. Price gouging while it is really hurtful to the wallet, it makes 100% sure people only buy what they absolutely need. Unless if they are loaded and don’t care about money.

@thadavid

4 жыл бұрын

A combination of both would be best I think Per customer limits don't work alone just make people go to the shops way more often to buy said limit over and over again meaning the shop is always packed with people adding to the fear and scarcity

@andrewashkettle

4 жыл бұрын

Please rewatch the video, especially the part about trucks bringing water to a stricken area in pursuit of profit. Customer limits sound good but it doesn't incentivize people to drive their trucks of water to the stricken area in the first place. There's no water to limit because the trucks never came because your good intentions made it unprofitable to do so. You're just assuming the resources are there, on the consumer's door, waiting to be consumed. Producers have to produce and deliver it.

@jrurias8817

4 жыл бұрын

@@andrewashkettle I think that's where government should play an important role for a change, after all, what's the point of paying taxes ?

@andrewashkettle

4 жыл бұрын

​@Jr Urias How do you think the government should step in? Keep in mind that the government doesn't produce anything.

I live in Florida and I have lived through a lot of storms (and the aftermath of said storms). Profit shouldn't determine where resources are sent during an emergency. The poor always suffer the worst, and no one deserves to be exploited in a crisis.

@transon6655

4 жыл бұрын

Profit should mostly determine where resources are sent, it doesn't matter in which situations we are in. Prices play a big tole in the economy. Whit out high prices in times of shortages, producers won't have an incentive to ramo up production, entrepreneur will have less incentive to find alternative ways, entrpreneurs from other places won't have incentive to transport more goods, consumers won't use the scarce resources and last problems are low prices creat incentive to horde. But I agree with you the poor suffer during a depression but I would blame the bail outs on big business more.

we had rationing in supermarkets here in germany for specific goods(the ones that were being stocked up on), until the wave of hoarders died down. Most people got what they needed, little to no change in price. Something to consider for retailers trying to deal with hoarding behaviour and price gouging perceptions.

I am always so impressed by this channel. On every single argument you show both sides in an equal light. I wish there were informative channels like this for every topic!

There are 2 types of price gauging: - The stores are raising the prices because the demand is high. It is beneficial, because it ensures that the stores are not empty, and only those people buy who actually need it, while creates an incentive for the producers to produce more, and/or stock more. -> GOOD - Someone buys up the entire stock in the store on normal prices. Then, as a artificial monopoly, they raise prices. There is no competition. The prices are not the result of natural high demand/low supply, but this person manipulated the market by removing existing supplies from the market. -> BAD

@aliasgharkhoyee8911

4 жыл бұрын

The first example doesn't take into account that people don't have the same level of income/purchasing power. So it's not necessarily the case that "only those people buy who actually need it" - it could be that the people who cannot afford the higher price can no longer buy it.

@juzoli

4 жыл бұрын

Ali Asghar Khoyee We are talking about things like hand sanitizer, which goes from $3 to $10. They can pay for that. Also what is the difference between not being able to pay for it, or not finding it in stores in first place? Also we already know from previous crises that if the price is unchanged, the wealthier people are the ones who are stocking up in excessive amounts, because why not? It costs the same, and they have the capital to buy a lot at once. So we have all evidences to conclude, keeping the prices artificially low, disproportionately hurts the poor. For an extreme example, look at Venezuela.

@aliasgharkhoyee8911

4 жыл бұрын

@@juzoli In a crisis people don't only have to buy hand sanitisers, so affordability matters. An alternative to price gauging is limiting the numbers of each product shoppers can buy.

@juzoli

4 жыл бұрын

Ali Asghar Khoyee That still doesn’t resolve the original problem, that we need more products altogether. If there are not enough of it, then it doesn’t matter how to try to distribute it, it will come out short... We need to incentivize producers to produce more, and eventually it will get to the new equilibrium price.

@juzoli

4 жыл бұрын

asdrt No, not the same. If someone buys the entire stock, he will have a monopoly, and can raise the prices as much as he wants. He has a total control over the supply, so the price will only depend on the demand, so it can get much higher than real prices for essential goods. Without it, the price might raise, but only up to the real price. So the 2 situation is VERY different. “Higher prices for people who need it” Yes, that’s what we called “demand”. That’s the point of having prices and money in the first place, and the basis of economy. Why you list it as a negative? That’s why money was invented, to decide how to distribute scarce resources, by offering more money if you need it more. Human-controlled distribution (like price control, and other limits) turned out to be a disaster repeatedly throughout the history. In your example, people who desperately need more than 1, because they have a family, are fucked, and single people can enjoy an unfair advantage.

I really love the presentation of the economic facts and opinions in this in a neutral way. Allows us to walk away with our own opinions and while still learning other angles.

I want to pitch in as a former economics college student! :) What a lot of economists do not account for in their theories is market failure such as negative externalities. People with the ability to buy more than they need and store more than they need tend to be more financially stable and privileged. People who get hurt the most by price gouging might be the ones that are least financially secure or could not dedicate their time to prepping on a larger scale due to other responsibilities. Thankfully, a lot of business where I´m from have started restricting goods per person, so that more people can buy basic necessities (the moment when big business have more ethics than the average scared citizen, I can't believe it too :D)

@exantiuse497

4 жыл бұрын

I don't think it's about ethics, and more about thoughtlessness from the citizens' part. Individual people tend to act in a dumb manner, especially when afraid, but an organization or a company has a lot of people calmly discussing things and forming a plan to mitigate this

@roelsvideosandstuffs1513

4 жыл бұрын

People with the ability to buy more than they need and store more than they need tend to be more financially stable and privileged. Or in other words they are rich (or have enough money) in the first place so they can buy more? Who buys a lot of things when they don't need it? not unless. They can profit on it or they have used for it in the future.

@Nuganics

4 жыл бұрын

YZ95: as a economics student you would know market failure is a lie? Externalities like you mention only occur because people know they can complain to government and get bailed out. If they couldn't they would prepare so you create moral hazard as people don't prepare which is dangerous as the government isn't equipped to handle a serious disaster as it is use all resources.

@technical19d34

4 жыл бұрын

@@asdrt6405 False. Just in time delivery of goods is the policy of almost every retailer in this country. That means long thin supply lines with most raw materials being sourced in China. This is a recipe for disaster any time there is even a small blip in demand for anything sold in stores. Blaming so called hoarders and price gougers is pure ignorance and blame shifting. We need to focus on the real problem, not point fingers at ordinary people just trying to do what they think is best for their situation. Your comment is typical of people who believe everything they see on TV and social media, falling into the fear spreading shit disturbing mentality of the uninformed.

@Nuganics

4 жыл бұрын

It isn't price gougers who cause the issue in first place. As video shows people from interstate bring in new sources of goods from areas where they are not needed as much. If they don't have these high prices there isn't the insensitive to take the long trip.

5:12 So he donated his stockpile to avoid prosecution proving that laws against price gouging are unnecessary? That seems to be a contradiction.

@dustinabc

4 жыл бұрын

He was just avoiding being punished by a system that was established to protect his rights, that was threatening his rights. That's the root contradiction.

@ryan.the.relentless

4 жыл бұрын

The price gouging laws were what made him donate. Without them he would have just carried on and charged 200% and made a profit on essential supplies in a crisis.

@Vamavid

4 жыл бұрын

Price gouging laws can be stupid. I lived in Zimbabwe when there were food shortages _and_ price controls. Because the prices that the government thought were fair were too low for people with money to import food, citizens starved. The water analogy in the video was exactly what happened in my country.

@sebastiaorodrigues2843

4 жыл бұрын

not really the law it was more the hate he got I guess. The fact that people refused to buy from him.

It makes sense in local shortages such as hurricanes or earthquakes. The higher prices incentivize people to ship water or other supplies to the devastated areas. NOT price gouging causes price gouging. The guy who went to various dollar store only could hoard them because the dollar stores didn’t raise prices.

When stores have sales: "limit 3 per customer" When in crisis: "Take as much as want, but we've increased the price 500%" There are better ways than price gouging.

@sohopedeco

4 жыл бұрын

I've been seeing a lot more limited amounts of products in the supermarkets of my hometown duting the pandemic... But I guess even without gauging, grocery stores are making more money than usual during the pandemic. I used to eat out at least four times a week before, while I now est at home every single day.

@DragoNate

4 жыл бұрын

@@sohopedeco yeah, that's true to, not much fastfood getting consumed compared to before. So in that case, it seems even worse for the price gouging :/

@DragoNate

4 жыл бұрын

@@alligatarz2304 explain?

@DragoNate

4 жыл бұрын

@@alligatarz2304 It still doesn't solve the problem...

@DragoNate

4 жыл бұрын

@@alligatarz2304 because it doesn't stop people who have little money from not being able to afford the gouged prices or those who don't care anyway from hoarding it.

I expected you guys to at least explain the other system that many retailers already implement that fixes all this. House hold limit/family size limits on essential goods. No need to jack up prices and no one can buy all the stock. Because of this in my local area everyone is able to buy Lysol sprays, sanitizers, toilet papers without worrying. And the businesses make the money the same. Win win for everyone

@keithbard17

4 жыл бұрын

But it wouldn't work if there was actually a shortage. There's no shortage of toilet paper there never was; just people's knee jerk reaction to covid19. Now take for instance N95 masks. There is a shortage. If one area is willing to pay more for the masks, resources will be allocated accordingly. In their scenario with the water shortage, without the ability to charge more (price gouge) there's no way for a distributor 3 states over to financially justify shipping said water. After Katrina there were massive generator shortages. A man a few states over bought a dozen generators, rented a moving truck and attempted to sell them at a price that would make all of this worthwhile (not exorbitant gouging but enough to justify the financial burden, transportation, and his time). People were lining up to buy them. It is a win win situation. Well the man was arrested for price gouging. Generators confiscated. Everyone loses.

@matinahmed4883

4 жыл бұрын

Keith Bard house hold/Family limits prevents shortages from happening in the first place. And in the event there is a shortage, it creates even distribution of products compared to other methods. I work in logistics for company that takes care of sourcing parts and transportation for Airbus, Bombardier and a few helicopter companies. In urgent situations when they need parts from one part of the US or world to another within 4-18hours we buy back stock from one company and drop ship to another thus keeping prices reasonable and delivering on time. This can be used in your Katrina example. As for the masks, Canada asked local beer companies and others to start producing essential products at the factory to reduce depending on overwhelmed suppliers in China and not to play the bidding game. There’s nothing to solve, we have all the answers in front of us, we choose not to use them so a few industries can make a quick buck while they choke every other industry and millions of companies.

@eugenekorotkov3758

4 жыл бұрын

@@keithbard17 In which case, the people *deserve* to suffer.

So why does not labour also experience price gouging? You need more welders, well pay them.

@nunyabusiness896

4 жыл бұрын

Given enough time, it will. Good software developers make money hand over fist because there are far fewer of them than in demand, for example, so they have to be paid more to be retained. If people are hiring, for example, welders and not offering at or above market rate, then they run the risk of having jobs sitting unfilled and contracts being delayed, so then they will either lose business or suck it up and pay more. Lots of business owners worry too much about saving a nickel instead of making a dollar and that's a very big mistake to make.

@sharonfleshman6961

4 жыл бұрын

I have seen ads for CNAs offering $30 an hour. And the would train you for the license.

Anti-goudging drives me crazy. Like, I found an opportunity for my mom to buy and sell toilet paper to people who couldn't access any when the epidemic first hit. She said "that's selfish, I would sooner just give it away" and did nothing but talk about people who couldn't get toilet paper. She could have distributed hundreds to thousands of rolls a week to people in need sustainably, or at least gave a way a box of them. Instead people went without the necessity. I talk about this in my free class how it's selfish not to take action just because you don't want to "feel selfish". It's doing the wrong thing because it looks and feels good.

The economists are right. Supply and demand don’t care about feelings or moral codes, and that’s the beauty of it. Government should make no laws regulating prices. Prices are signals of supply and demand and anti-gouging laws simply distort the market.

It's one thing to be angry because the "free market" is gouging you on toilet paper and you're going to have to "learn to live without", but what about your medicine, which you may literally not be able to live without? And as far as anti-gouging legislation being "bad for the market", that seems to be a very narrow lens that doesn't take into account legislation that directs or manages distribution of essential goods, such as the Defense Production Act (even if it hasn't officially been used, only threatened to be used). It seems that the macroeconomic picture is much more important here than the microeconomic view of people living without toilet paper.

@tiendoan1333

4 жыл бұрын

Same thing. The IGM forums does includes economists who have studied legislation and how it affects supply chains. In theory, price gouging works and serves a purpose in a healthy economy. Behavioral economists will point out social phenomenal (as shown in the video) that aren't accounted in the standard quantitative models.

@casju

3 жыл бұрын

Medicine price gouging happens because of goverment restrictions. Remove patent laws, free the market, and you'll see every pharmaceutical company make those medicines at the same price (or even cheaper) as Europe or Canada

@rockwithyou2006

3 жыл бұрын

@@casju You hit the nail on the head. Let's not blame the free market for cronyism and govt regulations. Also please keep in the mind that the medicine that we feel so entitled to, exists today, due to the free market. I have allergy problems and need to take a certain medicine everyday, 365 days, without that, guess what, I will be dead by now. The medicine exists because someone wanted to make a profit.

Whilst I can agree in theory with what the economists claimed, it still seems like the poorest would be hit hardest by allowing that to occur. It would mean that people who could afford to purchase the items would do so at the increased price, but people who couldn't would basically be screwed.

@beufis6979

4 жыл бұрын

They don't seem to keep in mind that poor people exist.

@Calithlin

4 жыл бұрын

Except people that don’t truly need it as bad (like the rich) would just buy more at the lower, fixed price. Now you have the same issue PLUS no market signal or increased incentive for additional production of supply.

@jimjones8808

4 жыл бұрын

@@Calithlin Yeah but the Rich could afford to buy it at the increased price aswell and could be incentivised to buy it in bulk for the purpose of reselling it because they would be in a position to do so. The poorest then wouldn't be able to purchase the necessary items they need at the increased price. It works well in theory but not so well in practise.

@daniels4385

3 жыл бұрын

@@jimjones8808 What you're not seeing is that the increased price allows for an increase in supply, by making previously unprofitable methods of production/distribution profitable. If there is demand for 10 and there's only 5 to go by, 5 people are going to go without if nothing changes, 100% sure. But if an additional 20 are available at a higher price, then there's a chance that everyone's needs will be met. Sure, some rich guy could go and buy it all... and the supplier will be incentivized to sell more, since there's some idiot buying it all in addition to all the people that actually need the product. As long as this guy can price gouge, the supplier is going to keep selling. Yeah, you can probably buy out every local store today... but can you actually do it every time they're resupplied, before other people can buy the product? It's an extremely high risk "investment", and I'd be doubtful it actually pays out. It's like when you go shopping, you don't go to the store 10km away to get your groceries, you go to your local one. But if your local one is closed for whatever reason, it might make sense to take a longer trip. It makes no sense to restrict the distance you can drive; that just guarantees your needs aren't going to be met.

This video essentially argues that price gouging is ethically despicable but economically sound, and that corporate regulation is often unnecessary because consumer outrage is a stronger motivator than legal consequences. It doesn't account for monopolisation in America (which decreases incentive to please consumers, since they already corner the market) or the fact that historically, corporations could and absolutely did trample all over consumer and working class interests as long as it was legally okay to do so. It's the entire reason workers' unions exist. I find it interesting that America is so opposed to government regulation when it's literally the government's job to protect its citizens from such exploitation.

@philadelphiaproper

3 жыл бұрын

monopolies typically occur when small business competition is stifled through government regulations such as licenses or patents that prevent new businesses with cheaper prices to arise. Companies can unite and drive up prices, but as long as there is small scale competition there can be alternatives that are cheaper and spur innovation. Regulations typically undermine small business in their attempt to reduce large corporate interests, and they typically get in bed with them anyway. Look at big pharma thanks to Medicare part D in the US.

Big companies have several ways around it. In NZ the supermarkets which almost always have sales, stopped all sales and stocked “other brands” or “repackaged” products into something slightly different so they could sneakily put prices up.

I read that third party sellers on Amazon stopped selling hand sanitizer because Amazon was aggressively suspending sellers for price gouging. They were afraid of getting banned so they just stop selling it all together and not take that risk. Because of this there was an even bigger shortage of hand sanitizer

Price gouging draws in enterpeuners to certain industries which are in the biggest shortages. In a quick and sudden disaster, the resources most needed can easily be supplied by enterpeuners lit up by the prospect of high demand low supply, and thus quickly restore the prices to what they actually should be. In a prolonged disaster, there is no single point of panic, and thus the prices stay true to supply and demand, which ends the shortage in the most efficient manner. Because the alternative is not ending the shortage ever.

@maximilian200057

3 жыл бұрын

You have a point, but it would take quite the investment to create your own toilet paper company. That would be something that would likely require months of planning.

@yoavmor9002

3 жыл бұрын

@@maximilian200057 Perhaps, but a person filling a truck with tp and driving it from Ohio to Texas might be able to mobilize quicker

You know what also discourages hoarding without raising prices? Rationing.

@SHOOTINGDNA

9 ай бұрын

I was hoping they would talk about rationing at some point but they didn't

@danielm.1441

9 ай бұрын

@@SHOOTINGDNA Legislation like rationing is the obvious solution for when you end up with situations where price gouging can happen, but Americans won't even consider it because it smells too much like socialism/communism. They don't like the idea of limiting individual freedoms a little for the greater good of *everyone*.

@IraRossD

7 ай бұрын

​@@danielm.1441Liberalism is not just utilitarianism as defined by a 23 year old Jacobin. Artificially keeping the price lower than demand is only "nice" to the people (or entrepreneurs) who buy it up first. Short sighted thinking is what drives the so-called "empathetic" economics of some people and the politicians who pander to them. I like that they used the example of a white prepper in this video, someone the left is predisposed not to like. Otherwise they'd just say that no one who got to the store before them would ever buy more than they needed, and everyone would be super courteous because reasons.

@jonathano503

7 ай бұрын

That is neither "obvious" or a viable "solution". That still brings a situation where most people either have more than what they usually get or less because someone who usually buys 1 stock will now buy 2 if that is the rationing limit. But an individual who usually buys 3 is now forced to buy 2. Scalpers can also still buy up all the stock with an easily exploitable loophole of buying at different stores, at different times, and with different scalpers. Knowing all this, the best solution that fullfills the most amount of people's needs is to allow supply and demand to reach equilibrium.

What actually makes price gouging during a crisis--be it fire, flood, hurricane, or pandemic--more heinous is that the average person's job/income is also usually impacted by the crisis and they are obliged to use more of a scarce resource (money) to obtain another scarce resource (e.g., toilet paper, bottled water).

This was very interesting. I think a lot of the danger with price gouging is that economists forget there are people behind their graphs. While it sounds correct that raising prices would decrease consumer surplus so that only those who really want it would get it, it also depends on overall budget. This video does go into that a bit, but I think there is more to it. Is it not more fair to equalize the amount everyone can have rather then the assumption everyone enough money to absorb the price increase? What I mean is limiting the amount your doomsday prepper can buy to one or two rolls so that everyone can buy at least a roll at a regular price. Net revenues will be the same, but there is no longer the assumption that everyone has the same base budget constraints. The dirty secret of microecon is that necessary goods like toilet paper or medication are very inelastic. This means they are not sensitive to a change in quantity due to a change in price. As a result, what ends up happening is people will probably still buy the same amount, but at a significant price hike. If we assume that Steve the crazy doomsday pepper's demand curve is more elastic because of his hoard of toilet paper, then sure, the price hike works, as he will not buy as much. But if the market demand curve is inelastic, then the overall effect is negligible on it's intended effect, and only increases revenue for the firm. One can also make the case in a recession such as this one, price gouging can hurt more than ever due to decreases in budget constraint. If before you could afford 6 rolls of toilet paper and 6 cans of soup, and toilet paper double in price, you can either only buy 3 rolls of toilet paper and 6 soup, or a mix between the two which now hurts another industry. I can hear people also make the argument about your snow shovel example being problematic. In a perfectly competitive market, the demand curve is equal to the Marginal revenue which is equal to the average revenue which equals the price the firm sells the item at. In this system, it is true that price gouging is impossible as there is no reason to buy an overpriced shovel when there are other cheaper options. But in the case of oligopolies or geographic monopolies, theres no one to fight against price gouging in the short run. I know the long run can make up for it, but excuse the dark quote when I say John Meynard Kanes' " we are all dead in the long run" feels very pertinent given a pandemic.

@transon6655

4 жыл бұрын

NickyG You will destroy the incentive for entrepreneur to increase production by doing that

@newbygamer

4 жыл бұрын

@@andrescolinas That sounds really interesting actually. I'll be sure to give it a listen.

@newbygamer

4 жыл бұрын

@@transon6655 Hi! I'm not quite sure what exactly you mean. I see it as price gouging doesn't really help reduce the quantity bought by people as these are necessary goods, and so price is less relevant for them. If the incentive for entrepreneurs is to produce more, then in the long run it is beneficial to not throw their consumers into debt by hiking up prices on essential goods. If the incentive is profit, then there are 2 scenarios: first, revenue stays equal as you will still sell out of the product since it is necessary, so firms are fine. OR, if you argue firms want to maximize profit under any means possible, then this becomes an ethics issue. Meaning, is it morally permissible to allow one company to profit more than necessary, at the expense of poorer people's well being.

@Kozickih

4 жыл бұрын

To add to your discussion. Price gouging adds to incentives for hoarding either to prevent paying more for essential goods or to make a quick buck. It incentives artifical limitations on goods. We have evidence that our perceptions about other peoples behavior influences our own. For example, we might purchase toilet paper simply because other people are purchasing it and we fear having access to it later.

@dustinabc

4 жыл бұрын

Are you familiar with Bastiat' s "broken window fallacy"?

Here in Australia the toilet paper and hand sanitizer is all thankfully back on shelves but we went through a few weeks of stupid panic buying. The single best story to come out of it though was a man who purchased several hundred packs of toilet paper and then when eBay banned the sale of such items tried to return them to be told by the manager (of one of our big retail chains) to F-OFF, and yes he still has his job as he should.

There is a fallacy here. The guy who bought up all the sanitizer wouldn't be able to do so if the stores raised the prices on these goods. In other words gouged the price. The fact that they did not do so is what led to one person getting all the goods for cheap. So you have argued in FAVOUR of freely moving prices using this example. For those interested in why price gouging is not bad - see Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics, where he tackles this issue and more.

To anyone who understands economics, there's no such thing as "price gouging". There is only supply and demand that reflects inherent scarcity. Shortages are inevitable, but prices force economic rationing and better still, they indicate where further resources need to be allocated once production increases.

@agisler87

4 жыл бұрын

Best comment here! The term "Price gouging" is used like crying children who can't get a new toy.

Economic models assume everyone has perfect knowledge and perfect rationality. The idea that laws aren't needed because people won't by goods form price gougers isn't realistic. The reason people price gouge is because they know their victims are desperate and out of options. Corporations have gotten away with things that are terrible for their brands plenty of times (BP is still around, plenty of retailers have sweatshops, etc), and if someone with enough extra cash buys up their stock, that person who doesn't need to be worried about reputation might be the only seller left. If price gouging would supposedly be stopped anyway, why not make laws against it? Why are we relying on corporations to protect us? Toilet paper factories didn't shut down. It ran out from a mixture of people buy-in in a panic and people deliberately buying a ton in hopes of price gouging later. The price gougers themselves participated in creating the shortage. They aren't moving resources where it's needed, they're taking resources out of stores. We could prevent a shortage by limiting the number of rolls people can buy, without taking advantage of people in a crisis. Things don't get efficiently distributed according to who needs it more, with or without price gouging. Some people have less money to spare than others. To someone with more cash to spare, paying an extra three bucks might not change their buying habits. In that case, all it does is make it more difficult for people with less room in their budget. Raising prices could encourage people to buy more if they think the price will rise too much for them to buy in the future.

@someperson5506

4 жыл бұрын

Something i forgot to mention - the market reaches an equilibrium, but that equilibrium isn't necessarily perfect. Market equilibriums may set prices too high for some people to eat. Yes, market equilibrium is always important to keep in mind, but we shouldn't treat the market like it's perfect.

@emperorpicard6474

4 жыл бұрын

"Economic models assume everyone has perfect knowledge and perfect rationality." Good economics makes no such assumption. The premise of your argument is already flawed. "Corporations have gotten away with things that are terrible for their brands plenty of times" Most of which was due to government protectionism. "If price gouging would supposedly be stopped anyway, why not make laws against it? Why are we relying on corporations to protect us?" Because central planners have a lack of information. The pricing model is needed to distribute resources efficiently. "The price gougers themselves participated in creating the shortage. They aren't moving resources where it's needed, they're taking resources out of stores." What? no they don't? People who "horde" are buying supply when it is plentiful and selling it when it is scares, i.e. they are raising supply when it is most needed. "We could prevent a shortage by limiting the number of rolls people can buy, without taking advantage of people in a crisis." Rationing is a bad economic solution, it fails to address individual needs and does not solve the investment problem. "Things don't get efficiently distributed according to who needs it more, with or without price gouging. Some people have less money to spare than others. To someone with more cash to spare, paying an extra three bucks might not change their buying habits. In that case, all it does is make it more difficult for people with less room in their budget. Raising prices could encourage people to buy more if they think the price will rise too much for them to buy in the future." All evidence points to the contrary. People defiantly change they buying habits due to prices.

@emperorpicard6474

4 жыл бұрын

@@someperson5506 "the market reaches an equilibrium, but that equilibrium isn't necessarily perfect. Market equilibriums may set prices too high for some people to eat. Yes, market equilibrium is always important to keep in mind, but we shouldn't treat the market like it's perfect." The market always sets prices to most efficiently distribute resources including investment, without said investment the people who can't afford food will never be able to afford food.

@emperorpicard6474

4 жыл бұрын

@@asdrt6405 Yes, because price gauging was banned? Price gougers literally where stopping people from hoarding. That's how supply and demand works. Its economics 101. You do realize that you are agreeing with me right?

@emperorpicard6474

4 жыл бұрын

​@@asdrt6405 If he is providing products, then the products are available, therefore he is not causing the shortage. You can't cause a shortage and be a price gouger at the same time, its a logical contradiction. Also stop it with the ad hominem attack, that's not how you argue. It just makes you look silly.

regarding toilet paper, there are people in the world that have never used toilet paper in their life, heck i never used toilet paper until i worked in an office, but still not at home. Never got sick for the past 15 years.

I love the channel, it provides so much financial information that the majority of western people don't know of. I have supported you both on Patreon.

The issue is with monopolies. I live in Alaska and even in a larger city we only have 2 supermarkets, and only one of those sell clothes. With most shipping services charging so much more to deliver to Alaska leaves us low on choices. Normally USPS is the only flat rate where other services will charge $20+ for a package to be delivered. One time I tried to order from walmart.com(we use to have a walmart but now we don't) and while the site said shipping was free they wanted to charge an extra $50 delivery fee. While in most of the lower 48 you can expect to have several places to shop, here we are stuck with whatever prices they charge on top of the "alaska tax" (extra charge for being out of the continental US such as how a $5 meal deal big companies advertise ends up being around $6.50 around here)

Here in the Philippines, to minimize shortage and hoarding in grocery stores, they have set a number limit on items that each customer is allowed to buy.

Price gouging is disgusting and is exactly why government intervention is necessary. We should have to really on the good will of companies preventing price gouging. Laws should be in place to prevent it. And as others have mentioned simply limiting how much someone can purchase is better then raising the prices. Using high prices may prevent hoarders, but it effects those in need and makes it more profitable for business.

I am so grateful for your wonderful video with great content! It is interesting and I am learning a lots of stuff. Thank you 😘

In Sweden, most shops only increased prices if you bought more than one pack. So say that 1 pack was 2 dollars, 2 packs was 5 dollars, 3 packs was 10 dollars etc. To bad i renovated my bathroom this spring and finally threw out a 30 year old bidet 😂

@sohopedeco

4 жыл бұрын

Innovative method, but weird to keep track of.

what is the airing time i need to know

I hate it when an Amazon seller raise the price to a ridiculous level when they get low on inventory. Wish we could report those listings.

In my country, snow shovels in winter are expensive, and when there is no snow, they sell off cheap, so they pregouge the price...

@joeisawesome540

4 жыл бұрын

is it during a disaster?

In times of emergency hoarding essentials seems like a bad idea. I bought a ton of Wiis when they first came out I spent hours and went to stores all over and would get one or two to resell online. My co-workers called me scrooge. I said actually I'm Santa, because I give everyone a chance to go online and buy what their kid wants when they can't find it anywhere else. Naturally at first that goes to the highest bidder. I sent some to people in Alaska and rural areas where they could have never found one, and was rewarded for my hard work in finding them to resell.

I've been a fan of Two Cents for a while but Julia saying "If you had a bidet, you wouldn't be in this predicament"?!! I'm in love with this channel. Please take all the money you helped me learn how to earn and save. My Filipino heart is singing with pride. 🥺🥺🥺

Everybody in 2019: 2020 is going to be a great year! Coronavirus: hold my pandemic

@imnotsofunny824

4 жыл бұрын

Guys!!! This guy is so funny! HAHAHA! Big laugh. Seriously stop posting these comments on the only basis that you’re going to get a lot of likes and be the most popular person ever. Your petty Homo Habilis brain could not even come up with anything special. So stop posting these comments they are annoying and a eye gouging thing to se in the comments section.

@imnotsofunny824

4 жыл бұрын

And also stop liking your own comments.

@vicepresidentmikepence889

4 жыл бұрын

2021..murder hornets

@user-vn7ce5ig1z

4 жыл бұрын

People have been saying that this year sucked and hoping the next will be better for the past five years. :-|

Great explanation! Thank you.

This video needs to be shown to a lot of politicians that support price gouging laws.

When insulin suddenly costs several thousands so you need to decide between buying or dying. Great system.

Somewhere along the line the economist who believed its ok to price gouge forgot to factor in the issue of scarcity. When things are scarce and demands are high those who can afford to buy it all will bought it all and those who can not afford to buy it will die. In the end of the day there will be less people alive.

2:36 In my opinion what the govt should have done especially in times of a crisis like this is to put a maximum retail price (MRP) thus those that decide to hoard up and sell at a higher rate won't do it because they know that the price will stay the same and so eliminating the shortage in the first place🤷

@gamersunlimited77

4 жыл бұрын

Then people won't buy as much and the price won't go up.... It's a cycle....

@anyqueries

4 жыл бұрын

True.....

The only entity that price gouges is the government.

This is why I absolutely hate economics, simply because the "expert" economists are so stuck in their worldview, they can't see the obvious! It would be more economically intelligent to restrict the amount of necessary goods during a crisis. That gets to the same solution as "the doomsday prepper vs the regular person" without price gouging. Additionally, if a government was going to do it's job and restrict access to necessary goods, it could just as easily say "in times of crisis, goods will be distributed to places that need it," rather than having price gougers do it, like in the water example. Economists insist that this price gouging is good for those reasons, without even thinking about the very obvious solution!

@0ChanMan

4 жыл бұрын

The government should restrict access to necessary goods? That sounds pretty regressive..

@7lllll

4 жыл бұрын

@@0ChanMan it is not regressive. some restrictions on unnecessary stockpiling during crises is the only way to avoid unhappy outcomes from price gouging or hoarding

@JG-xt6wc

4 жыл бұрын

They're saying "economists", but it sounds like what an armchair economist would say. "It'S sImPLe SuPpLy AnD dEmAnD."

@haroldthan4948

4 жыл бұрын

Read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell, he explained more indepth the Price Gouging problem. The Government would still be on their way to help people in disaster struck areas; it is just that entrepreneurs who have incentives to provide the products will react much faster and more efficiently provided that the price is high enough to make it worth their while (As mentioned in the video). Why do they do things faster and more efficiently? Because if they react too late then the market would be flooded with supply and the price is no longer high enough to be attractive. When you try to get the government to restrict these behaviors, what you get is shortages of products. It is better to have expensive goods then nothing at all.

@SNUGandSESOR

4 жыл бұрын

The problem with restricting the amount of necessary goods during a crisis is in deciding exactly how much is "necessary." What if I'm buying toilet-paper for my family of 7, and also some tp for my parents (who are too old to go out to the store) and my in-laws. I need to buy a lot more toilet paper than the regular person, and for the grocery store to limit me to X number of rolls is not "more economically intelligent," and is not a better solution to this problem. With price gouging, the doomsday prepper doesn't buy up all the tp, but I'm still able to buy enough for my whole family, who splits the cost with me. Or consider the case of water price gouging after a hurricane. We could do as you suggest, and limit everyone to two cases of water. But what about the young couple who doesn't need an entire case of water? They're not decentivised from buying two, but I can't buy as much as I need for my entire family. With price gouging, the couple may decide that they're better off buying a few bottles and making them last, saving the cases for the people who need them (even if they come at a higher cost). You see, there is too much oversight needed for your suggestion to work efficiently. The market is efficient, and price gouging is just a facet of that efficiency. These expert economists know this. They are stuck in their worldview because their worldview is well thought out, educated, and tested.

Love you guys!

You guys are awesome. Thank you for the great content.

Here’s the thing about that guy in Tennessee. If the stores he bought that stuff from would have been allowed to modulate their prices without a legal and pr fallout their prices would have ensured he wouldn’t have bought all that stuff because the margin on reselling it wouldn’t be there. Instead the stores margins remained unchanged while his potential margins went through the roof so he thought it worth it. You can’t have the supply and demand curve only hitting the people who buy stuff from the end retailers. It would be better and safer for all for the retailers to have dynamic price adjustments.

Not mentioned in the video: If people are not allowed to charge more for hand sanitizer during a shortage, the shortage won't quickly end because there won't be an incentive for businesses to start producing it.

I liked the view and counter views. Helped me understand both the sides.. good job 2 cents team..

Another way to stop people from buying every roll of toilet paper in stock is for stores to ration them. My local grocery store was very quick to allow only 2 packs per transaction (and one transaction per person). True, living in a big city meant the shelves were still empty by the end of the day, but more people were able to get the toilet paper they needed. In the meantime, knowing the shelves would be restocked the next day, I gave away my toilet paper to neighbors in need. I think price gouging is the worst way to ration out needed items. It causes the poor, who may struggle to afford the items on a regular day, to suffer even more because if they are lucky enough to get to the items before they are sold out, they still may not be able to afford the new cost.

It's about more competition, not so much about price.

@weewwolf7781

4 жыл бұрын

But when you get into industry that literally an oligarchy like drug/medical & telecommunications, such law is important to ensure that consumers are not burden by the high prices and bad service..

What about stuff like collectables or antiques? Was it illegal to resell Beanie Babies at such a higher price?

I really love it that all their sources are credible. Love this channel

Price gouging hurts those that can't afford the inflated costs

@melhorq1

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly. This kind of lazy half hearted analysis perpetuates the idea that it's ok, we can afford to pay a little more. Maybe they can, but MANY people can't. Very ashamed of this shortsighted video. Such lack of empathy and real world thought has really disappointed. If content continues on this vein, I'm going to rethink watching them.

@agisler87

4 жыл бұрын

@@melhorq1 Those who struggle to pay more are hurt even harder by not being able to buy anything.

@ELmeinz

4 жыл бұрын

In times of scarcity, the hoarders and gougers arrive first, then prices are inflated.

@ELmeinz

4 жыл бұрын

Economists are predictors of what already happened.

Amazon is against price gauging, however they don't pay their employees well and they don't pay taxes.

They could also do a supply limit, although people can just come back over and over to get some

"Scarlett G" 🤣

You talked about two other options "first come first served" - "fist fighting". But what about "only 1 per client".

What a cleverly told episode. I learned a lot. Great job!

Can you do one on 401k vs just saving on your own?

This has always happened during war. Black market sellers sold a piece of bread for golden jewlery.

What's really happening are people holding goods hostage. These economists are thinking simplistically in terms of supply/demand. There was no actual shortage in the supply chain. Stores would be stocked up again with their next shipment. All this really did was hurt people who were short on supply at that particular point in time.

Is the invisible hand of Supply and Demand , “equilibrium “

I think I now know why I was never drawn to economics until Esther Duflo and Abhijit Banerjee put their foot in the ring. If people in a field seem incapable of empathy, then I don't think they're responsible enough to work in that field.

Okay, I know this store in San Antonio, Texas called unlimited thought that price gouges its customers, for example, a moon stone pendent that you can get for a very low price on wish or amazon, lets say it’s $10 on amazon and a $1 on wish, at unlimited thought it is $80.

Some of the hotel/motel chains are price-gouging on the west coast US this summer (Grants Pass, Ore. Motel 6: $275.00/1 person). So folks that can afford to vacation will stay home and save their money. No problem. The problem however, is that other businesses in popular western vacation regions depend on, and in some cases are desperate for the seasonal travel/vacation money. We canceled the Rogue River jet boat excursion, and the trip to the Oregon Caves. So we won't be dining there, either.. The Trees of Mystery was also on our travel list, which we cancelled, so no dining/spending in that area either.. We'll just stay home, have Bar-BQ's, go to the lake etc. I have an old fixer-upper vintage boat I'm restoring. So no problem! Will be saving major gas money too!! Hope those hotel/motel chains make billions and billions of $$$$!!

I have a problem with the guy who bought up all the sanitizer so that he could sell it on eBay at inflated prices. The question is "would people be better off if he weren't there to do what he did?" You see, with stores charging $10 for a roll of toilet paper, their absence would mean you couldn't get toilet paper at all. With the guy who bought up the sanitizer to sell at inflated prices, his absence would mean you could buy the stuff at the store for $2. The thing is that in most examples of "price gouging" in a crisis, people are better off that the gouger was there than if he weren't. If the normal water supply shuts down, I might not be happy paying much higher prices for water. But it sure beats not having water at all.

Agree. Glad you added the moral part. You didn't mention that retailers are afraid to set quantity limits on important goods (fear of complaints or confrontations with clerks?) Would the limits minimize the over-purchasing~hoarding? There was rationing of goods during depressions and war times...?

Excellent video once again.

Economics is wonderful! Basic Economics from Thomas Sowell made me realize made fallacies.

In Germany it also got to the point where the toilet paper was quickly gone so they made some rules. The first pack you'd buy would cost the normal price, the second would cost the normal price plus 5 € and the tird the normal price plus 10 €, and I think they wold not even let you buy more than 3. The problem was shortly fixed

@badeumiriam5175

4 жыл бұрын

I think this approach is the best approach

I can't decide if they are bragging, apologizing, or complaining. . . . there IS--or used to be---humanity. . . .

In my country they limited the amount at first and when people weren't actually hoarding anything, they just told everyone to only buy what they really needed and people did just that 🤷🏻‍♀️

What about rationing .

Would love to watch an investment podcast of you guys.

I have a mask production SME. When there's no pandemic, I sell about 0.12 dollar per mask, and not alot of people buying my masks. But when the pandemic start I charge about 0.5 dollar per mask and every one get angry about it. Wtf is that. I guess they never heard of supply and demand curve.

I've been trying to buy hair dye for 2 months now. It used to cost $10, and now people sell that specific brand for $80-100 on Amazon and eBay. Walmart and drug stores are out of it, so there is no other place to buy it. And I want to only use that specific dye. Is it essential right now? No. Will I pay $100 for it? Hell no. Is it unfair? It is. But what can you do...

Fascinating take on the benefits of price gouging. Thumbs up!

No clear answer to this. More complicated than I thought, thanks for the enlightenment. BTW, people remember Shkreli hiking the price of life-saving med?

@casju

3 жыл бұрын

That's a very different story, since this video is about disaster price gouging. The medicine problem is due to the goverment handing out patents like candy, esentially creating monopolies.

OH MY GOD thank you for telling people this

Using a water hose is cleaner than tp

It's legal for stores but not citizens. Double standard.

It's all supply and demand. Look at your medical bill and you will realize health care and pharmaceutical systems have been 'legally' price gouging all along.

Actuarial target can point a reasonable 20% profit, do anything overt that can/is gouging. Combining that with a buying limit per person to prevent shortage.

Prices of puzzles online are definitely higher because no one can find them. Thankful there was a place with inventory that had just opened back up for curbside orders in Leavenworth, WA.