> That still doesn't encourage supply to increase much.
If you aren't sufficiently incentivized to increase production by knowing you're now guaranteed that every piece you produce will sell at the everyday price, as quickly as you can ship it, then it doesn't seem like your everyday price was rational to begin with. In such circumstances, I don't think it's safe to assume that adding steep price gouging will produce any marginal increase in the likelihood of a producer increasing production, on top of whatever production increases are already going to happen just as a result of instantly selling out of all existing stock.
But all that is assuming the gouging happens at the production end of the supply chain. If the gouging is happening at the penultimate step of the supply chain and the profits mostly don't make it back to the manufacturer, then price gouging can't do much to incentivize higher production.
> If the gouging is happening at the penultimate step of the supply chain and the profits mostly don't make it back to the manufacturer, then price gouging can't do much to incentivize higher production.
And that was, in fact, the problem with price gouging of PPEs in this pandemic. The manufacturers didn't raise prices, the stores didn't rise prices - it's the middle-men who swooped in, bought all the stock at retailers and wholesalers, and resold at inflated prices. None of the pricing signal made it back to manufacturers.
With prices going up, people are incentivized to buy diesel generators in Maine, load 'em up in their flat bed trucks, and just drive 'em down to texas to sell there. The extra price just needs to cover gas and some time.
In the case of PPE, the extra price might be enough to pay for totally disrupting base material pipelines away from other products and into the PPE pipeline.
There might be production limits that cannot respond quickly. But there are many limits that still can. Over-hours, material acquisition, moving stock around long distance. Normally, these things are un-economical and also bad ideas. In the case of an emergency, these things become good ideas. It makes sense to also make them economical then. Or at the very least, if people are willing to do these things, don't force them to make hugely un-economical decisions out of the goodness of their hearts.
If you have tuned your production to use your capital equipment and manufacturing staff optimally, the next 10% of production is likely to cost you more not less than the last 10% you were making previously. You might need to run overtime. You might need to buy more capital equipment. You might need to light up or rent more warehouse/logistics space. You risk over-producing at a higher cost and hurting your future results.
The price signal helps cover those costs and risks, not just telling you to make more, but by making it plainly economical to spend the money to do so. Otherwise, “screw it; I’ll keep making at the tuned level rather than doing all this extra effort to make less margin-% and maybe less free cash flow.”
If you aren't sufficiently incentivized to increase production by knowing you're now guaranteed that every piece you produce will sell at the everyday price, as quickly as you can ship it, then it doesn't seem like your everyday price was rational to begin with. In such circumstances, I don't think it's safe to assume that adding steep price gouging will produce any marginal increase in the likelihood of a producer increasing production, on top of whatever production increases are already going to happen just as a result of instantly selling out of all existing stock.
But all that is assuming the gouging happens at the production end of the supply chain. If the gouging is happening at the penultimate step of the supply chain and the profits mostly don't make it back to the manufacturer, then price gouging can't do much to incentivize higher production.