The New York Times article about price controls in Venezuela causing food shortages relates directly to the concept price of ceilings and their effects. Just as the text predicted, when the government imposes a binding price ceiling, the supply curve shifts left because it's less profitable to produce the good. When this happens, the quantity supplied decreases and since the price is not allowed to increase, the result is a shortage of the good. As is the case in Venezuela.
A similar situation would have occurred if price controls were imposed on bottled water during the post-Katrina crisis. It seems to me that the government must choose between the lesser of two evils when deciding whether to impose price controls. Those two evils being shortage of supplies and speculators profiting from the suffering of others. In a capitalist society, isn't the entire idea of it to make a profit? Speculators are just being resourceful in a culture that encourages that type of ingenuity. In this case especially it seems that a shortage of drinking water would have much worse results than speculators making huge profits.
The theory of price control is all about fairness. However, a capitalist society is all about making a profit, not fairness. Therefore, the task of trying to make a capitalist society a fair one will always be a difficult (if not impossible) balancing act.
No comments:
Post a Comment