Zico and Ammo under Price Controls
By Pierre Lemieux
In the current shortage economy, why are some goods are in shortage (in the economic sense: none available at the on-going price), others are simply not produced (intensifying the shortage), and some others (I’ll consider the case of ammunition) are produced as needed and sold at higher prices in violation of the states’ “price gouging” laws or the federal Defense Production Act?
To answer this question, it is necessary to understand the economic concept of shortage, as opposed to a blob intuition (I call it “smurfage”) encompassing all situations where somebody does not have something that he would like to have, but not necessarily more than something else.
In another post, I mentioned many ways in which producers—incentivized by consumers who bid up prices instead of having nothing—can stealthily increase prices (see “Why Shortages Are Not More Widespread,” August 17, 2020). One way is for producers to limit the diversity of their offerings, reallocating production to higher-margin products. Another example of that was provided by the Wall Street Journal a few days ago (“Coca-Cola to Discontinue Zico, May Drop Coke Life,” October 4, 2020).
Like many social planners at heart, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump don’t understand how product diversity is efficient when it corresponds to consumer demand backed with money. Sanders declared:
You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers…
In the same mode but for other reasons, Trump said, in his typical baby talk:
I see people buying five dolls for their daughters, maybe buy two dolls for their daughters…
Ways of satisfying consumer demand when government edicts (price controls or political allocation of available supplies) interfere include the black market or, when repression is haphazard and irregular, the grey market. This appears to be the current situation in the retail market for ammunition. As one can easily check online, established ammo retailers charge prices close to pre-control levels but, most of the time, the products are “out of stock” and the shelves, even online shelves, are bare. This market, however, is very competitive with many online competitors who are apparently willing to risk government suits or prosecutions, don’t have a politically-correct reputation to maintain, and charge what the market will bear. Consumers who need ammo for self-defense, shooting, or hunting can thus get some at higher prices—but, needless to say, they remain free to benefit from low government-capped prices and have nothing to buy.
To give an example of the phenomenon, take 9mm cartridges, the most popular caliber for semi-auto pistols. You can easily check at any large retailer that 9mm ammo is still priced at roughly (or discreetly more than) pre-control prices: around $12 for a box of 50 cartridges used mainly for target shooting and twice that price for 20 premium self-defense cartridges. You can also check that on the grey online market, these prices are now much higher—typically about five times more, when they do have the ammo in stock. It is not perfect but it’s better than to have no choice at all.
Note that there is less diversity on this grey market than there used to be on the white market. One reason is that the established manufacturers of ammo are still forbidden to “price-gouge” the retailers and thus have presumably reduced the diversity of their production.
One interesting question is, Why do government prosecutors close their eyes to gray-market suppliers who offer ammunition at market-clearing and illegal prices? One hypothesis would that the government loves gun owners and rednecks, on whom the electoral fortune of the current administration may hinge. By allowing ammo prices to rise up to their market-clearing level, government prosecutors at least allow gun owners (and hunters) who need ammo more urgently to bid up prices; otherwise, long and haphazard queues would be the only hope. Of course, this hypothesis does not make sense as these same governments claim that laws against “price gouging” favor the consumers! Moreover, there are more than 40 state attorney generals who are supposed to enforce “price gouging” laws, a sizeable proportion of whom don’t like private gun owners at all.
The opposite hypothesis—that governments hate private ammo buyers and do not mind throwing them in the jaws of price gougers—does not make more sense.
One explanation of this strange government tolerance for the grey ammo market is consistent with what classical liberal and libertarian theorists have demonstrated. When a government tries to control prices and allocate goods (like in the current emergency), it cannot respect the abstract and impartial rule of law; it has to arbitrarily discriminate among people and treat them unequally. Moreover, government planners are seldom efficient because they have little incentives to be and because they lack the knowledge necessary to control a vast, diversified, and complex economy. Arbitrary interventions and prosecutions also come from the difficulty and cost of going after everybody breaking the law: the personnel of state attorney generals is not infinite and their employers are broke.
We are getting a glimpse at why, in a government-controlled economy, nothing works. The less government-controlled the economy is, the better things work.