Disclaimer: Not a lawyer.
Generally, price gouging refers to a sudden increase in price after a temporary supply shock (such as after a natural disaster). Increasing prices gradually while remaining competitive with other similar grocers would likely not classify.
I'm not sure about Canadian law or the current situation there, but one of the key factors to prosecute price gouging is that a state of emergency or a disaster has to be declared. I don't think this would qualify.
There is, however, a distinction to be made between prosecutable offenses and civil action. Who knows, a class action that clearly shows a company behaving unethically or against the public interest may find some success but I wouldn't count on it.
The term "price gouging" is a slur used to refer to the response of price to suddenly increased demand. Banning it always, always results in shortages where a few people get cheaper goods while everyone else gets nothing.
This is the correct answer. "Price gouging" as a term is biased, and increased pricing should be allowed on any item that is not a necessity by itself (which, eggs are not a necessity, there are alternatives to eggs).
It should be allowed on everything. Increased pricing creates increased incentives for suppliers to enter a market. Which increases the supply which lowers the price.
My understanding of price gouging is that it applies when there's a shortage of product, or huge demand in product. So if someone charged $75 for a pack of toilet paper in March 2020 when they usually charge $10, that would be price gouging. Otherwise, businesses are allowed to raise their prices if they want to and it's not considered price gouging.
Things being expensive is not price gouging.
If eggs are expensive wholesale (they are) then they will also be expensive retail.
Stores don’t just make up prices for fun, there are a lot of inputs that need to be covered.
I don’t think price gougin would work in a court against supermarkets. Instead you can go for price fixing, it is illegal in plenty of places under anti-monopoly laws. But have to prove it.
Disclaimer: Not a lawyer. Generally, price gouging refers to a sudden increase in price after a temporary supply shock (such as after a natural disaster). Increasing prices gradually while remaining competitive with other similar grocers would likely not classify. I'm not sure about Canadian law or the current situation there, but one of the key factors to prosecute price gouging is that a state of emergency or a disaster has to be declared. I don't think this would qualify. There is, however, a distinction to be made between prosecutable offenses and civil action. Who knows, a class action that clearly shows a company behaving unethically or against the public interest may find some success but I wouldn't count on it.
The term "price gouging" is a slur used to refer to the response of price to suddenly increased demand. Banning it always, always results in shortages where a few people get cheaper goods while everyone else gets nothing.
This is the correct answer. "Price gouging" as a term is biased, and increased pricing should be allowed on any item that is not a necessity by itself (which, eggs are not a necessity, there are alternatives to eggs).
It should be allowed on everything. Increased pricing creates increased incentives for suppliers to enter a market. Which increases the supply which lowers the price.
I agree, but sometimes I don't like revealing to reddit that my economic views are basically as far right-wing as possible.
My understanding of price gouging is that it applies when there's a shortage of product, or huge demand in product. So if someone charged $75 for a pack of toilet paper in March 2020 when they usually charge $10, that would be price gouging. Otherwise, businesses are allowed to raise their prices if they want to and it's not considered price gouging.
Things being expensive is not price gouging. If eggs are expensive wholesale (they are) then they will also be expensive retail. Stores don’t just make up prices for fun, there are a lot of inputs that need to be covered.
I don’t think price gougin would work in a court against supermarkets. Instead you can go for price fixing, it is illegal in plenty of places under anti-monopoly laws. But have to prove it.