What I see is a set of photos of the government giving water to people.

I see a photo of people rowing away from a wal-mart store with water. But there is no evidence that they did not just steal the water from the store. I certaintly see no evidence that Wal-Mart was induced to providing the water to them by higher prices.

Would you please explain how the photos are proof of your theory that higher prices lead to an increase in the supply of bottled water.

What I see is an example of the government doing good work for storm victims.

Would you care to explain how this demonstrates your theory.

That is another explanation. But it really only works in a world of one florist. When there is so much competition, you don't want to invoke motives.

I was really being facetious.

Unfortunately, explanations like that appear on comment boards all the time.

I was wondering if Walmart is just doing something I used to do when I drove a bread truck [about 40 years ago]. I used to take extra bread on my truck when a storm was predicted because for some reason every time women see a snow flake they go buy a loaf of bread and a carton of milk. I'd load up the stores, at least the ones where I had schmoozed the store manager into giving me the shelf space.

The idea is that if you run out you've lost sales. You never want to run out, my boss always said that was the worst thing you could ever do.

Seems like WMT is just anticipating demand according to anticipated changes in the weather and sending its trucks where the bad weather is expected to be. They are not only making sure they don't lose sales by running out, they are enhancing the value of their customer good will by reassuring them that when the storm comes WMT will always be well stocked. People will go to WMT first if they know they will find what they want when they get there.

Do you disagree, Spencer? If you don't then isn't Russ Roberts correct, or am I missing something?

By the way, during Katrina, which was more helpful, WMT or the government?

""This is my problem with the analysis presented by too many economists to
argue that gouging storm victims is good economics and teaching their students that gouging is good economics and behavior to emulate.
Posted by: spencer | Dec 13, 2007 8:20:56 AM

And for the muirducks, Gils, and STRBs of the world, what Methinks says below is very appropriate to reinforce. And I will add to what Methinks says by pointing out that WMT gained the "competitive advantage" by the genius of Sam Walton who reorganized and restructured retailing to deliver quality goods to people at low prices. Government did not make WMT, WMT made WMT, and did so so successfully it is challenged not by the efforts of other retailers, but by the stupidity of socialist and their spawn that want to destroy an excellent business.

"What you describe as "imperfect competition" is known as "competitive advantage". One of WMT's competitive advantages is its size – it's such a large buyer that it can negotiate lower prices for wholesale purchases, pass the savings on to the its customers and undercut its competitors. Another advantage is its distribution system. If it can get more product to areas expected to experience a sudden demand surge (due to storms, etc.), it will have more product to sell.
Posted by: Methinks | Dec 13, 2007 9:27:15 AM"