Is It Immoral to Increase the Price of Goods During a Crisis?

As the coronavirus outbreak spread, some people saw an opportunity in the rising demand for products like hand sanitizer and masks. But when should you think twice about making a profit?

Comments: 186

  1. In times of crisis, when consumer’s needs for certain products surpass the given supply, the market can command a higher price for the products because consumers are willing to pay more for the given products. In a free market, all exchanges are voluntary meaning one is not being forced to purchase items if they believe the price is too high and don’t need the item. Higher prices on items drive people only with a dire need for the item to purchase it, which can be an effective method in ensuring only those with an urgent demand for certain products will be able to purchase them. But on the other hand, resellers should not even have the ability to purchase an excess amount of a product. A single person doesn’t need 500 or even more than a few bottles of hand sanitizer. It is each store’s individual responsibility to make sure people like Mr. Colvin is unable to stockpile in the first place. Mr. Colvin made the decision to buy out numerous store’s supplies and it is not his fault for attempting to profit on the free market. Rather, individual stores should strictly limit the quantity of items when there is a high demand for it in order to prevent stockpiling in the future.

  2. During a public health crisis hand sanitizer is very scarce. So to raise the price by 2-3 dollars is fair amount. But to raise the price all the way up to 70 dollars is out of the question. Resellers who are selling hand sanitizer for this much know how important hand sanitizer is right now so they are taking advantage of people by taking all of it and selling it for a ridiculous price. I am a person who likes shoes, when some new shoes come out people will buy them as fast a possible because they will be like 100-200 dollars at release but the next day they could be sold for up to 1,000 dollars. This is different from hand sanitizer. A lot of people need hand sanitizer to stay healthy but you don't need a very expensive pair of shoes. I think Mr. Colvin actions were immoral. He probably did it without thinking about what the impact would have. Online retailers have a lot of responsibility to prevent resellers from selling necessities during a pandemic. They should not restrict sales from resellers but could command them to lower the price or they would be restricted from selling the product. I think they could have done a better job to restrict the sales of coronavirus related products. I think Mr.Colvin should have sold them for a lot lower price then he was selling them for. I do not think he should be punished by the state of Tennessee since he is giving them out to charity.

  3. @Tex Graff I agree that retailers should have made him change the price but I think he should be punished a little because he was hoarding supplies and taking advantage of people that just want to stay safe.

  4. @Conner Kelley True, that makes sense.

  5. During a time of crisis, companies can tend to raise prices. This is because of higher demand in the products which will create a higher price for them to be distributed. The United States is a free market which allows businesses to change prices because of inflation, GDP, oil prices etc. Therefore, what should we do to prices during a national pandemic? As a U.S. it is important for people to watch market prices and know when a product could become much more valuable. Therefore it’s imperative to be ahead of the curve and seize the moment before the stock of the product or service diminishes. Mr Colvin saw an opportunity to benefit financially from this by buying low and selling high on sanitary products. While these actions can be considered immoral, there is alternative options to purchase these products in other places. People need to prepare for these type of occurrences to happen. Many need to know when to seize the opportunity to benefit themselves so they won’t be in situations that they need to resort to purchasing products at such high prices.

  6. @Ben Galvanoni I agree with you. People should buy products smartly and look ahead for the future. Although it’s immoral to raise prices during a time of crisis, people are able to make significant profits from this. After Hurricane Florence, in North Carolina, many tree removal companies raised their prices and made huge profits from this. Although the government interfered and stop this practice, this ensured fair prices for such products. In my opinion, the government interfering in the free market will ensure fair prices among individuals and prevent greedy people from making a profit from a bad situation.

  7. During times of high demand it is typical that retailers would want to raise prices in order to make the largest profit. A slight increase in cost by a few dollars could be acceptable, however the idea of reselling a $1 hand sanitizer for $70 is insane. The pandemic of Covid-19 is completely unprecedented, nobody knows what the right step is. I do not think it is okay to inflate a price of something that is important to the health, and safety of your community. Every place in the world is being affected. It is important for people to not buy all the resources that others may need more greatly. I think increasing the price of goods during a normal time in life is okay, especially when it is done strategically, and its not taking complete advantage of people. However, I feel that because this is such a stressful time for people it is not fair. Things like hand sanitizer and masks are things that can help slow down the spread of the virus, but if someone buys all of the supplies and ups the price, those people in need might not be able to purchase the resources. I think that the world needs to stop stressing about making a profit and come together during this pandemic. Every one is being infected and it is important to support one another. The overstocking of essential needs will only benefit your family. Everyone in your community is in need of these resources. So don't overstock, and don't inflate the prices. It is unfair to your community, and the population of the world.

  8. Higher demand during crises, especially a pandemic is not justification to raise prices. The Colvin brothers describe their methods as capitalism, but capitalism is supposed to involve working hard to achieve success. These brothers are simply taking advantage of a health crisis, and they are not working hard whatsoever. Additionally, the argument that resellers are providing a service is faulty because hospitals and healthcare professionals are providing services to people who are sick. Hospitals can’t help when there are shortages of crucial hand sanitizer and respirator masks because people who aren’t even sick are hogging them and making a profit. Concerning supply and demand, anyone can buy from these resellers, even people in places where there hasn’t been a huge outbreak. Colvin is arguing that “[s]ome areas of the country need these products more than others.” Yes, it is completely true that hot-zones need these products more than other places, but as a reseller he is selling to everyone across the country. Everyone wants hand sanitizer at this point so there is demand from everywhere, he is not selling to where the product is needed, he is selling to anyone. I think that Mr. Colvin’s actions were completely immoral because he only considered the money, rather than people dying in hospitals because because of rationing supplies that Mr. Colvin had hoarded in his garage.

  9. @Olivia V If you study basic economics, you will notice the Supply-Demand paradigm that comes up during not only worldwide emergencies, but during a regular market season. While I totally agree that Mr. Colvins actions were immoral and illegal, I do not believe that what you have said is true. "Higher demand during crisis, especially a pandemic is not justification to raise prices." I believe it is, just not raise prices to the extent in which only the 1% can purchase them. To have low supply and High demand does justify a raise in prices in the economic world. Thank you for the submission, and am trying to have some friendly internet banter about a topic I am passionate about, economics.

  10. Although the principles of economics suggest that an increase in demand of a product leads to an increase in price, it is immoral to manipulate this principle for personal gain in a time of crisis. Resellers who stock supplies and then sell them at a higher price are taking advantage of those who are in need. Many of the individuals who are stockpiling have no urgent use for items like hand sanitizer or masks as compared to those who are directly threatened by the virus or are more susceptible. Participating in this behavior is simply a method of monopolizing from individuals’ fear of the coronavirus. This behavior is exceptionally infuriating as doctors, who are in direct contact with the coronavirus, have to ration masks and risk their own safety while treating others because of stockpilers buying their materials out. Retailers should regulate the amount of items an individual can purchase in this time of crisis to prevent stockpiling and empty shelves. Online retailers should also ensure that any of these items being sold online are comparable to their retail price, instead of immediately banning the selling of a large supply of items if a stockpiler happens to leak through. This way products can still be bought fairly and the stockpiler makes little to no profit. With the collaboration of both retailers and online retailers, outrageous hoarding and prices of such essential products in a time of a pandemic can be eliminated.

  11. I believe that when there's a high demand for items like hand sanitizer and masks during a public health crisis like the one that is happening now does not justify higher prices. I think that it is immoral for retailers to sell very needed supplies at a higher price when there are people who are stockpiling for no good reason and leaving other people with very little. I think that people who stockpile supplies and then sell them at a higher price are not providing a service and instead are taking advantage of people. I feel like online retailers like Amazon and eBay have a good amount of responsibility to prevent price gouging during a crisis because they can restrict the sales of coronavirus-related products from certain sellers. I think that retailers should have a lot of responsibility to prevent stockpiling as they should place limits on how many items that a person can buy.

  12. Although there is a high demand for items like sanitizer and masks, the increasing of prices is not justified. Resellers who stockpile supplies and sell them at a higher price are not providing a service, as they could have left the supplies in the stores so that everyone could afford them at their original price. It is immoral to leave so many people without supplies just to sell them for your own personal benefits, especially in a health crisis like the one that we are experiencing now. Stockpiling not only only affects the citizens, but it also affects the hospitals that need these supplies to give treatment. It is unnecessary to stockpile on supplies that are needed to help the people who are sick if you or someone in your family are not sick. This is why online retailers, like Amazon and eBay, have a significant amount of responsibility to prevent price gouging during a crisis because they have the ability to restrict the stockpiling of products. Limiting the amount of products each person can buy could be a good solution to this problem, because there will be a more even distribution of products for everyone. Since Mr. Colvin decided to be selfish and stockpile supplies, he should give them out locally at their original price and possibly sell them online as well. However, he should not be punished by Tennessee if he decides to use his stockpile of supplies to help others.

  13. The increase in prices of goods during times of crisis is not justified. Increasing prices sends the message that only those with money should survive, which is completely immoral. It is selfish of individuals/businesses to essentially profit of someones suffering by raising prices for needed goods. Those that are going to the store and mass buying products—such as lysol—in order to resell them online at inflated prices are cruel and wrong for doing so. Those that are in need should not have to die or suffer solely because they are unable to afford the goods they need.

  14. "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. ''

  15. Can you please explain how this quote relates to price gauging?

  16. While there is a strong demand for products such as sanitizes and covers, there is little reason for rising costs. Online retailers that purchase and distribute goods at a cheaper price will not have a benefit, because they could have kept the products in the shops so that everybody might buy them at their original price. Leaving too many families without goods is unethical just to exploit them to your own personal gain, particularly in a national crisis which we are now facing now. Stockpiling impacts not just the residents, but also the clinics who use such materials to deliver care. Stocks of materials required to support citizens are inadequate those who get ill, or anyone in your circle. That is why internet stores, such as Amazon and eBay, have a huge duty to avoid market manipulation throughout a crisis, because they have the power to limit inventory stockpiling. Reducing the number of goods that each individual would purchase might be a positive answer to this issue, because the delivery of merchandise would be more equal for all. Because Mr. Colvin has wanted to just be greedy and hoard materials, he can lend them away at their original price locally and probably even market them online. Though, if he wants to use his surplus of materials to help, Tennessee will not prosecute him.

  17. Increasing the price of goods during a crisis may be economically beneficial, but it is extremely immoral. People are already struggling with unemployment and low income as more and more jobs close or crash from the quarantine. It is not right to make them pay more for essential items, especially when these industries like grocery stores and hand sanitizer are booming as people scramble to stock up. They do not need the extra money and therefor have no right to harm others by raising prices.

  18. While there is a higher demand for sanitary items due to the coronavirus, raising the price is immoral and is taking advantage for the individuals who absolutely need it. A store raising the prices on these items demonstrates that they do not really care for anybody else’s personal needs and desires, it shows that they only care about their own, which is extremely immoral. Owners of businesses monopolizing these goods represents a dictatorship which has always had a negative connotation. However, we need to make sure these stores, if the prices will remain the same, will not run out of a stockpile themselves. A solution to this problem is to limit the amount of these populous goods that everybody wants, giving a fair chance and opportunity to everybody who needs and wants these desired goods. While it may feel beneficial for a company to exponentially raise the prices of goods, it represents a dictatorship, which is unfair to the people who absolutely need them, proving why it is immoral to increase prices.

  19. I personally believe that yes, without a question it is immoral and wrong. And normally I would put a long explanation but I find this very simple. By taking a basic good available to anyone, and making it, in the end, harder to get for your own personal gain, you are violating the rights of our society. That these basic necessities should be available. Even worse is the fact that they are doing this in this time, because they know that now is when the demand is going higher, because the need is going higher. They are talking this tragedy and turning it into a money making scheme, and that is wrong.

  20. High demand for items during a public health crisis doesn't in my opinion justify the rising of prices. Resellers that are selling things at a way higher price than the original are taking advantage of people to make money. What Colvin did is immoral and he is preventing people from getting the supplies they need. Online retailers have the responsibility to keep prices from skyrocketing during a crisis so that people can get what they need. I think that Colvin should be punished by the state because he was preventing people from getting supplies that would help lots of people.

  21. @Conner Kelley Like you said, rising the prices of these items is immoral. Families need to get these products and raising the prices to make a little extra cash is not okay.

  22. Although companies, specifically ones selling medicines and hygiene products, would benefit significantly from increasing the price of their goods, it is immoral to consumers, who already are buying more than they normally would. Many people are losing their incomes due to the closing of restaurants, governmental institutions, and other businesses, and asking them to spend more when they are already compromised is ridiculous. With all the stress and anxiety this pandemic is causing, it is immoral to add additional economic worry to the already simmering pot.

  23. High demand for items like hand sanitizer and masks during a public health crisis doesn't justify higher prices. people need these products and just because they are in high demand and you COULD get away with makes the prices higher doesn't mean you should. During a crisis, people are worried about just being able to stay safe and be okay. Boosting up prices is immoral and terrible. These people need to stay safe and are being taken advantage of so that money can be made. The people reselling these products at higher prices are taking products families need to stay safe during this health crisis and boosting the prices up to make some extra money. It's terrible. These families need masks and hand sanitizer to be able to stay healthy during this virus, for instance. I also don't agree with what Mr. Colvin did . These items need to be available for families in need.

  24. @Mia Kennedy Local stores are running out of crucial resources forcing people to jump at the first place that sells them. Many times these people are completely overpaying for a simple inexpensive product, when they can use that money on something different. I agree, what Mr.Colvin did is terrible, these resources should be available to everyone. Instead of reselling them for higher prices he should give them to those in need, or sell them for regular prices for people who can't just go out to the stores to get these crucial resources. In times of crises we should be helping others, not hurting them. This was very well done Mia.

  25. High prices during crisis induced high demands in my opinion are extremely immoral. People who resale at higher prices during times like this are just as grimy if not more than the companies who raise prices. These people and companies know that people are taking desperate measures for fear of their life and they abuse that by increasing the price which then cuts out families that can’t afford and makes survival ten times more difficult for these families while the people and these companies sit back in luxuries earned in an immoral way. Mr. Colvin acted immorally in my opinion because there should be no excuse to think morally about making things harder for everybody else just so you can make a profit.

  26. Is it morally okay for people to sell products that are valuable during a crisis? Well Matt Colvin decided to go to every store and buy all the cleaning supplies and sell them to those who were buying online. Now, I'd be fine with this if he got a profit of maybe $2-5 each, but he listed them for up to $80 a piece on amazon and he bought them at around $4. Thankfully, however, Amazon and Ebay have banned those who are price gauging. While the economics of “price gouging” is rather simple and straightforward, the ethics of emergency surge pricing is counter intuitive and very complicated. It’s often difficult for those who are both morally and economically minded to decide what to think about such situations. Increasing the price of goods or services during an emergency is not really immoral since the price increase can lead to a more fair and equitable distribution of scarce resources. I believe price gauging is fair and if Amazon had let him sell those products, sooner or later others would follow his path and they would sell them for a little bit cheaper and then the cycle would continue. "Economists and policy analysts opposed to price gouging laws have relied on the simple logic of price controls: if you cap price increases during an emergency, you discourage conservation of needed goods at exactly the time they are in high demand. Simultaneously, price caps discourage extraordinary supply efforts that would help bring goods in high demand into the affected area."

  27. During a time of crises raising prices of crucial resources is immortal. Taking something as simple as hand sanitizer and overcharging it when someone really needs it is life threatening. The coronavirus spreads very quickly and simple resources can prevent a person from getting it. If the prices of these resources are high, not everyone can afford it making their risk higher. I believe that these resources should be handed out rather than overpriced, overpricing then can only make the disease more likely to spread, risking more lives. The article mentions Colvin collecting a plethora of resources and reselling them for high prices, leaving local hospitals rationing the things they have left. People should only be able to take what they need in a time of crises so there is enough for everyone. These hospitals are the first priority because they are curing those who have gotten it and can control the spread.

  28. During a time of crisis, we should be helping each other, not taking advantage of people. Hand sanitizer, soap, masks, wipes, and toilet paper are a necessity. Price gouging these items right now is really just stupid. It would prevent a lot of people from buying them which would just make our communities very unsanitary. It would be more likely for all of us to get Coronavirus including the people that work at these companies that are price gouging. You can’t be richer if you’re dead or sick. Also, it’s ethically wrong. Some people already have a hard time buying these items, and to raise the price higher so you can make a little more money...are you really that shallow and greedy. You must be a really unhappy person. Amazon and ebay are in their place, and are right to ban all the people listing regular $4 hand sanitizer bottles for $70-80. $80 hand sanitizer, really? There better be diamonds and gold infused in it.

  29. During a public health crisis when the demand for items like hand sanitizer and masks increases, I think it is justifiable to raise prices by a dollar or two. Yet, since these items are usually so cheap, it is not fair to raise the prices much more. People who are buying these supplies in abundance only to sell them at higher prices are not really doing society a favor, they are only preventing easy access to necessities and taking advantage of society. I understand the easy profit opportunity, yet it is unfair to hoard items from the people who really are in need. Online retailers like Amazon and eBay do play a significant role in preventing price gouging by blocking those accounts or taking away access, but it is not necessarily their responsibility to control those specific people. Personally, I think it was the right thing to do to restrict the sales of items like hand sanitizer and masks from certain sellers if they know they are manipulating the consumers. For the people who are stockpiling, I think it is reasonable to stockpiling high demand items for a profit, but only if the prices are raised minimally. It is not fair to skyrocket prices of common, cheap items that people really do need. Yet, when these items are in such high demand, it makes sense to raise prices slightly to make a larger profit.

  30. I believe that in a time of crisis, Mr. Colvin's acts of stockpiling are immoral. The needs of a person are far greater than another person's profit over selling essentials. For example, hand sanitizers should not be purchased to an extent where only one buyer benefits. There will be other buyers in dire need of hand sanitizers than the benefitted buyer. I believe that online as well as traditional retailers should impose their responsibilities on customers. They should protect the needs of every buyer and not just one. If I assumed the role of a manager in one of the retail stores, I would make it a rule where you can buy only a certain amount of products. The quantity would vary due to many variables. For example, the product's popularity, stock, and time would all either hinder the amount to be bought or increase it. Mr. Colvin should have donated the supplies or sold them at regular prices locally to reduce the cost as he said. I believe he should not be punished by the government of Tennessee. This is because it is reasonable to have a high price since there are long-distance fees and hazardous material fees. In conclusion, I feel that people should not do this in the future and retailers should place limitations on how many items a person can buy.

  31. I believe that high demand for items doesn't justify higher prices. People that stock supplies sell them at much higher prices, because of an emergency, are taking advantage in a time when others are weak. I think that it is definitely immoral to do that, but I also see Mr. Colvin's point that he is redirecting goods to places with higher demand for them. I think that it is definitely online retailers responsibility to prevent price gouging during a crisis, because they are the ones with the most access to the people who are doing it, and they have the means to stop them. I think that the retailers did a good job of preventing the sale of Coronavirus related products from certain sellers, because if they continued allowing these people to sell, it would be very hard to prevent people from going back to what they were doing, especially if they are making a lot of money off of it. Retailers can prevent the selling of goods by certain people, but I don't think that they can prevent the stockpiling of goods. I think that people have the right to buy what they want, even in times of crisis. I think that Mr. Colvin should donate the supplies that he stockpiled, so the public can benefit at no cost. I think that he should be punished by the state of Tennessee, because he caused difficulty for many people in an already very hard time.

  32. I do believe it is immoral to increase the price of goods during a crisis. I am aware that “supply and demand” is a huge component to pricing in a capitalist economy, but taking advantage of people during a time of need is cruel. The very idea of ending price gouging is so that consumers won’t be taken advantage of in desperate times for the sake of money. The example Mr. Colvin used was a gas station increasing prices immensely after a hurricane had struck. How is this any different than raising the prices of highly demanded products during a pandemic? In both situations, people are in desperate need of certain supplies, whether gas or hand sanitizer, and due to the demand they are having a harder time finding them. Sellers are aware of the shortage and jack up their prices because they know consumers will buy whenever they are able to find it. In a perfect world, price gouging wouldn’t be an issue, and sellers would genuinely care about getting highly needed products to their consumers as easily and efficiently as possible. They would want necessities to be widely available and affordable. Sadly, there are few limits to what some people will do for the high and mighty dollar. These sellers raising their prices mercilessly have no interest in their consumers’ needs, they interest in the profit they can make. I strongly believe that no people should be used when experiencing a crisis, and therefore I believe it is immoral to do so with the unheard of pricing of needed goods.

  33. In our current state of nationwide panic, nobody has it worse than the poor. The middle and upper classes can afford to go out and spend $400 stockpiling toilet paper and food. They can also afford to buy an $80 bottle of hand sanitizer, if they are desperate enough to resort to that. However, for the millions of Americans who are unemployed, or who live paycheck to paycheck, this is not the case. If businesses have the health of the public in mind, they should be taking action to make resources more accessible to the poor. While increasing prices lowers the chance of customers panic-buying more than they need, it does not solve the overall problem that health resources are unavailable for poor people. In fact, it does the opposite. Rather than increasing prices, businesses could enforce alternative policies. These might look like a one-per-person limit on high-demand items (such as hand sanitizer) or donations of these items to those who do not have access to them. With conditions as extreme as these, businesses should overlook their desire to make a profit, and instead should do whatever it takes to ensure the general health of the public.

  34. In a time of crisis, raising the price of valuable products is immoral. This strategy is taking those who feel unsafe during the pandemic for granted, suggesting that the only way to acquire these products is by spending high sums of money. Similarly, it limits the recommended ways of preventing this fast spreading illness as those who rely on antibacterial products are running out of ways to acquire them. Those who are utilizing this method of raising prices may not realize the potential harm that they are causing as many rely on these products to keep them safe. A sense of empathy should be felt for those who are unable to afford these high priced products as it could potentially lead to individuals acquiring this illness, considering they didn't have the proper means to prevent it. Especially knowing that hospitals are now having to ration what little they have left of these products, due to selfish individuals looking for a profit. In a time of panic such as this, people should not be scheming and strategizing ways to make money. Instead, take what you need, and leave some for those whose lives it could possibly save.

  35. Although in a time of crisis we need to stick together, it is reasonable, when the entire population is trying to purchase necessary items, that companies should increase their price with their new value. For example, if a restaurant becomes the best eating establishment in the state it is reasonable for that restaurant to increase their price because everyone is trying to make a reservation to eat there. Although people should have a chance to eat there, it is not fair to the business to run out their supply and stay at the price of a fast food place. This relates to the Covid-19 crisis because although it is unfortunate that certain items like Purell or sanitary wipes are increasing their prices and they are harder to buy, it would be impossible and unrealistic to keep prices the same when everyone is trying to buy them. I can relate to this because it is difficult for me to obtain these items and I understand the struggle of other citizens. However, the providers are not taking advantage of people. They are being reasonable businessmen under a lot of pressure. In a time of crisis, not everything stays the same. As was brought up in the Supreme Court case, “Schench vs the United States”, “what is allowed in peace time is not allowed in war time”.

  36. Inflating prices of basic essentials during a time of crisis is immoral. While the opportunity for profit is tempting to any bold entrepreneur, there are boundaries between fair cash and unethical practices. Hand sanitizer and disinfectant are needed by everyone right now, not just the rich. In a life-threatening situation, holding imperative supplies for profit might be as low as holding a living human hostage for ransom. In conclusion, tactical thinking is great, but corruption of this skill is immoral and should be frowned upon.

  37. Many people will feel it is immoral and unfair to price-gouge. That taking advantage of people’s emotions in a dire situation is wrong. I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with that, but each case of price-gouging needs to be fairly looked at. It’s all context-specific, and context is essential in determining whether or not the price-gouging is "immoral." Price-gouging isn’t always to take advantage of people. Raising the price of a good to meet a demand is simple economics, and in many cases, “price-gouging” actually results in more equal distribution. When the government sets an artificial price on a precious good which it’s demand calls for a much higher price, people will not understand the importance of said good. This will dangerously result in the consumption of the precious good as if it’s not a precious good. What the Colvin brothers did is an entirely different situation. There is no confusing their intentions, regardless of what they may say. These brothers went out well before any crisis, bought all the supplies, took total control of the market, waited until people started panicking, and then they sold the supplies at outrageous prices. This isn’t price-gouging, it’s monopolization. They became the sole supplier, and with that power, they were able to set the price to whatever they wanted to. This behavior is absolutely wrong, and they should be ashamed of themselves. The actions of Amazon were warranted and I hope these brothers suffer repercussions.

  38. i think that it was very bad for the colvins to do this. it is very immoral and i think all the money he got should be returned to its owner.

  39. I personally believe Matt Colvin is an extremely unlikeable person. It is disgusting to see him compare his actions—that are taking advantage of so many who are in vulnerable positions—to public services. He is just trying to justify and hide his low life personality by trying to present his actions under the light of an honorable deed. The thing that seperates public services and what Colvin did is that public services such as food pantries are not providing help for profit. One actual example of a real public service during this coronavirus epidemic is what my school is doing now that it has closed temporarily. Students in need that come from low income families are able to stop by the school at noon to receive a free and needed lunch, and starting next week, students will be able to have their lunches delivered to them using summer school bus routes.

  40. I think Mr Colvin is very smart in his way of making money, but I also think he is not thinking about the consequences of his actions. It is unfair that prices for things in high demand but that is how the economy works. I think in a time of a crisis restricting sales is unjust. Yes, it is needed in some places more than others, but everyone should get a little bit. I don’t think Mr Colvin should be punished; it is unfair but it’s not unlawful.

  41. Listen, you and I have probably both had the idea to do something just like these two boys did, just to make one heck of a profit. It’s something I think about, but never really venture to do, because personally I empathize with the weight of the burden carried by people who genuinely need those supplies, and are unable to get them. I believe it is not only ignorant, but downright unfair to target the people who are unable to buy supplies in bulk—like many excessively prepared upper middle class and upperclass people do—with higher than average prices. To target people at their weakest I think shows the lack of human empathy that goes into handling a pandemic like Covid-19.

  42. @Nuha S. I don't think that he was targeting anyone so much as he was simply looking for a profit from whoever is willing to buy.

  43. @Aidan Isaacs I agree, but however I do believe the Target Market for his consumer goods during this time was the upper-middle and upperclass, as they can afford drastically increased prices and thus, benefit Mr.Colvins the most.

  44. I think that Mr. Colvin has a unique rationale for his actions during this pandemic. It's not disputed that many stores and hospitals are low on hand sanitizer thanks to the fear of the Corona pandemic. Mr. Colvin's opinion that he is merely re-distributing goods to where they are needed fails to recognize the morality of his actions. The Corona virus is a widespread disease. It's a highly infectious disease that started with a very small amount of infections in the US which then blossomed to many more cases across the US with more to come. When a person roams their community purchasing massive amounts of hand sanitizer, they are affecting the entirety of their community and jeopardizing its safety. This practice will not hurt people tremendously financially. However limiting something like hand sanitizer, which can help a person from getting infected or further spreading, puts a community at greater risk for the effects of a pandemic. The people who are in need of the supplies that Mr. Colvin believes he is helping are the ones who he took the supplies from in the first place. A critic of my opinion may state that if Mr. Colvin wasn't the one who bought the supplies for resale that some other greedy individual would buy them all anyway for themselves. This however is unlikely because there are many big brand stores like Target and Home Depot that have limited the amount of supplies people can purchase for the overall safety of their community.

  45. I think that what Mr. Colvin did was immoral because he took things (Hand sanitizer, masks, etc.) that people needed and sold them for three times the price. This is very unfair to the people who are getting sick during this crisis and don't have enough money to pay for them. It is also unfair to people who are scared they are going to get sick so they pay way to much for it and waste their money. Overall, I think that what Mr. Colvin did was immoral and nobody should ever do something like that.

  46. @Shannon I agree, I feel like in this situation what he did was immoral. I feel like in the corona virus situation he has taken it too far since everyone is in such a panic

  47. I do not think that it is O.K. for people to get hand sanitizer or other goods at a low price and sell it at a high price. This is especially true if you are taking away the public's supply and forcing them to buy it at a high price. The people who are doing that are being selfish and not good to the public. While most people will do anything to get their hands on a bottle of hand sanitizer, others are living it up, with lots of money. This is not fair to anyone who does not have hand sanitizer. I think that the people with huge supplies should have to give some of it up to either companies that will sell it, people who need it, or hospitals.

  48. I think it’s so stupid that people are buying and reselling items that are important to help keep people healthy. And the fact that they make the prices outrageous is so messed up. The world is going through something major right now and people should be helping other people out. Taking advantage of people is so messed up especially right now. I think Amazon did the right thing by not allowing this to happen. They should continue to be strict about price gouging because hand sanitizer is not worth $70 dollars. I think that some stores and companies should limit the amount of items a person can buy, because no one needs that much hand sanitizer. Mr. Colvin should definitely donate all the stuff he’s hoarded. I do think it’s a little funny he’s stuck with all that hand sanitizer though.

  49. @Lilian I also think it is funny he is stuck with all that hand sanitizer. I also have to admit that the fact that he is losing money makes me very happy. I agree with your argument price gouging is a messed up thing to do.

  50. @Lilian You could argue that it’s immoral, but at the end of the day, it is capitalism, and that’s what our country is run on. In my opinion, Mr. Colvin is using a pandemic as a way to not only sell people necessary supplies (although I do agree it is VERY expensive), but also to make a profit, which is the main goal of businesses. I am very business forward. I have a feeling that if I were in Mr. Colvin’s shoes, I would do the same thing. Sure, he looks like a slimy businessman, but most business eventually end overcharging you for products in the end. I don’t think that I would spend $70+ on hand sanitizer, but obviously some people are willing to pay such a ridiculous sum to keep themselves safe. If that’s what people are willing to use their money on, it is not my place to tell them they are making a dumb decision. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought out the best in us, as well as the worst in us. It has definitely made us more health conscientious, but it has also led us to spend $100 on hand sanitizer and masks. I hope that this is done with sooner than later, because I can’t wait to stop seeing toilet paper memes on Instagram.

  51. @Lilian Yeah it definitely feels like they're taking advantage of all the panic and fear going around right now. But i do feel bad for this man who ow has 17,700 bottles of hand sanitizer and nothing to do with them, that family will have hand sanitizer for generations.

  52. I don't think anyone should be stockpiling more than they need. The high demand in a crisis should justify a lower price, not a higher one. I think the people who have stockpiled way more than they need should donate the supplies.

  53. The high demand for items like handsanitizer and masks during a public health crisis does not justify higher prices. People are becoming more and more greedy for some goods. These people can easily make a profit with people so desperate for these goods that other greedy people have already purchased. Selling goods for a higher price does make a profit for certain companies, but this does not require people to buy and sell these goods. However, it is a good way to make money. I think that what Mr. Colvin did was not that immoral, but rather well planned. He found another outlet for people to get these goods that they might need, or are greedy for, in a time of crisis. This was a good way to make money, even though some people got angry for it. Online retailers like Amazon and eBay have a lot of responsibility to make sure that these people selling goods are not price gouging, and they have done a good job with it so far. I think it was not fair for them to restrict sales because people are willing to spend any amount of money in order to get the goods they need. These companies took action, which was good, but this also may have lost customers because the point of these websites is that people can sell their goods online, which is what they were doing. Retailers are at fault for this stockpiling. They are not restricting people enough for buying goods until it was too late. I know people who bought over a hundred rolls toilet paper, and now stores are resticting people to 1-2.

  54. It is definitely immoral that Mr.Colvin decided to stockpile resources and inflate their prices. In my opinion it is a right for people to have resources at a non-inflated price. It is dis proportionate that the prices are this much so only rich or richer people would be able to buy resources, and a poor person might not be able to. It is unfair and unjust that people are stockpiling their supplies for personal gain and not making supplies available to people who are at a greater risk.

  55. @Haddie W Some of the people at high risk are the people that are poor and unable to afford the proper resources. I agree that it was immoral. I think it's okay to stock up a little but what Mr.Colvin did was not just stocking up a little. He is the reason that people cannot afford the things that they need to get through this pandemic.

  56. Reading this article made my skin crawl. We are experiencing a pandemic killing people across the globe, the minute this virus reaches the United States people decide that making a personal gain is more important than the lives at risk. The CDC has recommended disinfecting surfaces to help contain the virus, yet when people go out to the store to buy what is recommended to keep them safe selfish jerks have bought out the entire store. A few weeks ago my mom was searching for hand sanitiser for her classroom, she has to pay for this out of her own pocket so buying one $50 hand sanitiser that will last one day is not practical. People are out of jobs due to the virus. This is not the time for struggling families to have to spend tons of money on cheap items. I am glad that the people who were trying to sell these products got shut down. It is a selfish and life threatening “business venture”, those that decided to go this route are now losing money and people who need the supplies are not getting it. I hope that something changes in them and they donate the supplies, then they can begin to right their wrongs.

  57. @Emma McLaughlin I agree that it is sickening that people automatically think of making money off of others in times of a crisis. It’s ridiculous that anyone should be having to pay $50 for one bottle of hand sanitizer, especially also when jobs are being put on hold and most people aren’t making enough money to be able to buy these supplies that they desperately need. I hope that Colvin’s supply gets confiscated and donated, or that he donates it himself as well.

  58. What Mr. Colvin did was immoral, I don’t think anyone is debating that. High demand always leads to higher prices, but in a time of need, in a time of suffering, I feel like what he did was disgusting, even appalling. I believe that it shouldn’t be allowed. But some may say it’s not moral but it should be allowed, I mean it is not illegal. They would say, Oh he played the market, that isn’t illegal. America didn’t choose capitalism because it was moral, America chose capitalism because it works. Capitalism rewards people who think ahead. To that, I say monopoly laws. The Sherman Act of 1890 outlaws “monopolization [or] attempted monopolization”. He monopolized all the hand sanitizers in Tennessee. What he did was a crime and he should be punished accordingly. I mean he broke the law. If he hadn’t donated the hand sanitizers, the state of Tennessee should’ve confiscated them and given them to hospitals or people who needed them. What he did may not be murder or manslaughter but it is very close. And what he did is not all that different to the American health care market, specifically the price of insulin. Insulins price is jacked up way too much and should be regulated, just like hand sanitizers at a time like this. The rage towards Mr. Colvin is in part due to the panic coming from COVID-19. We should channel our inner panic into a reform, no a rehaul, of our health care system.

  59. What part of this is moral? What part of this is fair? What part of this is in any way righteous? If we define the moral decision as the one that is right- just, virtuous, good- then how could anyone come to the conclusion that this is that? It is not in any way, shape, or form moral to capitalize on people’s fear and danger to better yourself financially. This is not being an entrepreneur. This is not being creative. This is being a shark. A predator waiting to pounce at the first poor family whose seven year old gets sick. A monster waiting to strike the first mother who gets worried about taking their child out in public. A devil plotting to trap all of the elderly who are too scared to visit their own families. I can’t really blame Mr. Colvin for this. He is, afterall, a natural product of the capitalist system we have in place. A system where money is required for everything. A system where personal comfort and gain are more important than society’s well being. A system where the moral decision is, more often than not, forsaken for the immoral one in pursuit of financial prosperity. This is price gouging. This is exploitative. It’s no different than Billy Bob doubling the amount he charges for gas in the wake of a hurricane. Times really haven’t changed. The capitalist machine continues as it always has. If we define the moral decision as the one that is right- the one that is taken out of the benevolence and munificence of one’s heart- then we can’t call this that.

  60. @Jacob Jarrett, I agree with you, the Colvins can be blamed for their actions but it's not all their faults. Money is power and everyone needs it if, we didn't have this idea of money being worth something. Then all the people who are doing this would probably help others, and donate their stash.

  61. I think raising the prices during a crisis is not smart. Some people aren't financially stable enough to afford the prices of essentials now, much less if they raise the prices of everyday household items you need during this time. Hand sanitizer, masks and gloves are all in high demand right now. I think the guys that bought all the hand sanitizer to sell it at a discounted price would be better for helping others out instead of just trying to make profit for themselves.

  62. @Ashlyn Barnes I think it’s true that big stores like Walmart shouldn’t be raising their prices, because people will buy from them no matter what. Big, rich corporations like that can afford to have their sales plummet anyway. Other places, though, like small businesses or restaurants maybe should raise their prices. They have employees who need money during this time, and any sale would help. It could go in the other direction and further discourage customers, though, so maybe they shouldn’t.

  63. @Ashlyn Barnes I agree with you 100%. The only people who are making a profit from buying all the much-needed supplies and reselling them at a higher price are the individual people, not corporations or the U.S. economy.

  64. Before I read the entire article, my opinion on price gouging was that it is definitely immoral during a time of universal emergency. I have reflected on what prices are reasonable if you consider all factors and which ones are not. Utilizing a time where these items are in high demand and need (especially by medical professionals on the frontline) to jack up prices to the tens or hundreds is immoral. But what Mr. Colvin is doing might not actually be immoral. If you think about it, he is actually distributing these needed items across the country to people who cannot get any from their immediate shops. We can estimate that the weight of a hand sanitizer plus the box can start at 1 pound, with it getting heavier based on the size and amount of the purchase. The cost for shipping at that weight starts at $9 and a 10 fluid ounce hand sanitizer costs between $8-$14. If you add the fact that Mr. Colvin drove 1,300 miles to find his supplies, then him reselling them to people around the country for $20 actually seems pretty reasonable. I don’t agree with him using this pandemic for personal gain and hoarding the much-needed items, but this article is about price gouging. To those that sell masks or hand sanitizer at prices of $50 or hundreds of dollars, that’s price gouging. I would also like to thank the people who are donating their resources like Asiyah and Javed.

  65. High demand for sanitary items is not excuse to take advantage of a global pandemic. Although it is an easy way to make profit at a time like this, it is immoral to exploit people's lack of self control during this time of somewhat uncontrollable mass panic. Many people who desperately need these products may not be able to afford them at a greater price. Stockpiling and selling these with an outrageous markup is unfair. Not only is Mr. Colvin to blame but so are major companies like Amazon and eBay. They had control over what was being sold and could monitor the price at which items were being sold. They ended up taking action and pulling the items from sale listings but they didn't act soon enough. Mr. Colvin ended up with over 17,000 bottles of hand sanitizer with no clue what to do with them. Amazon could've made a statement ahead of time saying what was not allowed ahead of everything. Such high demand during this crisis should instead justify reselling at a lower price. This will not allow people to make any cash profit but the profit of knowing they helped people in need should feel worth more than any cash profit they could've made.

  66. Empty shelves, again, the grocery store looks like a scene from some apocalyptic movie. The first things to fly off the shelves were, of course, cleaning products, and then it seems toilet paper wasn't far behind. Increasing prices of goods is a normal thing that the economy does, but the second you throw a crisis into the mix, it becomes a question of morality. When Hurricane Florence happened a while back, it ruined so many roofs, and the roofing businesses reasonably increased the prices because there was a more significant demand in their services. These people chose to do the same; the Colvin brothers saw that there was an opportunity to gain a profit. It wasn't a bad idea, but they weren't a licensed business. Since this wasn't always their plan, they're taking advantage of the economy and putting others in a difficult place. It's is annoying to other people, but there aren't any laws stopping this kind of behavior. It's left to the big companies to try to weed out the undercover sellers.

  67. @Hope Heinrichs this is a good comparison. During hurricane Florence a lot of people were in need of help in their yards and getting trees off of their houses. Not many people where we lived raised the prices of essential items for these people. If anything prices were cut lower to make it more affordable for our town to get back on it's feet. It's just a shame people care more about money right now when the whole world is at risk.

  68. @Alexander Jacaruso Something I found interesting about hurricane Florance is that a ban was put on price guaging They didnt want people to be taken advantage of. Prior to reading this article I wondered when a ban would be put on the ridiculous price gouging of sanitary items. The price of these items should not be raised in a time in which thy are needed the most.

  69. i don't think anyone will disagree that what mr. colvin did was immoral. he cashed in on a global pandemic for his own gain, taking supply away from those who were really in need. what's even worse is that he cannot sell all of his stock, so it is all just sitting in his storage, not being put to use. furthermore, he is healthy (or so i would assume, it wasn't mentioned that he was ill), so he really has no business hoarding these essential supplies that hospitals are rationing out. at least he is trying to sell them at a small profit, though i am sure many people will agree that it would be much preferred if he just gave away his stock to hospitals and the needy. it is safe to say greed and capitalism drove him to this. but it does not excuse his actions. i will say it again; what he did was wrong and immoral. and we need to spread awareness as to why it is, so that it may never happen again.

  70. @clarice I agree I think what he did was very selfish and greddy I do think he should donate most or at least some of his supplies to people and places in need.

  71. Is it selfish and immoral to increase the price of goods in high-demand during a crisis? In my opinion both yes and no. Some people genuinely need these supplies and a hand sanitizer costing up to $80 will not benefit anyone except the sellers. A lot of people can't afford regular priced hand sanitizer and wipes, let alone ones 20 times the price. On the other hand, Mr. Colvin is very entrepaunal in the way he's making money. When an item is in high demand, it's ok to raise the price a little bit to get more out of it, but not to the extent that these brothers raised it to. Taking advantage of people in a dire situation is wrong and shouldn't be done.

  72. @Alexandra K. I don't think it's justifiable in ANY way to increase these prices. Peoples lives are at danger during this time and they need all the help they can get to stay safe, and shouldn't be taken advantage of.

  73. Is it selfish and immoral to increase the price of goods in high-demand during a crisis? In my opinion both yes and no. Some people genuinely need these supplies and a hand sanitizer costing up to $80 will not benefit anyone except the sellers. A lot of people can't afford regular priced hand sanitizer and wipes, let alone ones 20 times the price. On the other hand, Mr. Colvin is very entropraneural in the way he's making money. When an item is in high demand, it's ok to raise the price a little bit to get more out of it, but not to the extent that these brothers raised it to. Taking advantage of people in a dire situation is wrong and shouldn't be done.

  74. I believe that it was immoral of Mr. Colvin to take advantage of the pandemic to make some extra cash. It was selfish of Colvin to put others' lives at risk to make money. Many healthcare officials require these materials such as masks to help those who are sick, and people like Mr. Colvin are why the doctors are experiencing frightening shortages when it comes to helping those who are sick with the coronavirus. It doesn't only affect the doctors and healthcare, but people in everyday life as well. One person emptying out the city's entire stock of sanitizing products, leaving none left for the other citizens to protect themselves, is a selfish act, especially in a time of crisis.

  75. Yes, I do believe it is immoral to increase the prices of necesities just the way the brothers did. Mr. Colvin isn't in the wrong in his situation he just raised the price a little bit to get a little more out of it. If the price is raised to almost 20 times the regular price it is too much and shouldn't even be allowed to be on the shelves of a store. It is an immoral act to raise the price so high that people aren't able to purchase what is in need for the general population.

  76. I feel like the only thing you need to do is read that sentence and you've got your answer. Yeah, obviously it’s immoral to take things in high demand that are pretty crucial for a lot of people right now (like those respirator masks) and jack up the prices to sell to desperate people. I get that it’s not really a big deal if people are hoarding and selling toilet paper and hand sanitizer like it's the apocalypse. So I’m not judging Matt and Noah, but this is still a health crisis and some states have already put policies in place to try to stop price gouging, so this just feels like people doing the exact same thing.

  77. it is wrong and selfish think of how a family might not have much money for the necessities and they get money and they cant buy the things they need.

  78. Raising the prices of much-needed goods during a crisis, to me, is a good thing, but also a bad thing. It's good because it helps the economy not completely crash during a time - like today - when people are too scared to go out and buy things. But on the other hand, it's bad because the things that you desperately need are outrageously expensive. When the article mentioned that Matt Colvin was selling bottles of hand sanitizer for almost $70, I almost had a heart attack. Hand sanitizer is something that people desperately need right now, and he's selling it for way more than any logical person would ever dream of. My mom and I went out to get some small things that we needed, like some cooking ingredients that my dad needed and batteries, and the majority of the shelves that hold bottled drinks, frozen food, and toilet paper were completely empty. We were looking for a bag of frozen tater-tots and we only found one bag, hidden behind the ruffle fries. When we walked by the dollar store, there was a handwritten sign on the door that said, "sorry, but we're out of hand sanitizer." Dramatically raising the prices of items people desperately need right now isn't helping anyone except the people selling them. If anything, it's harming the people who can't afford to spend $70 on a bottle of hand sanitizer that is normally $5 or less. I can't decide fully whether or not raising the prices during a time like this is good and bad, but I do know people are being hurt by it.

  79. I admit what the Colvins are doing is smart if they want to gain lots of money. But, this is immoral there is no question about it. But, if you were put in this position you would probably also do what they are doing. They are not all to blame here for their actions. Many people are doing this too. Money is power, if you have money you can get or do whatever you want. It's sad but true, that's how this world works now.

  80. what i think Mr. Colvin should have sold all of the supplies for at least a dollar more than its worth because it said in the article that he was price gouging and banned from online stores.

  81. Many people are arguing that buying and selling these good for a higher price is immoral. I see what they are saying but I honestly think this is a smart idea. It definitely isn’t the morally right thing to do but speaking from a business standpoint it is a very smart way to make money. I do not agree with what the Colin brothers are doing since the Corona Virus is so serious. I think that it really all depends on how serious the crisis is.

  82. An extremely high demand for sanitary items is definitely not a reason to take advantage of those in need during a pandemic. Matt Colvin was very selfish in taking all sanitary items from stores. Some people cannot afford items at regular price, let alone the price he was trying to sell them for. This is extremely immoral and a little outrageous that a person would put themselves before entire communities in a time of need, solely for their own benefit. While I understand that many people become entrepreneurs, using different business strategies to make a profit, there is a time to be responsible for yourself and know between right and wrong in your business decisions. I think that once Mr. Colvin was aware of the severity of the situation, he should've donated his supplies or sold it at regular, or even discounted price. Retailers have now started to put restraints on how much of a product someone can buy during this time in order to prevent the elimination of essentials throughout entire communities. The brothers in the article took their project to an unnecessary extent and should not have taken advantage of thousands of people in a time of need.

  83. I think it is immoral to increase the price of sanitary items and necessities during a crisis like this. People need hand sanitizer and sanitary wipes to keep themselves at a distance from this virus, and people that buy and resale those items at a higher price are horrible. Say you're an old person, and in this case you are very susceptible to the Coronavirus, and it could KILL you if you contract it. Would you think it's fair for someone to take all the supplies you need to keep yourself safe and make you pay more for it? I think that it is 100% unjustifiable to put peoples lives in danger and make them pay extra for absolute necessities during a time of crisis.

  84. @Avery Hodges, I agree with you. What Mr. Colvin did in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic is crooked and immoral. The way I see it, the only way he can make up for his actions is to donate the rest of his supply to hospitals across the nation. I believe his scheme actually targets old people, purposefully or not. Not only are the elderly more likely to die from the Coronavirus but they also tend to lack the skill of online shopping. Elderly people like my grandparents have been buying lots of sanitary products out of fear they could contract the virus. They are also more likely to buy the first hand sanitizer bottle or mask they see on Amazon regardless of the price. This is because they often don't understand that there are identical products on the website at varying costs. Elderly people like my grandparents have been buying lots of sanitary products out of fear they could contract the virus. It is truly shameful what Mr. Colvin is doing during such a time of panic and fear.

  85. It is very immoral to increase the prices of these items, especially because it is during a worldwide pandemic. Buying low and selling high, as Mr. Colvin did with items such as Nike shoes was less immoral because these are not necessities. However, there is currently a shortage of the items Colvin is hoarding and it could potentially cause more deaths than necessary. Because these items could help prevent others from dying, it is especially immoral. He is acting selfishly by trying to drive up prices for items that have a lower retail price. Now, those who need to buy these items, such as the elderly and those who have compromised immune systems, may not be able to afford them and it could cause serious issues. Although stores like Amazon are trying to stop this from happening, there will always be people who are willing to put other people's lives in danger, just so they can potentially make a profit.

  86. @Arden Wheeler I understand what you are saying, but in a way, I believe Mr. Colvin can relieve the shortage in areas of desperate need through what he is doing. By buying from stores that are used by few people and redistributing their product to places where there are people unable to meet their sanitary needs, he is making better use of these products. Rather than sitting on shelves in stores that are visited by 10 people every day, bottles bought by Mr. Colvin will be able to make their way into the city where people desperate for sanitizer are waiting. Yes, he sells at a considerable markup, but this is to make up the money he lost by driving 1,300 miles, paying for shipping, and selling through websites that take commissions. Now, had Mr. Colvin been buying from metropolitan area stores where large volumes of people would have had access to the sanitary supplies they need, I would consider what he did immoral. The fact that he bought from places where the sanitizer may never have made it out of the store, however, makes what he did justifiable.

  87. @Arden Wheeler I agree and would like to add to your point. Mr. Colvin was certainly price gouging for a necessity, which is just wrong. However, he was doing more than just selling a necessity for more than it was worth. He was also going to stores where hand sanitizer had not been bought yet and buying it all. In doing this, he was taking hand sanitizer from those who had not yet taken the time to go buy it. He bought out all the stores in the area, removing the opportunity for people nearby to buy cleaning products at low prices. This is incredibly immoral, as he is essentially removing people's access to potentially lifesaving products. As demand for these products continues to rise and panic continues to grow, people will want more and more cleaning products. The only way everyone will be able to get them is if profiteers like Mr. Colvin give up their moneymaking tendencies and allow everyone to get necessities at fair prices.

  88. It is immoral to increase prices during a public health crisis if it is for a selfish reason such as making money for yourself. I do however think that companies should be able to raise their prices if their is a demand for them, but only companies and not individual resellers. For this reason, retailers should put a limit on how many of one product a single person can buy. I do believe that Mr. Colvin is taking advantage of a pandemic because he knows people will panic and try to stockpile supplies, so he makes sure they come to him to buy them. I'm not saying this isn't an effective marketing strategy, but he cannot feel too good charging panicked people extra money for necessities. At that point it is just taking advantage of them. Ebay and amazon must take responsibility for this. Online ordering is very popular now and they must have rules for price gouging during a crisis just as normal stores do.

  89. While many will see stockpiling these resources and selling them as "immoral," I think that it was someone with no malignant intent and was just someone that was trying to take advantage of a situation. It is definitely an effective way to make money, and in a capitalist society, aren't we all striving for just that? Whether you think was bad or not to buy all of these materials, the government should buy the supplies from him for a fair price and distribute the materials where they are necessary. This can be done in a similar way to eminent domain, which is when the government buys land for a fair price from people to build roads or government facilities there. There's no reason to sit here and reprimand Mr. Colvin at this point; that does us no good. The materials will continue to sit in his garage and collect dust. Instead, action needs to be taken to help save lives.

  90. @Mason Evans I think you made a really good point that instead of insulting Mr. Colvin we should take action. His stockpile of hand sanitizers could help so many people and I think after all the hate he is getting he has probably learned his lesson.

  91. I think it is immortal to increase prices in a time of need. People need hand sanitizer. sanitary wipes, and masks to help keep themselves safe from the virus and some are just trying to make money off these people. I find it very selfish that websites and people are raising prices in this major time of need because some people can't afford the items they need. I think that Mr.Colvin should have given out what he stockpiled to his community. I do think what he did was very immortal and he should be helping the people in need instead.

  92. Retailers have an immense amount of responsibility when stockpiling. Retailers have to be aware of those who need certain products, such as hand sanitizer for hospitals and local businesses. Some consumers tend to hoard when they become fearful of a certain crisis, for example, this current coronavirus pandemic. To add on, retailers have to understand the severity of the crisis to be ethical and prosperous on how they tend to give away hand sanitizer. In order for retailers to be successful ethically, they have to limit the number of hand sanitizers per person. This will establish trust within the community that instead of taking more than necessary, others will have a better opportunity to stay healthy.

  93. In times of a crisis, everyone should look out for themselves, but also the community. What Matt Colvin did was only looking out for himself, even if he doesn’t believe he was price gouging. Sure, it makes sense that the bottles were so expensive because of shipping and he had to make a profit, but if he didn’t buy up all those supplies in the first place, nobody would be having to pay for shipping. His plan was very smart, but it is immoral in times of a crisis. It would be different if he was selling water bottles for a jacked up price on a hot day, but this is a worldwide problem, and many people are scared and in need of these resources. I remember a couple weeks back when hand sanitizer started to disappear from stores. I was with my mom in a CVS just shopping for regular stuff and she decided to pick up some hand sanitizer and cleaning wipes just to stock up, but the CVS was already completely out of both. As we were checking out we heard the women ahead of us asking where to find some because she had already been to many other places with no luck, and the cashier had no clue where any could be found either. Along with the hand sanitizer and cleaning wipes shortages, there’s also a toilet paper problem. Stores were getting sold out of toilet paper, and some people at my school were even taking toilet paper home from the stalls.

  94. I personally believe that capitalizing off of crisis is improper and unfair to the rest of the world. Although one profits, the rest of the world suffers due to lack of necessities. Purchasing all of the goods in one’s neighborhood would result in the rest of the community having nothing. Selling them for higher prices is also unfair because everyone relies on such goods and shouldn’t have to pay extra, especially in crises such as the coronavirus. My personal opinion is that we should try to find better and more efficient solutions the equally distribute needs such as hand sanitizer and non-perishables so that everyone has enough to support their family, but not too little to where they need to keep coming back and put their family at risk.

  95. Part 1 Price gouging is not a thing and it is simply a way for people to say "I don't like your price so i'm going to use the government to force you to lower your price". That person has every right in the world to sell their product at the price they see fit. Now morally, it may be wrong. In a perfect world we all will sell something to our fellow humans for a price that is fair for all of us. Whether it be a product we produce or our labour, we should sell or buy it at a price fair for all parties involved. So no it is not morally right. But should it be illegal? No. In the case of Mr. Colvin who has stockpiled thousands of bottles of sanitizer and is selling them for 2 to 3 times what he paid, he should be allowed to sell them at least from a legal standpoint. If amazon and eBay choose to shut them down then so be it, that's their decision. If they want to lose out on thousands of dollars of commission then so be it. But there are thousands of people who would gladly pay 8$ a bottle for hand sanitizer just to have some and Mr. Colvin should be allowed to sell it at that price. The act of preventing him from selling it is also immoral because it prevents others from keeping themselves healthy. When in a time of crisis, the prices of some things such as oil and toilet paper may go up not due to malpractice but due to an increase in manufacturing costs. Suppliers might be shut down, less trucks means higher freight costs because -continue on part 2-

  96. There is, or at least should be, little debate on a subject matter that concerns human safety to the extent of infringing on the right to live. People around the U.S., especially the elderly population, are at much greater risk for contracting COVID-19 without prevention tactics like practicing social distancing or using sanitary products. By putting a direct price barrier in front of them, people like Colvin are actively giving at-risk populations a lack of choice in the matter of personal safety. There are people who, like Colvin said, live in areas where hand sanitizer/cleaner products are in such high demand that it is hard to find any in-store. Colvin's decision to purchase an immense supply, instead of leaving the supplies in-store in his hometown at low prices, is a decision made only with the purpose of profit in mind. Large stores like CostCo, Walmart, etc. will restock supplies as quickly as possible and maintain low prices, and if this is purchased on a need-only basis, people living in those cities will naturally find what they need at low price within reasonable time. It is the very fact that hoarders like Colvin are purchasing so much product that others are unable to locate what they need in-store. His "public service" is all-around negative, and the fact that public name-and-shame has brought him to consider donating his supplies is telling of how aware he is of his conscious choice to price gouge. It is obvious Colvin made a selfish decision.

  97. Price gouging is both immoral and crooked to practice. People should never take advantage of others, especially those who are suffering. In the event of a global pandemic like Covid-19, all of the people of the world need to unite and work towards eradicating the virus. People like Mr. Colvin only inhibit this worldwide effort. Mr. Colvin and the other Amazon sellers have essentially created a monopoly on the items that can save lives in this time of crisis. In 1890, President Taft put federal laws in place to break up American monopolies in the marketplace. That was well over 100 years ago and it is sad to see that there are still loopholes around these laws. It took several weeks for Amazon to begin regulating these villains and there are still some operating currently. I did some digging myself and found a 60 milliliter bottle of hand sanitizer for $9 on Amazon’s website. A single user has rated the product at one star and even left a review that says, “Shame on you. Taking advantage of people’s fears. This is a tiny 2 oz bottle for $9.” Mr. Colvin deserves to have wasted his money on all of those sanitary products. He can’t scam honest people’s money from them and expect nothing to happen to him in return. Hopefully he will get some sense and donate them to hospitals and shelters for those who need them most.

  98. What Colvin did is incredibly selfish. Hoarding products like hand sanitizer and toilet paper and raising their prices is just going to make this pandemic worse. As it said in the article, hospitals and individuals need these products as there is already a shortage of them and can’t afford to spend $80 or more on hand sanitizer. The elderly and those with respiratory illnesses are depending on sanitary products that Colvin is hoarding but now there are 17,000 bottles of hand sanitizer sitting in his garage that no one will get to use. I understand that he was just trying to make a profit, but healthy people buying up all the products people are in need of is just selfish. I hope that Colvin and his brother give their stockpile to their community and hospitals.

  99. During hurricane Florence last year many items were in high demand and so the prices were raised. This didn't last long before a ban was put on raising the prices since it was a state of emergency and people were in need of these items. I think the fact that Mr Colvin went out and took advantage of people who were trying to prevent themselves from getting sick or spreading disease during this time is not acceptable. While yes simple supply and demand was the basis for his reasoning this is exploiting the system in a terrible way. We are in what is known as a state of emergency in the US and there should be regulations put into place on how much prices should be allowed to be raised on items such as hand sanitizer.

  100. It is immoral to increase the price of goods while they are in a time in need. Mr. Colvin has taken every single bottle of hand sanitizer, toilet paper, masks, and other necessities from stores and even traveled so far to keep these items to himself and selfishly sell them to make a profit. Since he doesn't have anywhere to sell them, he should pass them out to people who really need it and are exposed to the virus. He should also give them to people who work in the health industry to decrease the chances of getting the virus. He should do this because since he took all of these things and have about 17,000 bottles in his garage, he should be able to give back. Many people cannot afford to pay a lot of money for a tiny bottle of hand sanitizer. I hope he can learn from his mistakes and not think about doing it again for the sake of other people's health.

  101. @Rachel I agree with you. I think Mr.Colvin should give some of the supplies to the health industry so they can help fight the virus themselves. I also agree that many people can not afford any supplies they need to get through this hard time and that people are taking advantage.

  102. @Rachel I agree with you that increasing prices is immoral and should be allowed. I did not know until now that someone was buying a bunch of products and re selling them to make profit, that's just not right.

  103. @Rachel I totally agree because who’s to say we won't catch the virus from a family member we live with. After awhile people will run out of toilet paper and hand sanitizer and they won't be able to get anymore because of the cough cough hoarders, and how do we know if they will share their supplies with others in need?

  104. I think Mr. Colvin is a smart person selling hand sanitizer to make lots of money, but in my opinion I think it is immoral to sell things that people need for their daily life. Also many people cannot afford the prices that he is selling it for ($8-$70) just for hand sanitizer. People need hand sanitizer, mask, cleaning products to stay away from the virus. What Mr. Colvin had done was just waste his money on hand sanitizer, mask and other items. Mr. Colvin should have given out what he had left to his community and other people. I do think what he did was very immortal and he should be helping the people in need instead.

  105. At first glance, I saw what Mr. Colvin is doing as immoral and taking advantage of others. However, upon thinking more about this, I don't believe he was entirely wrong in what he did. It was noted that he did not go to metro-area stores or any place that was seeing a great amount of business every day; rather, he visited "stores in the backwoods" where people had yet to reach, and where many probably had no idea existed to begin with. It is not as though he was swiping these bottles of hand-sanitizer from other people and checking out at busy stores with a cart-full of sanitizer while everyone else had only a few bottles. If I had to bet, all of these hand sanitizer bottles out in the backwoods probably would not have sold due to their inaccessibility for many. So, by buying these bottles and selling them online, Colvin is making hand sanitizer available to people living in metropolitan areas or those who otherwise do not have the means to reach a backwood store far outside the city. He does mark his prices up significantly, but he has eBay or Amazon commissions, the cost of gasoline to drive 1,300 miles to collect all of his product, and shipping costs eating into his profits. Taking everything into consideration, his profit per bottle is likely only a few dollars, which makes it unreasonable to call him greedy and selfish.

  106. I have to disagree with you completely. For one, trying to make a profit in the first place can never be justified over people in need. For all we know, he didn't get sanitization products in metropolitan areas because people already took them all in a panic. Those stores that got cleaned out stayed in business because people bought products from them, stores that now don't have any for the people who didn't prepare fast. Many companies have been shut down along with jobs and a source of income due to the virus. Some people can't work online, which is why even though little profit is being made, people still have to be a lot of money that can't be earned back. So yeah, I have to respectfully disagree with you on how this isn't immoral.

  107. @Sam McNamara Respectfully, I disagree with your stance on this issue. I see what you are saying about him going to backwoods stores that may not have been found otherwise, but with the current demands of hand sanitizers and masks, it is likely that someone would've found the stores at some point. Aside from the fact that he is hoarding the supplies, there is another aspect to this issue, he is drastically marking up the prices of wanted goods in a time of crisis. It doesn't matter that once you factor in his gas money, commissions, and shipping costs his profits come out low. He is still exploiting desperate customer wants and needs to make money for himself. Even worse, he has allowed himself to think that he is helping our society. If Mr. Colvin really wanted to help people during this national emergency, he could've bought the products and distributed them to homeless shelters, food banks, and nursing homes, which would've greatly benefited at-risk populations and been a true selfless act to aid society.

  108. In crisis people need to be aware and helping to others. Calvin decided to hoard items that people without them couldn't get. Hurricane Florence affected the area im in last year and this situation happened with many people. You would go into the stores and the shelfs were empty. This cause people who didn't have anything to continue to struggle without it. This also lead to price gouging. This is an immoral thing to do because it makes items that are needed more expensive and in the long run worsens the situation. Right now we are in a state of emergency with Corona Virus (COVID-19) and before this I haven't really noticed the price of hand sanitizer but lets home no price gouging on products is happening.

  109. @Emma Dunne I agree with you that it is immoral and completely wrong to use other's fear and distress to your own advantage. I believe your point that actions such as Colvin's only worsen the current conditions and spread more panic is very legitimate. As a whole society that is struggling together, we should want to unify and help each other, not tear each other down and waste people's money and resources during this time of harship. There is no excuse for actions such as this and I hope that one day there will be limitations to do such things.

  110. In crisis people need to be aware and helping to others. Calvin decided to hoard items that people without them couldn't get. Hurricane Florence affected the area im in last year and this situation happened with many people. You would go into the stores and the shelfs were empty. This cause people who didn't have anything to continue to struggle without it. This also lead to price gouging. This is an immoral thing to do because it makes items that are needed more expensive and in the long run worsens the situation. Right now we are in a state of emergency with Corona Virus (COVID-19) and before this I haven't really noticed the price of hand sanitizer but lets home no price gouging on products is happening.

  111. During a pandemic, people globally all have a common need for resources, and the need for some specific items are high. The majority of the population after a while, can’t find any more of the items with high demands, and people then assume that there’s too little of those resources to be bought. In “He Has 17,700 Bottles of Hand Sanitizer and Nowhere to Sell Them,” Jack Nickas states, “Mr. Colvin said he had posted 300 bottles of hand sanitizer and immediately sold them all for between $8 and $70 each, multiples higher than what he had bought them for.” To Colvin, he’s just making money. But what he isn’t considering is that he’s taking away what people need for his own sake, placing his own desire for profit above everybody else's basic needs. While he gets benefits from this scheme, many people are putting themselves at risk, just from the depravity of one item. During CO-VID 19, so many people are at risk, and maybe that one bottle of hand sanitizer could protect them from the virus. Health and safety should always come before money, no matter pandemic or not. It’s not only the public that’s worried about this matter though. Sellers like Amazon started taking action against price-gouging, the process of selling something way overpriced, threatening to take action against closing accounts which do so. I truly hope if this situation arises again, people will consider others' well beings above money and profit.

  112. Throughout the days, as the Corona virus has gotten more prevalent, I have noticed that everyday items such as toilet paper, hand sanitizers, masks, etc have increased in price. I don't think that this should be allowed during a crisis because I think the main focus during a crisis should be making sure everyone stays safe instead of people making money off of people. If anything I think the prices should go down rather than up. I think we need to figure out more efficient solutions to producing goods without raising the prices.

  113. @emma p I agree with what you're saying. At first I thought that it wasn't that bad that prices were raised during this crisis. I thought that it was a good idea because it would bring in a lot of money to those big corporations and even to the grocery stores. However after reading your comment, it seems almost immoral to raise the prices. I think that raising prices during a time of crisis is causing more crisis within cities because everyone is trying to stock up on everything they can while it’s still there.

  114. A few years ago, Hurricane Florence hit my hometown of Wilmington. Immediately before and after the storm, it was hard to buy essentials like toilet paper and water. Though all needed these things badly, they were in short supply. Charities helped some, but not everyone was able to get essentials. The stores were sold out. I was then surprised to see a man selling my neighbor jugs of water for far more than they were worth. This made me feel that my neighbor was being exploited, taken advantage of during a time of need. Because of this experience, it makes me uncomfortable hearing that there are people doing the very same thing by overcharging for cleaning products during the coronavirus outbreak. This is wrong and should not be allowed. The recent coronavirus, COVID-19, is obviously something that people should try not to get. Its high lethality poses a serious risk to everyone, which is why large portions of the world have cancelled work and school and urged people to stay at home. Overcharging for cleanliness necessities during this time should never happen. Hand sanitizer, for example, can be lifesaving by killing the virus if it is on a person's skin. Therefore, overcharging for hand sanitizer and other cleaning products is like putting a price on someone's own life. This is incredibly immoral, as some who do not have as much money may not be able to get the cleaning supplies. Amazon did the right thing by stopping this and hopefully other marketplaces follow.

  115. I think That while it is incredibly immoral to horde items during a crisis to make a profit it should most certainly not be banned. this is the negative side of being in a capitalist country but there are also positive sides of being in this country and in life you have to take the good with the bad. still I think that people that do this should at least give the stuff away rather than selling it.

  116. @Jeffrey I think that is should be banned due to the fact that when people are hording items in the was the he did there aren't any left for the rest of us, if it was banned this wouldn't be as much of an issue as it has become and maybe all the stores wouldn't be complete sold out. not everyone needs to buy a lifetime supply of hand sanitizer and toilet paper because they simply aren't going to need it all and its just wasteful and taking it away from those who need it and re selling it for higher prices is even worse.

  117. Now is it immoral for people and businesses to increase prices for goods in times of crisis? Yes. But should it be allowed? Also yes. One of the most simple parts of supply and demand is if your demand surpasses supply, you raise prices to decrease demand. We can scold Mr. Colvin all we want for his terrible actions. But we have to admit that Mr. Colvin had the demand for what he was selling. And if the consumer wants to buy it, they should. In fact, I see raising prices as a way to stop panic buying. Consumers will probably think a whole lot more over buying hand sanitizer for $5 instead of $1. The Coronavirus is a terrible disease. But that should not lead to government intervention in the markets. Consumers should have enough sense not to buy a 1 oz. bottle of hand sanitizer for $15.

  118. @Jeffery Austin I agree that although Mr. Colvin's intentions were immoral, it's not like he was forcing people to buy his 20 dollar hand sanitizer. To me, thinking it's rational to spend 20 dollars on a single bottle of hand sanitizer is just as bad as Mr. Colvin raising prices as high as he did. I do have a problem with him cleaning out entire stores of hand sanitizer for his benefit, but the act of jacking the prices up on it's own doesn't bother me.

  119. @Jeffery Austin You have a very interesting point about all of this. We all know the theory of supply and demand, but when it comes down to it when an external factor makes it's way into economics anything can happen. The idea that Mr. Colvin raising prices would balance out the demand for hand sanitizers is new to me. I see your point, but that's definitely not what he is going for. He wants to profit off of panic and desperation and there's a real problem with that.

  120. @Jeffery Austin Though you have an interesting opinion of this, you must take into account that people are buying products from price gougers like Mr. Colvin because of the shelves being cleaned off by said price gougers. Because of the extremely low supply of cleaning products, there is no other option other to buy a 1 oz. bottle of hand sanitizer for $15.

  121. Yes I think it is immoral to raise prices during a crisis, and it is even more so to take as much as you can get so you can make others overpay. I work at a retail store and I see families with with 3-4 children unable to get toilet paper and detergent and other things. The worst is to see the aisle that used to be full of baby food become empty. The smallest purest form of a human unable to obtain food, parents asking me if we plan on restocking soon cause they need these necessities. I have a simple answer which is “I don’t know”. People who stockpile to resell don’t understand the consequences of making a quick dollar. The reality is that it hurts a lot of people around them and the moral value lost can never be regained by money.

  122. @Nayyer Ahmed It’s so sad to hear how you have seen the effects of stockpiling on families. I don’t think that the people who stockpile and then resell at much higher prices realize the situations they put families in that can’t afford to pay crazy prices for simple resources. I hope that stores are making an effort to limit how much a person can buy at a time, since it puts other people in tough situations.

  123. Mr. Colvin's reselling online may have not been as much as a problem as people thought it. “There’s a crushing overwhelming demand in certain cities right now,” he said. “The Dollar General in the middle of nowhere outside of Lexington, Ky., doesn’t have that.” Said Mr. Colvin. In my opinion, he has a point. Very little people will visit that dollar store, as it's outside any urban areas. I believe that Mr. Colvin could have handled the situation better, Instead of selling each bottle for 10 dollars, he could have sold 2 bottles for 10 dollars. There's a good chance that he could have made more profit from that. Mr. Colvin did raise the prices a bit too much, but he did have money in mind, and wasn't doing it straight from the bottom of his heart. I believe that online retailers did the right thing by taking down Mr. Colvin's profile. I do think that people should be able to sell hand sanitizers on amazon, but not to inflate prices as much as Mr. Colvin. I also think that retailers should have a limit to buying many of the same item. Mr. colvin shouldn't be punished by the state, but he should give away his thousands of hand sanitizers

  124. Personally I think this is pretty messed up. Monetary gain should never come before ones health. In times of sickness and major panic everyone is affected, so everyone needs these basic supplies and the up charging and scamming that is going on is utterly immoral. I say this -and I’m sure many agree- yet this has became a part of the Americans daily life. Pharmaceutical companies, who hold the cure for many sicknesses, see medical disasters as dollar bills, the prices of drugs are almost always higher than they should be. So looking back at it if the multimillion dollar pharmaceutical company get to up charge millions of Americans then the brothers may as well also.

  125. I don’t support the marketing strategy that Mr. Colvin has employed. True, with transportation and packaging fees his profit is limited, but that doesn’t justify his actions. While he might make a small amount of profit, customers in need have to pay every dime, dimes that people may not be able to earn back with so many jobs closing. It’s immoral that he saw a need to profit off people in a crisis in the first place. I think that helping people is a responsibility of anyone who can, and they certainly shouldn’t have to pay for it.

  126. I would argue that it would be necessary for the government to either create a temporary universal basic income to offset the losses of the lower class and increase purchasing power during price inflation, or distribute supplies to outcompete temporary businesses that spring up to take advantage of the pandemic. We would argue that companies should be allowed to increase prices, but during the pandemic, prices should not follow demand but rather follow supply. It is understandable that companies may have to raise prices to survive when workers prefer to self-quarantine and labor becomes scarce, but at the same time, this hits the working class the hardest. A universal basic income solves by providing a temporary cash injection to the economy, curbing the effects of the recession on the poor. Second, it would allow for higher prices to be affordable to consumers. Lastly, the jobs that are hit hardest tend to be taxi drivers and fast-food workers, who cannot afford to stay in quarantine for extended periods of time. Because of the economically polarizing effects of the virus, a redistributive universal basic income would protect the working class temporarily while the virus blows over.

  127. I think they should not so much raise the prices but find a way to regulate the number of items that can be purchased at that time. It’s understandable how companies would want to raise their prices; however, at the same time they still need to be accesible to lower class individuals and families. I think that the idea was smart but not everybody needs hand sanitizer, Lysol wipes,etc at their households. People could simply use soap and water to keep their hands clean and regularly cleaning your household with safe yet effective chemicals or natural cleaners.

  128. I believe that it is immoral to increase the price of health goods during a crisis. I realize that there is a cost to health care, but it should be a reasonable one. No one should ever exploit people in their most vulnerable moments. I think it's sad that people in our society continue to have a thirst for money, even during a worldwide crisis. While it might be acceptable for the Colvin brothers to have bought the hand sanitizer to sell at a slightly higher price, they should not be making "crazy money" to benefit themselves because of a pandemic. It's not okay to put people's lives in danger so you can get tons of money. It is a very selfish act. Since now Mr. Colvin can't sell his hand sanitizer anywhere, he should donate them to hospitals or hand them out to people who need them. I understand that he spent a lot of money on the hand sanitizers, so he might consider selling them to hospitals at the price that he bought them or even a lowered price. I'm glad that this event helped retailers like Amazon and eBay realize how selfish people can be, and that they put some much-needed restrictions on their platform. I hope that Mr. Colvin sells his 17,700 hand sanitizers at reasonable prices. I also hope that he realizes, and helps us realize, that making money off of a pandemic is wrong.

  129. I agree with you how selfish using a worldwide pandemic for personal gain, especially when that gain is through products that people need most, is. Restrictions on amounts of products sold to a person in retail are definitely important during times of crisis like the virus outbreak, simply because of how easy it is to exploit that system without them. Mass selling a product to people isn’t necessarily bad, but that’s only if it is fairly priced and purposed towards giving to the community in times of need. Donating would be a great way for Mr. Colvin to actually give to the community, and I hope that’s what he chose to do in order to change from this inherently wrong cause.

  130. I think it is immoral for companies to raise the price of health needs during a pandemic, hurricane, or any other crisis. It is also not acceptable for anyone to buy up these needs in stock and sell them for a profit as the Colvin brothers did with buying hand sanitizer. When a pandemic like this happens people's first thought shouldn't be "how can I make a profit off of this" it should be something more along the line of "how can I help as many people as I can". And in my opinion, that is the opposite of what people that price gouge are doing. Some people are in great need of these items and might only be able to find it for more than $20, do you think that is moral?

  131. This weekend, my parents started gathering medicine in case we got sick. Our list included cough syrup and zinc cough drops. The cost of Walmart brand cough drops on Amazon was $75. Seventy-five dollars for something that normally costs about $5. That's a 1,400% increase. Everyone’s number one priority should be keeping each other safe. Now is the time to come together and help each other and not make a profit at other people’s expense. People should also not hoard things. There are big shortages of masks and gowns for doctors and nurses. If they get sick and can’t work, what will happen to us all. We should save supplies for people who really need them. This situation feels a bit like the vaccination debate. A big part of getting vaccines is to protect others as well as yourself. If you get the flu or measles, you might make babies or old people sick. This is the same thing on a bigger scale. We have to share resources to keep everyone safe. Finally, I think we all need to act ethically. What does it say about our society if rich people have months worth of toilet paper and poor people can’t afford to buy medicine or hand sanitizer? People are going to die. The well-being of people should before making money off of the pandemic. There is no justification for profiting from the need for survival. Taking basic resources away from needy people is cruel, unnecessary and inhumane.

  132. I do not think that it is right for resellers to be making “crazy money” off of much needed supplies, especially in this time of crisis. Taking advantage of people when they are just trying to get the materials they need for this public health crisis is immoral. I’m glad that companies like Amazon and eBay were able to restrict this type of reselling on their sites, but I wish they didn’t have to leave Mr. Colvin with no place to sell all the supplies that people needed. I think that the stockpiling of supplies could have been prevented if they weren’t able to purchase so much at one time, but I understand why stores might not have stopped him when people weren’t as concerned with the coronavirus as they are now. I know that as there have been more deaths in the United States, some stores are limiting how much of certain resources you can buy at a time since they are in such high demand now. I hope that people will discontinue stockpiling resources and reselling them at high prices at this point of the public health crisis.

  133. The hoarding and over selling of public necessities in a crisis for personal gain is completely wrong. While this can be argued as capitalism or "retail arbitration", there really is no justifying keeping goods from the people who desperately need it to help slow down this outbreak. These people who plan to profit on this terrible thing are sick and need to look at what they are doing for a quick buck. There is a moral line that should come between capitalism and the right thing to do, and in this situation that line was passed a long time ago. This is not the first time I have heard about exploiting people in times of crisis, and makes me think back to when I was taught about J.P Morgan buying a lot of railroads from people in the depression. This goes to show that capitalism has always caused some issues and some people will always do whats best for them in hard times for others. People will always try to make it to the top, even if that means that they have to push a few people down in the process, in some ways this is a part of human nature. However, we must stop this trend, and try to prevent these capatilistic exploitations from happening as they have in the past. What Amazon and Ebay have done is exactly the right thing to do. While the people who have made their stockpiles will fight to stop it, it should show them that what they were doing was wrong and that they will have to pay the consequences for it.

  134. Just because the demand of the items is high doesn't mean that the price has to be high. It is providing service but it’s not helping the society by marking the price up high. What Mrs.Colvin did is immoral because people were already stressed out and now they have to worry about the price and they can’t ignore the deal either because they are rare to find. The online retailers have to prevent a lot of price gouging during a crisis. They did the right thing. The retailers in general have to prevent a lot of stockpiling because the person who buys a lot can take advantage of it. They should place a limit on how many times a person can buy so they don’t run out of the items and people don’t take advantage of it. I think he should have donated it to the hospital or sold it where people are running out of the items at a low price. He should be punished by the state of Tennessee.

  135. @Ra'khi Dey Awesome job! Do you think the authorities should be able to take away his supplies and distribute them to others? Do they have that right? Why or why not?

  136. I think that it is immoral to stock up on goods that others need. When he took all 17,700 bottles of hand sanitizer he was taken from schools and retirement homes that really need them. What if he did not take all of those items may be an elder would have not died. I think that it was very rude of him to take those. from the picture, he looks like a younger man he has less of a chance of dying or even getting it because of his age. I think that it is immoral to stock up on goods that others need. When he took all 17,700 bottles of hand sanitizer he was taken from schools and retirement homes that need them. What if he did not take all of those items may be an elder would have not died. I think that it was very rude of him to take those. from the picture, he looks like a younger man he has less of a chance of dying or even getting it because of his age. He was selfish when he and his brother decided to take all of that hand sanitizer. That is why I think it was immoral to stock on goods that others need. I think that it is immoral to stock up on goods that others need. When he took all 17,700 bottles of hand sanitizer he was taken from schools and retirement homes that need them. When he took all 17,700 bottles of hand sanitizer he was taken from schools and retirement homes that need them. What if he did not take all of those items may be an elder would have not died. That is why I think it was immoral to stock on goods that others need.

  137. I think this is immoral to make profit off this. Prices shall stay the same because it’s basically exploiting people when they are at their weakest point. The prices should always be negotiable & reasonable enough to where people can afford it. Corona Virus has people at our weakest state & i don’t believe people should benefit off that. It has gotten plenty of things cancelled that we looked forward to let alone price inflation. No, i don’t agree that people should make profit off higher prices due to the corona virus.

  138. @jekari jenkins Awesome job! Do you think the authorities should be able to take away his supplies and distribute them to others? Why or why not?

  139. It is immoral to increase the price of goods during a crisis. Companies know that people will go out and stock up on what they need. They know that people will buy what they need to buy, especially basic necessities, so raising prices will drastically increase their profits. Right now, people are freaking out, as this pandemic is unprecedented and we don’t know what’s going to happen next. We are at a weak point, with everyone frightened and scrambling around trying to ensure their safety. Overcharging everyday people for everyday goods is wrong, it’s exploiting these people. It shows that these companies really don’t care about their consumers, only the money they make off of them. If anything, prices should stay the same or be lowered, because many people are being laid off and it may be extra hard to find work since most places are temporarily closed. This makes it harder to afford the things we want and need, and in a time like this the last thing we need is the added stressor of money. Companies understand all of this, but they care about their profits more, which is why increasing the price of goods during a crisis is immoral.

  140. @Abby Morean You say it's immoral to raise the prices of a good or service but isn't it just a smart business tactic. People are over preparing which in turn means that the demand for products is high so the companies will raise their prices to prepare for the time when their products are no longer needed. When the products are no longer in demand the business may hit a downfall or a decrease in sales which can lead to a slow month so they will need the extra money to keep themselves afloat until sales pick back up. Yes they will increase the prices to take advantage of our excessing purchases when shopping, but then when people spend too much money on things we don’t need then it then becomes that person's fault. People are buying excessive amounts of a product and most of the time they don’t have anywhere to put them so buy what you can house and then if needed go back for more.

  141. @Taryn Connolly The idea that companies are raising prices to prepare for a downfall in sales is a very good point, and I never thought about that. But I think this is a different situation. The Colvin brothers don't have a hand sanitizer company, they simply bought a bunch of hand sanitizer to sell it for a higher price. That's very wrong, and the brothers know that. They know they aren't running a business, they're just making a quick buck.

  142. My answers and opinions on the four bullet points, No, they amount of money you spend on an item shouldn't raise just because a lot of people are buying it. We NEED these things and some people don't that the money to be spending extra on things. Yes, they're providing a service, but they shouldn't raise prices even higher than they already are. I think that people take advantage of the amount of money people are willing to spend during a pandemic. Yes, I think that what he did was immoral because he raised prices even higher on Amazon to get a profit. Online retailers have a huge responsibility because they're supposed to find these accounts and take them down before they make too much off of it. Yes, companies did the right thing because everyone needs and wants it and it's not fair to let one person buy and hold every item. Retailers in general have a big responsibility because they have to make sure everyone gets what they need and want. Yes, they should place limits so that everyone can get what they need. I think that he should've sold them locally and at a lower price to benefit people rather than benefitting himself. I don't think that it's serious enough to punish him by the state of Tennessee, he should just not do what he did again.

  143. @Brianna G. Awesome job! Do you think the authorities should be able to take away his supplies and distribute them to others? Why or why not?

  144. Smart, very smart. If I loved taking advantage of people, I would be doing the same thing. But since I don’t, It’s one hundred percent immoral. What about the poor families who just need a roll of toilet paper. Or the homeless guy with a sick baby. Stealing thousands of hand sanitizers, TOILET PAPER, and masks is frankly, annoying. Therefore, I’ve got to laugh at Mr. Colvin’s situation. He should’ve thought about law enforcement stopping him before committing illegal activity. The reason I’m so against Mr. Colvin’s actions is that I tried buying a mask incase COVID-19 would still be around when I’m flying across the country, but Every. Single. One. was out of stock. It took me an hour to finally find a reasonably priced one that would come in on time. Hours after I bought it, it sold out. Through my searching, I found some were over $50 (for ONE surgical mask). I couldn’t believe anyone would buy anything this outrageous, but nonetheless, humanity proved me wrong. They were sold out too. Okay so I guess I shouldn’t have been that surprised. Price gouging has been around for decades. In fact, Mr. Colvin spent $7,000 on COVID-19 care packages to participate. The crazy part isn’t that he’s selling them at 20x regular value, it’s that he’s actually tricked himself into thinking he’s doing a public service. Price gouging is not and will never be okay. No matter how many items Mr. Colvin donates, his reason will only ever be because he got shut down from selling.

  145. @Simone Cronier I agree with everything you said in your comment. It is absolutely insane what people are willing to do for money. To me, the worst part is the excuses they are making. I would like to know if these people truly think they are doing a public service or if they are just saying that to make themselves feel better. While reading some of the comments on the original article, many were praising the actions of the people gauging the prices, saying that was how capitalism worked and they should do whatever they have to do to make money. They said that if people were willing to buy hand sanitizer for 125 dollars, why not sell it at that price. Like you, I fundamentally disagree with this philosophy because of the situations you mentioned: poor families that need a roll of toilet paper, a homeless person with a sick baby. These people matter too. Just because they can't afford these basic goods at these insanely inflated prices doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to them just like any other American.

  146. While it definitely is a smart money move, I think there is a line that should not be crossed when raising prices. For example, a small increase in the price for hand sanitizer may help out the business... however, increasing these prices up to things like an absurd $60 is immoral. There are many people that would not be able to afford this increase in prices, even if they desperately need the product.

  147. In my macroeconomics class, we learned about the law of supply and demand. One of the effects this law has is that when demand increases for a good, the price increases. Although I am fully willing to say that it was immoral of them to buy the complete stock of hand sanitizer from as many stores as they could, I do think a (small) markup is allowed. Eighty dollars for one bottle is way too high, but selling it for eight is reasonable. I am operating upon the circumstance that they just somehow had 17,000 bottles of hand sanitizer because I think buying out so many stores for the sole purpose of pulling the price up is abhorrent. Depriving people from easy access to a good that will greatly increase their chances of staying healthy is not something that should be done in a time of great crisis. On the other hand, allowing for the opportunity to purchase the good on Amazon for a small markup is passable but it is important to keep in mind how much of a necessity this good is and keep the price low to allow for widespread access.

  148. No we shouldn't rise the price for these things . We shouldn't because people need these things to stay healthy. If they were to rise the price for these things then some people may not buy them and will eventually end up getting more people sick. What he did was immoral because people have no choice but to buy those things if they want to stay healthy plus the have to spend on other things as well like food and stuff especially at a time like this. I know people want money but what's the point if you are also going to be making the place worse buy making people have more stress on the because they feel like they have to spend so much of their money on cleaning supplies. He should try to at least benefit other people and instead of putting more stress on them

  149. @Moses Awesome job! Do you think the authorities should have a right to TAKE AWAY his supplies and distribute them to others? Why or why not?

  150. I think that this isn't a good thing to do. One reason i know this is because if they didn't buy the hand sanitizer there would still be some for other people to buy. Another reason that they are wrong is because they are buying hand sanitizer and selling it for more than a reasonable profit at a time that people have less money do to job loss. Companies like Amazon and eBay should control and restrict companies that try to price gouge their customers. Mr. Colvin should donate the supplies to first responders in Tennessee.

  151. @Jordan S Awesome job! Do you think the authorities should have a right to TAKE AWAY his supplies and distribute them to others? Why or why not?

  152. The rising price of products during this time is unfair. There is a difference between raising the price a buck or two but making it cost 50% more is horrible. Having a stockpile and selling it for so much more is not a service. It’s making it harder to find stores not bought out and it’s more expensive to buy from the seller. I feel like Mr. Colvin was being immoral by selling it for such a high price. We can agree online realtors have a big job by making sure people do not abuse selling these products. It’s up to them to make sure we have enough products and we don’t go broke doing that. They made the right choice by restricting these sellers so they aren't able to scam people. Any realtor at this time has the responsibility to limit the buying of these products. They need to save money and help everyone have enough supplies. They should place limits depending on how much people they are buying for Mr.Coliven should have donated the supplies he purchased because he couldn’t sell them anymore online.That would have been the right thing to do and it would have helped people who don’t have these supplies. This is new for all of us so let’s be smart with our choices.

  153. No we shouldn't raise the prices on things that could keep many people safe. It wouldn't be right to hoard all the supplies and for people to go without being able to get these sanitizing items at an affordable cost. Mr. Colvin and his brother aren't doing anyone a service and got what they deserved when they couldn't sell the materials, though it doesn't make them immoral it just wasn't the right thing to do. I don't think that eBay and Amazon should let these people sell the items on the websites for prices that high but if the prices are more reasonable then that would be fine but they are responsible for keeping those prices lower and not 50$ a bottle. Retailers jobs are to sell as much of their supplies as possible but that doesn't mean they should let the one person have all the supplies when everyone who walks into their stores are in need of the hand sanitizer that the guy just loaded up on and is pushing 5 carts worth of it out of the store. Mr. Colvin should not be punished but should be told to give his supply to the people either that mean selling t a reasonable price or donating it to different groups that would spread the supplies around to people.

  154. @Carter Sansone What if he doesn't WANT to give his supplies to other people? Should he be forced to do so?

  155. When a crisis hits you have to decide what is best for you. Sometimes that means taking more than you should so you can be prepared. In Matt’s case, I think he went overboard. As the picture shows, he has boxes and shelves full of cleaning materials he may not use when this virus is over with. However, if he didn’t buy up all those supplies in the first place, nobody would be having to pay for shipping. His plan was smart, but it is inconsiderate in times of crisis. It would be another thing if he was selling water for a higher price on a hot day, but this is a global issue, and many people are scared and seriously need these resources rather than making money.

  156. White Oak kids, I'm going to stir it up with you a little bit for the sake of argument. :) Some people would say that in a free economy (like ours), everyone has a right to make as much profit as he can, even if other people don't like it. Colvin saw a need and a demand, and he capitalized on it. It might not be popular, but he has a right to do whatever he wants with items he owns. He just beat everybody to the idea. Why should he be penalized (notice that Unit 9 word) for being more clever than everyone else?

  157. @Ms. Enderle Yes, I can see where you're coming from and what he was doing would be right in a normal situation but not in a pandemic. Our law system is based on right and wrong, is taking advantage of someone during a vulnerable and dangerous time like a pandemic for a personal profit right? I don’t think it is, he's leaving people without life-saving supplies because they can't afford his sky-high prices therefore leaving them defenseless against such a harmful and dangerous virus. Were not talking about stockpiling a bunch of new trendy toys, we're talking about life-saving supplies like masks and hand sanitizer, that's corrupt and way past unethical. And I think the state punishing him will show him that.

  158. @Ms. Enderle Yes, what he was doing would be right in a normal situation but not in a pandemic. Our law system is based on right and wrong, is taking advantage of someone during a vulnerable and dangerous time like a pandemic for a personal profit right? It's not, he's leaving people without life-saving supplies because they can't afford his sky-high prices, therefore leaving them defenseless against such a harmful and dangerous virus. Were not talking about stockpiling a bunch of new trendy toys, we're talking about life-saving supplies like masks and hand sanitizer, that's corrupt and way past unethical and he needs to be shown that's wrong.

  159. @Kalynn Ooooo I like the strong tone in your writing! "We're not talking about stockpiling a bunch of new trendy toys" and "that's corrupt and way past unethical" = strong voice!

  160. No, we shouldn’t be selling everyday items and then selling them for a much higher price. People need them. Families in serious need shouldn’t have to pay $20 for a bottle of hand sanitizer, which in regular convenient stores you could get for $2. Most families have the advantage of spending a little extra money on supplies. Some families have little to no money to spend on certain supplies like masks, and basic self-care items. Yes, he is providing a service, which could be helpful. But, how is this remotely helpful for families that barely have supplies, let alone survive off of school lunches. So yes, I think what he’s doing is immoral, since he’s raising prices on Amazon way higher than they should be. Ebay and Amazon are responsible for letting people sell things like that at such a high price. If it was set at a more reasonable price, there wouldn’t be such a problem. They shouldn’t let people sell hand sanitizer for $50. That is insane. This is unfair to families that have no money. Retailers have a big responsibility to look after, and their main goal is money. They need to make sure everyone gets what they need and if they are satisfied with their order. But limits should be spared to make sure that everyone is well supplied. Instead of selling these items for such a high price, Mr. Colvin should have given them to charities or community workers to give out for FREE. While this was a smart business move, it just isn’t the right thing to do at this time.

  161. @Isabella Good job, Izzy. You say, "Mr. Colvin should have given them to charities or community workers to give out for FREE. While this was a smart business move, it just isn’t the right thing to do at this time." Why does "right" or "wrong" matter in a free economy that is driven by profit?

  162. No we should not be raising the prices on products that keep people healthy and safe. If we were to raise the prices of these goods then less people will buy them, not because they don’t want to spend the money but simply because they can’t afford it. This will lead to more sickness and deaths across the nation. It is completely immoral to put people in this situation. I think companies like Amazon and Walmart should be limiting how much of a certain product consumers can buy during this time.

  163. 1.I think high demand of hand sanitizer and mask do not justify higher prices. I think this because people have a disadvantage of going places like their job so they might have less money. I also think sellers who stockpile are taking advantage of people because, if most people are staying in the house chances are they might not know the prices were raised. I think what Mr. Calvin did was Immoral even if he had good intentions. 2. I think big companies like Amazon or Ebay have little responsibility because of how, little they know about stockpilers. I do think they did the right thing by restricting sales to certain people because they realized stockpilers were stealing from them. 3. I think retailers carry a lot of responsibility considering they some of them might buy from stockpilers. I think they should place limits on how much you can get just to protect themselves. 4. I think Mr. Calvin should've just returned the hand sanitizer back to the store or gave the rest out for free. I think he should've been punished for his wrong doings.

  164. @Marquila Barnett Yay! Good response! Now take this-- HAHA!! You say, "I think he should've been punished for his wrong doings." Did he break any laws? If not, then how can he be punished for "wrong doing"?

  165. Yes we should raise prices during a health crisis because more people are buying at once which doesn't give producers a chance to produce as quickly so when the demand is high and the supply is low they should be able to raise the price. What Mr. Colvin did is immoral. People who resell items at a higher price are taking advantage of people because they are taking all of the supply in stores where the cost might be lower and selling them at a super high price where some people can't afford. Online retailers have a lot of responsibility because most sellers are selling form online businesses like Amazon and eBay. I think they did do the right thing by restricting sales of certain sellers because some sellers are making their prices to high for people to buy. Retailers in general also have responsibility because they have to prevent stockpiling from happening. Retailers should place limits on how many items someone can buy because one person could buy all of one item everyone needs in a store and then there wouldn't be any left for other buyers. I think Mr. Colvin should have sold them around Tennessee for the same price that he bought them for. Although he took so much he should not be punished because it is not a big crime but he should also get warned so he doesn't do it again.

  166. @Ava Scherz An increase in prices would help the companies, how about the consumers? Imagine a family of five, living off of food stamps, barely paying their rent. They have to keep going to work or the will have no income. They need cleaning supplies like hand sanitizer and Clorox wipes to protect themselves from the Coronavirus. But now these products are too expensive for them to purchase. The company owner can sit on his comfy chair watching TV with his family while our consumer family is infected with the virus. Who are we to decide that the companies profits are more important than the protection of consumers?

  167. @Ava Farah Great response. I especially love that last question: "Who are we to decide that the companies profits are more important than the protection of consumers?" Are you a teacher or a student? You've made several replies to my students and I love it. They can take the challenge! Thanks! :)

  168. High demand does not justify high prices. Reselling things is a service, although I don't agree with raising the prices it is still a service. They are taking advantage of people in the process of doing this because they need it to not get sick. I don't think they have to take responsibility because is the people that are selling it have to take responsibility amazon is a platform to sell thing its not up to them to decide how much money it will cost the people that make the product sell it and the make the price for it. They have to try to prevent it the best they can but its always gonna happen no matter what. Yes I think this was the right thing to do because if somebody buys every thing there is nothing left for the other people that need it. They should place limits on how many items you can get so everybody can get some. I thin that Mr. Colvin should of given the hand sanitizer away or returned it for money. He should not be punished because I don't think that's right I think he should just be told to not do it but if he continues it will lead to further consequences.

  169. No, it is not immoral to increase the price of goods during a crisis. It should be cheaper because these items can save lives and people don't have a lot of money. But i think if they are your own items you can do anything with them. Stores shouldn't be able to but people who bought these items are allowed to put the price as high as they can. You should think twice about your profit because you won't have a big audience when you put the price higher. There is more than money is this world. There are many lives lost because of these products being out of stock. This is what I think about the prices of these items during a crisis.

  170. @Liam Bell The issue with that is that if you prohibit stores from increasing prices, but allow individual middlemen to do it, there is going to be a distribution issue, just like there is now. These middlemen are acting like stores and need to be treated as such under the law. Just like stores can only increase prices so much in times of crisis, individual merchants need to be held to the same standard. If not, these individuals will take advantage of the stores, buy all of their supplies, and then mark it up, making huge profits and creating huge shortages throughout the entire nation. There is a reason that hand sanitizer and face masks are so unavailable in this nation and its not about how many we have and are able to produce, its about who is retaining control over them and sitting on their product until the time is right to generate huge profits. Thus I disagree with you and believe these merchants need to be stopped immediately.

  171. No, I believe that people should not raise the prices and are not justify it. People shouldn't because people need it to stay healthy. When they raise the prices it's a self-benefit and will eventually cause more people to get sick who don't have the stuff they need. So no it is not a public service, and also they make it harder to get. yes, what Mr. Colvin was immoral. Because it makes it harder and more expensive to get the things they need. Online retailers have a fair amount of responsibility because they allow people to buy lots of things that could go to lots of other people so everyone gets some. Yes, I believe they did the right thing by not allowing them to profit a lot like that and being unfair to other people. retailers have lots of responsibilities and they should put a limit on how many per person can but. Put a limit like 2 per person that they can buy. I think Mr. Colvin should've donated it to hospitals and people in need of those things.

  172. @Ethan Hooper Although what Mr. Colvin did was immoral. I do not think that the government should stop his unreasonable prices. I think the government limiting prices can lead to more government intervention in the free market. Another problem is that government intervention in the markets wouldn't necessarily help the consumer. Even though Mr. Colvin set hand sanitizer at unreasonable prices. He thought it was low enough for people to buy it. And he is selling a product that no other stores have. So it is possible for Mr. Colvin to justify his expensive prices.

  173. @Ethan Hooper While I agree that it was selfish of Mr. Colvin to hoard the goods so he could profit off of them, I also question if maybe the online selling levels the playing field for those who can't leave their houses. If someone has no form of transportation to go and buy the hand sanitizer, an online store such as Amazon having these products could really help them. Mr. Colvin should not sell these products for such high prices, it is immoral. He is using other people's fears to benefit himself. But how do you propose he be punished?

  174. @Jeffery Austin Jeffery, the reason that no other stores had any hand sanitizer was due to the fact that everyone had in a panic bought it all up, but Matthew, and Noah Colvin went around to stores and intentionally bought up all of the hand sanitizer bottles so no one else could get them. Off of this he jacked up the prices because people would have nowhere else to buy them except from him with his unreasonable prices. As in this crisis he cannot help but be inclined to use it as a way to fill his coffers with the money of desperate people that are trying to survive. I find this as immoral, and very selfish.

  175. I do not think that it is morally right for people to raise the price of goods at this time. There are many families that are already struggling for money, because work places have been shut down. By raising prices we are only harming these people even more, making it more impossible for them to get the supplies that they need for their family. Large corporations and even small ones like Mr.Colvin's business, do not need the extra dollar or two that they may make by raising prices. I think that it would have been much more helpful for Mr.Colvin to donate the items that he had to a shelter or a hospital, that way he is selflessly helping others in this time of crisis in our country.

  176. @Watson Pope Throughout the country, there are laws that prohibit the gouging of prices during a crisis. Even though it is sad that we need these laws, there are always those that will do whatever they can to exploit others. These brother are truly despicable in my eyes. Their excuse would make sense if they were honestly trying to help the people they claim to. However, heavily overcharging items is only so you can benefit. It isn't an extra dollar or two these people are making, it's hundreds. Large amounts of profit fueled by panic. It is disgraceful

  177. Not only do I believe that the stocking up of necessary goods and selling them for a substantially higher price is immoral, but if you think of it, it’s also indirectly contributing to slowing down the rate at which we can take care of the Coronavirus, and stop the spread. By taking massive inventory of goods which assist in preventing people from spreading/giving the disease, people are no longer to buy them at regular local stores at it’s actual price. That’s making people have to buy through the ones who took it all to begin with, and pay ten times more than its actual price. Not only is that extremely inconsiderate, but if you think of it at another angle, that makes less people be able to afford to buy those products when they would have been able to afford those products if they weren’t stock piled, and therefore they will be more likely to spread the disease, or catch it and be able to spread it. In the article it also mentions how hospitals need to ration their sanitation supplies because of a shortage, so in places where they need it most there’s a shortage because of stockpilers who are willing to sell it to anyone who pays up, no matter the circumstances of their situation.

  178. High demands for items like hand sanitizers and masks in a health crisis doesn’t mean high prices.People who pile up and then sell items at a high price are just taking advantage of people because with the crisis going on people aren't allowed to leave so they can’t work meaning they can’t pay for items like wipes.I strongly believe what Mr. Colvin did is immoral because many people struggle to find wipes and hand sanitizers which are cheap but he is selling it for a higher price. There’s lots of responsibility for online retailers preventing gouging because lots of people can trick customers into paying more. Companies did great in restricting sales because lots of people wouldn’t lose money buying cheap items that are being sold for 7 to 80 dollars. Retailers in general have many responsibilities to prevent stockpiling because stockpiling causes stores to not have enough items customers need. Retailers should really limit the amount of items you can buy so people can have hand sanitizer and so that people do not worry about getting late to a store and seeing emptiness. What Mr. Colvin should have done with the supplies he stocked was sell them at a cheap price and given it to people that needed it.Another thing he could’ve done was donate supplies he thinks he wouldn’t use. Mr. Colvin should've been punished by the state of Tennessee since he really did not need to make a money off selling overpriced hand sanitizers and other supplies.

  179. Increasing the price of goods during a crisis is wrong and not justified. However, it is bound to happen, especially in America. We are a capitalist society, and people will try to take advantage of a system like that whenever they can. While it is immoral, it's also the fault of the consumer. People are rushing out and buying tons of supplies because they are scared. These brothers are taking advantage of people's fear, but I think it's up to the people to come to the realization that they are overreacting to a degree. I also think that it's important to not overlook situations like this that happen every day. While the Colvin brothers sell hand sanitizer for a higher price than it should be sold at during a crisis, large companies do the same thing with life-saving medicine daily. I think stores and online retailers need to do something to prevent things like this. Amazon is an extremely massive online store, so I understand that they can't stop things like this immediately. Supermarkets, on the other hand, should be implementing restrictions on how much of something you can buy. Nobody should be allowed to walk out of a store with 8 packs of toilet paper, because it leaves none for everyone else and causes fear within a community. When people see rows of empty shelves in their grocery stores, and hand sanitizer going for 70$ on Amazon, they get scared, and stockpile items they don't need, repeating the process.

  180. @Jude Lucido, You're right in our capitalist society it's not just these brothers its been happening for years. Companies or individuals feed off peoples fear to profit themselves. The basic concept that as demand increases the prices do so as well is logical but these people are taking it a selfish step further. The people have to realize this before they go out and buy a bottle of Purell for $60.

  181. While many people are struggling worldwide, it is completely immoral to raise prices of goods and necessities. Not only is the outbreak of this virus a major health concern, it’s a financial crisis for men and women worldwide. During a time like this, it would be beyond selfish for a company to raise prices on the citizens of countries that are stranded in their houses with no work and no hope. Millions of people are rationing all sorts of supplies and foods because they simply cannot afford to buy even necessities during the great quarantine. History is being made everyday with the thousands of people that are being infected. However, nowhere should it say that during this harsh time more and more people were getting sick because they simply couldn’t afford hand sanitizer.

  182. During a time like this I think it’s important for the community to take a step back and assess the situation before going out to the store and raiding the shelves. The fact that people are purchasing items like hand sanitizer and masks in bulk to later sell at a higher price is completely immoral and selfish. There are actual people who need supplies and marking them at an absurdly high price defeats the purpose. Especially when the families who need it live each day by paycheck and can’t even afford a bottle of hand sanitizer because it costs well over $50. In a crisis like this, it’s just the wrong time to raise prices on high demand items.

  183. I think Mr. Colvin was taking advantage of people by taking all the supplies from all the stores in his area and selling them for 20 times the amount than the amount on eBay . I believe this is immoral. I think Amazon and eBay have a pretty big responsibility restricting people from selling coronavirus products because they are part of the community and if they know that it is going on they should stop it. In a crisis retailers should put limits on items to help prevent people from selling hoarded supplies online or to people they know. I think he should be fined and he should have to donate all the supplies, this should help prevent things like this from happening in the future.

  184. Yes, I think it is immoral to increase the prices of goods during a crisis because raising the prices on hand sanitizer, masks, and toilet paper because of the COVID-19 is just causing panic and tramatism for everybody. For everyone to think that they are safe they go out wiping out shelves and stores products just like what they would do when it is a hurricane or anything. High demand will occur for the items hand sanitizer and surgical masks during a major crisis. Which will cause them to raise the prices from it being a low price affordable for everyone to it being $50 just for a bottle of hand sanitizer which I feel is ridiculous. Resellers who are buying products from stores and companies who stock up on supplies and selling them for a higher price is not providing a service. Because a service would be taking those products and giving it to the people who need them just for free. Not taking those products and selling them online just to get money to think that providing a service by taking the items they bought to sell them for a higher price. I also do feel that they are taking the people for advantage because why would you just clear the shelves and stores and make it sold out so nobody else can get it just so you can charge people more for those items. What Mr.Colvin did is not immoral it is being selfish by hogging all of those items just for yourself to sell online just to make a profit off the people which is taking away from the companies.

  185. It is very immoral to increase the price of goods during a crisis There are people in this world who have someone in their families that are more likely to catch a disease, and who need special attention. Some people can't afford the higher price and need cheap supplies. To buy in bulk, and selfishly, sell them at a higher price for self-profit, is highly immoral. To make a store sell out of a product and make it harder to find and buy a product that is high in demand is immoral. The Colvins are selfish.

  186. Yes I do believe that price gouging is immoral especially during a crisis like the Coronavirus. This is immoral because it forces people to buy from you and for much more than it should cost them. This specific instance in which Matt Colvin decided to buy up all the hand sanitizer in the area to force others to buy his over inflated prices. This act was absolutely despicable and he deserves to be ostracized like he was. Acts like his make pandemics much worse and more stressful than they need to be. The worst part is that he doesn’t need to do this he is just abusing the crisis to make a profit, ignoring how much damage he is doing to his fellow humans.