Skip to main content
Listen to Acton content on the go by downloading the Radio Free Acton podcast! Listen Now

Acton University 2024 Mobile Banner

Religion & Liberty: Volume 30, Number 2

The economic and moral case against hoarding

    We live in strange and unprecedented times. The exponential spread of COVID-19 has created chaos, fear, and panic. One of the scariest aspects of living through this pandemic, besides the health and safety of our families, is our uncertainty about the future. Each of us asked the same questions: How long will it be until we are safe? How long until we can browse through stores, have play dates, attend church, and hug an old friend? Uncertainty leads to isolation, fear, and panic. That fear sends people rushing to the store. Packing our pantries may give us a false sense of control, but it is not the best response morally or economically. 

    If you are now reading this from your home on one of your many electronic devices, you are likely living in a country better equipped to get through this pandemic. Not all our fellow human beings can say the same. What is the difference? Those of us who live in countries like the U.S. daily experience the benefit of market economies, rather than the command economics marking so many struggling and impoverished nations around the world. 

    Markets deliver goods and services in a decentralized way. They use prices to direct the activities of consumers and sellers. As a result, market economies are nimble and adapt quickly to changing circumstances. 

    When we browse grocery store shelves, we are seeing just the tip of a deep and vast iceberg. What we see as consumers is the end of a long series of activities that crosses the globe and requires millions of people—all of whom coordinate peacefully for weeks or months—to bring us the things that we need. There are long, global supply chains behind the neatly stacked toilet paper, butchered chicken, and rows of egg cartons. 

    On a normal day, we get to take this for granted. Right now, even in the richest countries, that isn’t the case. You may have to go to four grocery stores to find toilet paper, or you may need to visit for several days in a row. This is costly and makes us stay outside the house longer, when we are supposed to “stay inside.”

    Hoarding exacerbates the existing supply disruptions. Each time you enter the store and fill your cart, you are sending a message to that supplier: You are voting for the product. Our signals get sent to the producers of toilet paper, chicken, eggs, and other goods. When we hoard, we speed up the signal, and the shelves are left empty. The producer must now act quickly to try to speed up the production process in response to the empty grocery store shelves. But in most cases, this cannot be done instantaneously; it takes time to ramp up production. Because we don’t know the date this virus will be cured, we don’t know how much we need, and producers don’t know how long the increased demand will last. The once-clear signal is now obfuscated because of hoarding. 

    The lesson here is that refusing to engage in hoarding will keep our stores from selling out. In economic terms, this is known as sending a clear consumer demand signal. Less hoarding will allow everyone to adjust to the new world we live in without unnecessarily exacerbating the disruption of necessities. It will generate the most efficient producer response. More hoarding will lead to greater short-term shortages. 

    Markets are at their core about cooperative exchange through profit and loss. Hoarding will lead to less cooperation: As we hoard, we send the system into overdrive. But scarcity will always be our reality, and scarcity requires that we ration resources. Prices allow us to do this. 

    The best bet against hoarding is to allow prices to rise. Rising prices slow consumption and allow producers to respond, because they have the incentive (through the new price signal) to earn elevated, short-term profits. Make no mistake: This is not an endorsement of “price-gouging.” Rather, rising prices are a natural response to increased demand. These price increases are the very thing that will induce producers to make more of the supplies we all want. As more producers rush to fill the demand, prices will return to normal, or perhaps even lower, than before the outbreak. 

    There are both economic and moral benefits to this system. In fact, the economic benefits are moral. Markets are necessarily humanitarian in that they deliver necessities to people who lack them. Markets increase access and affordability and, in this, they are egalitarian. 

    Keep in mind, that while our shelves in the U.S. empty daily, they also refill daily. Compare this with socialist economies, where the shelves are permanently bare. Markets allow us to coordinate with our neighbors peacefully and extend the fruits of our labor to others. We need this now more than ever.

    Featured image by Ingrid Cold. (CC BY-SA 2.0). Image cropped.

    Most Read

    Anne Rathbone Bradley, Ph.D. is the George and Sally Mayer Fellow for Economic Education and the academic director at The Fund for American Studies. Through this position, Dr. Bradley works to enhance the impact and reach of TFAS and FTE economic education programs through courses, seminars, videos and social media. She also delivers lectures around the country and oversees curriculum development and evaluation for economics courses. In addition to her role as a fellow and academic director, Dr. Bradley continues to teach impactful economics courses to TFAS students and consistently receives outstanding marks in students’ post-program evaluations.

    Previously, Dr. Bradley served as the vice president of economic initiatives at the Institute for Faith, Work & Economics, where she continues research toward a systematic biblical theology of economic freedom. In addition to her work with TFAS, she is a professor of economics at The Institute for World Politics and Grove City College. She is a visiting professor at George Mason University and has previously taught at Georgetown University and Charles University in Prague. She is currently an Acton Affiliate scholar and a visiting scholar at the Bernard Center for Women, Politics & Public Policy. She is a lecturer for the Institute for Humane Studies and the Foundation for Economic Education.

    Dr. Bradley is the co-editor and author of “Counting the Cost: Christian Perspectives on Capitalism,” “For the Least of These: A Biblical Answer to Poverty” and “Be Fruitful and Multiply: Why Economics is Necessary for Making God-Pleasing Decisions.”

    She served as the associate director for the Program in Economics, Politics and the Law at the James M. Buchanan Center at George Mason University. Dr. Bradley’s academic work ranges on the question of income inequality and economic freedom as well as the political economy of terrorism, with specific emphasis on the industrial organization of al-Qaeda. Her academic research has been published in scholarly journals and edited volumes. She is currently working on a book that analyzes the political economy of al-Qaeda post 9/11. Based on her academic research, she also worked as an economic analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency’s Office of Terrorism Analysis.

    Dr. Bradley received her Ph.D. in economics from George Mason University in 2006, during which time she was a James M. Buchanan Scholar.