Connecticut should pass its Senate Bill 60, which states that during a “severe weather event emergency, no person within the chain of distribution of consumer goods and services shall sell or offer to sell consumer goods or services for a price that is unconscionably excessive.”
Responses
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
20%
8%
13%
38%
15%
5%
3%
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
24%
53%
15%
2%
5%
Participant |
University |
Vote |
Confidence |
Bio/Vote History |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Alberto Alesina |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
It's generally efficient to use the price mechanism to allocate scarce goods, e.g., umbrellas on a rainy day. Banning this is unwise.
|
||||
 Katherine Baicker |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Raj Chetty |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Need to stimulate supply
|
||||
 Janet Currie |
Princeton | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Without defining "unconscionably," I don't know what to think about this.
|
||||
 Angus Deaton |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Efficiency is less important than distribution under such transitory conditions.
|
||||
 Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
I'm unsure how the courts will define "unconscionably excessive." Efficient allocation by market prices is good, absent monopoly effects.
|
||||
 Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
statute is vague. also statute could put goods in hands of those with limited need who hoard them.
|
||||
 Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Alas, I live in this state.
|
||||
 Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Torn about this. The term "unconscionably" seems too loose - is it a 20% or 500% markup? But the goods need to be allocated somehow.
|
||||
 Claudia Goldin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Austan Goolsbee |
Chicago | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
unconscionably excessive is VERY imprecise. extreme weather can disproportionately hurt poor and this could be efficient redistribution.
|
||||
 Robert Hall |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Goal is to allocate suddenly scarce goods optimally. Prices are only a tool, but often the right tool. Law doesn't have a good alternative.
|
||||
 Bengt Holmström |
MIT | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
I sympathize w the intention but goods must be allocated in some way & prices are better than first come or fights breaking out among people
|
||||
 Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The vagueness of the law means more businesses will shut down, which is the same as setting price to infinity, a legal price.
|
||||
 Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Seems like pandering, "post-storm cleanup or repair services" are included. It seems like those prices could reasonably soar after a storm.
|
||||
 Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Would presumably lead to misallocation and lower supply than optimal. There are better ways to redistribute.
-see background information here |
||||
 Edward Lazear |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Inefficiency from short term monopoly that results in "gouging" is secondary to losses in efficiency from a getting items to right users.
|
||||
 Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Eric Maskin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 William Nordhaus |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
At best, symbolic. At worst, would return to price controls of the 1970s.
|
||||
 Maurice Obstfeld |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Emmanuel Saez |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Seeks to prevent prices from clearing markets; never a good thing. Standard is hopelessly vague so increases risk for affected businesses.
|
||||
 Hyun Song Shin |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 James Stock |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Nancy Stokey |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
State legislatures should focus on more important questions.
|
||||
 Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Not needed. Big firms hold prices firm. "Entrepreneurs" with trucks help meet supply. Are the latter covered? If so, bad.
|
||||
 Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The "unconscionably excessive" language may be a way to rescue this - maybe any price at which S=D is ok. Then sb60 is just a waste of time.
|
||||
 Luigi Zingales |
Chicago Booth | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
