5 ms·

If people are willing to pay that much for gas, water, plane tickets, it means they really need it Uhhhhh no. It means those people can afford it, nothing els

If people are willing to pay that much for gas, water, plane tickets, it means they really need it Uhhhhh no. It means those people can afford it, nothing else. Your personal wealth has nothing to do with your need.

jstanley 9y ago
What part of his argument do you think is wrong? He's absolutely correct. If highly-demanded goods become expensive, that incentivises creative behaviour to supply more of those goods. That's a good thing. If you're not allowed to charge fair market value, that won't make everything magically cheaper, it'll just mean there's not enough to go around.
- TaylorAlexander 9y ago
  We could choose to go to extraordinary efforts to give these people what they need without seeking monetary compensation. The analysis lacks empathy. Also parent is saying ability to pay doesn't correlate well to need. Many people need plane tickets or water who can't afford sky high prices.
  - sbenitoj 9y ago
    Why should those who CAN afford to pay the higher prices be discriminated against by fixing prices and creating shortages so that it's first-come-first-serve instead of the supply being sold to the highest bidder? Fixing supply only creates shortages, you can't repeal the laws of supply and demand.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      >Why should those who CAN afford to pay the higher prices be discriminated against by fixing prices and creating shortages so that it's first-come-first-serve instead of the supply being sold to the highest bidder? Look up discrimination, you're abusing the word. For example why should those who are poor but live close to the store be discriminated against by price gouging? Under first-come-first serve there would be no shortage for them. Also wealth is not a moral virtue and the wealthy don't deserve to survive disasters any more than the poor.
      - sbenitoj 9y ago
        So why not create an organization that voluntarily creates the outcome you desire, why do you have to use coercion to solve the problem?
        frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        Markets are coercive.
        sbenitoj 9y ago
        Please define coercion.
        frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        You're the one who brought it up. Lay it out.
        sbenitoj 9y ago
        Coercion: The use of physical force or the threat of physical force in as a mean to get someone to comply with your wishes. Continuing to run with this example -- if you are the owner of a pack of water that you typically sell for $10, and you decide to change the price you're offering it for sale to $100, no coercion (using the above definition) has taken place. Potential buyers are free to accept your offer of $100 for a pack of water, or they are free to reject it.
        frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        So under this definition the only thing preventing me from stealing all the water is coercion, right?
        sbenitoj 9y ago
        Not sure that follows from my definition of coercion. Certainly coercion is a deterrent to theft, but most people don't steal because they're socialized when they grow up to believe that stealing is wrong.
  - wang_li 9y ago
    >The analysis lacks empathy. The existence of the need shows a lack of empathy. There is no one alive who doesn't know that there will be emergencies and unexpected events. Their failure to prepare and subsequent expectation that they will have their needs met by tapping the resources of someone who did prepare is selfish and greedy.
    - TaylorAlexander 9y ago
      If people have an expectation that they do not need to be prepared for a disaster because they expect care from others, I might call them foolish. But I have a hard time seeing the sense in accusing people who were unprepared for this of being selfish and greedy. I think the fact that you're claiming these flood victims (who do not all "expect" others to care for them, but may appreciate it) greedy shows a lack of empathy for their difficulty.
      - wang_li 9y ago
        I am making more a response to those who are saying (paraphrasing) "you won't give away all the stuff you have to these unfortunate people who are affected by this huricane? you're a shitty person and you should feel bad." Let's say you have two similarly situated people. Right now everything is fine, as has been the case for years. One of these two people, however, feels that it can't always be good, so they spend some percentage of their income, time, and effort on ensuring they are prepared for some particular severity of disaster. There is an opportunity cost to this choice. They don't get to go to Disneyland with their kids one summer or they don't get to go to the bar every weekend or they skip buying a new phone. Whatever it is, there is definitely something they are giving up. Now the second person figures that the future emergency may never happen and they make a different calculus and instead spend their money and time by taking their kids to Disneyland or by going to the bar every weekend and stay up-to-date with their latest tech gadgets. We could reasonably score these two people's lives and say that the first person has a quality of life score of 10 and the second person has a quality of life score of 15. Eventually Irma or Jose or Katia shows up and rips up all the services, destroys the municipal water service and what not. Suddenly the second person has needs that they cannot meet on their own. The reason they can't meet these needs on their own is because of their decisions about how to allocate their resources. If at this point they say, "well I made my choice and went to disneyland and now i'm fucked, i'd appreciate help, but if you don't provide it i understand." Then that's a very respectable answer. On the other hand if they say "I need what you have, give it over or you're a rotten person." That's not a respectable answer. The expectation that one doesn't need to prepare for bad eventualities and instead just expect to be able to take from others is greedy and selfish. I'm not pointing at specific individuals right now, but rather the general idea that those who don't prepare for their own future actually are being greedy and selfish. Arguments of the nature "I'm going to die if I don't get it" really aren't legitimate if the situation is even somewhat predictable and avoidable.
- josefresco 9y ago
  "If highly-demanded goods become expensive, that incentivises creative behaviour to supply more of those goods. That's a good thing." Maybe in a NORMAL F*CKING MARKET! Not a crisis. How long do you have to be creative when the water is rising in your living room? How quickly can you start an airline that charges reasonable rates when a hurricane is bearing down on your house? What is the economic incentive to rescue you neighbor from their roof during a flood? Sorry for the yelling but jesus, you're suggesting "incentivizing" saving lives.
  - jstanley 9y ago
    You're suggesting not incentivising saving lives, and you think I'm the crazy one?
morgtheborg 9y ago
Many people who could afford something won't buy it unless it's in a range they consider reasonable...or they need it. The market for airplane seats at that price going that distance is usually zero. But given the disaster, the market grows quite a bit. Not because they "can afford it", they could afford it before, but because they need it.
Veelox 9y ago
> gives you a clean way (even if it's not necessarily fair or good) to figure out who gets the last 10 bottles of water. I think op makes a point that it isn't necessarily fair or good but that it is effective way to get more scarce goods to people.

jstanley 9y ago

What part of his argument do you think is wrong? He's absolutely correct. If highly-demanded goods become expensive, that incentivises creative behaviour to supply more of those goods. That's a good thing. If you're not allowed to charge fair market value, that won't make everything magically cheaper, it'll just mean there's not enough to go around.

TaylorAlexander 9y ago
We could choose to go to extraordinary efforts to give these people what they need without seeking monetary compensation. The analysis lacks empathy. Also parent is saying ability to pay doesn't correlate well to need. Many people need plane tickets or water who can't afford sky high prices.
- sbenitoj 9y ago
  Why should those who CAN afford to pay the higher prices be discriminated against by fixing prices and creating shortages so that it's first-come-first-serve instead of the supply being sold to the highest bidder? Fixing supply only creates shortages, you can't repeal the laws of supply and demand.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    >Why should those who CAN afford to pay the higher prices be discriminated against by fixing prices and creating shortages so that it's first-come-first-serve instead of the supply being sold to the highest bidder? Look up discrimination, you're abusing the word. For example why should those who are poor but live close to the store be discriminated against by price gouging? Under first-come-first serve there would be no shortage for them. Also wealth is not a moral virtue and the wealthy don't deserve to survive disasters any more than the poor.
    - sbenitoj 9y ago
      So why not create an organization that voluntarily creates the outcome you desire, why do you have to use coercion to solve the problem?
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        Markets are coercive.
        sbenitoj 9y ago
        Please define coercion.
        frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        You're the one who brought it up. Lay it out.
        sbenitoj 9y ago
        Coercion: The use of physical force or the threat of physical force in as a mean to get someone to comply with your wishes. Continuing to run with this example -- if you are the owner of a pack of water that you typically sell for $10, and you decide to change the price you're offering it for sale to $100, no coercion (using the above definition) has taken place. Potential buyers are free to accept your offer of $100 for a pack of water, or they are free to reject it.
        frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        So under this definition the only thing preventing me from stealing all the water is coercion, right?
        sbenitoj 9y ago
        Not sure that follows from my definition of coercion. Certainly coercion is a deterrent to theft, but most people don't steal because they're socialized when they grow up to believe that stealing is wrong.
- wang_li 9y ago
  >The analysis lacks empathy. The existence of the need shows a lack of empathy. There is no one alive who doesn't know that there will be emergencies and unexpected events. Their failure to prepare and subsequent expectation that they will have their needs met by tapping the resources of someone who did prepare is selfish and greedy.
  - TaylorAlexander 9y ago
    If people have an expectation that they do not need to be prepared for a disaster because they expect care from others, I might call them foolish. But I have a hard time seeing the sense in accusing people who were unprepared for this of being selfish and greedy. I think the fact that you're claiming these flood victims (who do not all "expect" others to care for them, but may appreciate it) greedy shows a lack of empathy for their difficulty.
    - wang_li 9y ago
      I am making more a response to those who are saying (paraphrasing) "you won't give away all the stuff you have to these unfortunate people who are affected by this huricane? you're a shitty person and you should feel bad." Let's say you have two similarly situated people. Right now everything is fine, as has been the case for years. One of these two people, however, feels that it can't always be good, so they spend some percentage of their income, time, and effort on ensuring they are prepared for some particular severity of disaster. There is an opportunity cost to this choice. They don't get to go to Disneyland with their kids one summer or they don't get to go to the bar every weekend or they skip buying a new phone. Whatever it is, there is definitely something they are giving up. Now the second person figures that the future emergency may never happen and they make a different calculus and instead spend their money and time by taking their kids to Disneyland or by going to the bar every weekend and stay up-to-date with their latest tech gadgets. We could reasonably score these two people's lives and say that the first person has a quality of life score of 10 and the second person has a quality of life score of 15. Eventually Irma or Jose or Katia shows up and rips up all the services, destroys the municipal water service and what not. Suddenly the second person has needs that they cannot meet on their own. The reason they can't meet these needs on their own is because of their decisions about how to allocate their resources. If at this point they say, "well I made my choice and went to disneyland and now i'm fucked, i'd appreciate help, but if you don't provide it i understand." Then that's a very respectable answer. On the other hand if they say "I need what you have, give it over or you're a rotten person." That's not a respectable answer. The expectation that one doesn't need to prepare for bad eventualities and instead just expect to be able to take from others is greedy and selfish. I'm not pointing at specific individuals right now, but rather the general idea that those who don't prepare for their own future actually are being greedy and selfish. Arguments of the nature "I'm going to die if I don't get it" really aren't legitimate if the situation is even somewhat predictable and avoidable.
josefresco 9y ago
"If highly-demanded goods become expensive, that incentivises creative behaviour to supply more of those goods. That's a good thing." Maybe in a NORMAL F*CKING MARKET! Not a crisis. How long do you have to be creative when the water is rising in your living room? How quickly can you start an airline that charges reasonable rates when a hurricane is bearing down on your house? What is the economic incentive to rescue you neighbor from their roof during a flood? Sorry for the yelling but jesus, you're suggesting "incentivizing" saving lives.
- jstanley 9y ago
  You're suggesting not incentivising saving lives, and you think I'm the crazy one?

morgtheborg 9y ago

Many people who could afford something won't buy it unless it's in a range they consider reasonable...or they need it. The market for airplane seats at that price going that distance is usually zero. But given the disaster, the market grows quite a bit. Not because they "can afford it", they could afford it before, but because they need it.

Veelox 9y ago

> gives you a clean way (even if it's not necessarily fair or good) to figure out who gets the last 10 bottles of water. I think op makes a point that it isn't necessarily fair or good but that it is effective way to get more scarce goods to people.