3 ms·

I'm not saying that that can't happen. There are probably people that are needy and can't afford the increased prices. But, by making it "cheap" enough for the

by zo1 9y ago

I'm not saying that that can't happen. There are probably people that are needy and can't afford the increased prices. But, by making it "cheap" enough for the poor & needy to pay, you've effectively made it "cheap" for the poor and not needy to pay as well. The latter group being much larger and will probably drown out access for the former, so it's a lose-lose if you ask me.

josefresco 9y ago
"There are probably people that are needy and can't afford the increased prices." I would imagine most people fall into this category during a crisis. Access is "drowned out" for everyone ... equally. The alternative is that only the rich have access. Which is better? In both scenerios people die, except in one onnly one class of people die. My point is there should be no "economic" model for private business in a natural disaster where lives are on the line.