5 ms·

> Try to replace ferraris with food and explain that during a famine, most people are simply not in the market for eating. Makes sense to me. Famine suggests t

> Try to replace ferraris with food and explain that during a famine, most people are simply not in the market for eating. Makes sense to me. Famine suggests that someone goes hungry, so obviously not everyone is in the market. So it is either down those who can afford food get what food is available, and thus everyone else is not in the market to buy food. Or you resort to capping the price of food and rely on something like a lottery system, or first come, first serve to determine who ultimately gets the food. Only the latter would be described as a shortage of food.

pyrale 8y ago
Can we assume that starved people are not in the market for living? Would submarines never be short of oxygen if we raised oxygen price ?
- randomdata 8y ago
  > Can we assume that starved people are not in the market for living? I'm not sure that living has a market, but okay, sure. If living is something you can buy, it is quite possible that not everyone will have the desire and willingness to be a buyer. > Would submarines never be short of oxygen if we raised oxygen price ? If you are trying to use short in an economic context to stay consistent with shortage (which, admittedly, makes the phrasing awkward), and not using definitions of short that have no relation to shortage (which would make the question pretty strange in the context of this discussion), then I am not sure why you would want to sell your existing oxygen only to buy it back after the price has gone up? But I guess you can short your oxygen if you wish. Why not?
  - pyrale 8y ago
    > and not using definitions of short that have no relation to shortage "there's a shortage of oxygen" fits perfectly well. My point here is that your definition is purposefully narrowing the problem in order to force one solution. Let's come back to shortage of food. Several ways to tackle it have been applied in the past, that didn't rely on free floating prices: * rationing the limited supply * increasing production etc. There is really no reason to stop at "these people can't afford to participate in the food market, let them starve". However, your definition of "shortage" tells us that the only course of action is precisely that. I'll just go on with my tirade a little bit further, and tackle the "increase production" point. Some people will say that by raising the prices, rational economic agents will enter the market to produce and sell more. This is yet another hint that the definition is not there to define a situation, but to hint at a larger scheme of economic agency. This is precisely why the definition is ideological; it is not meant to define a problem, but to introduce someone's opinion on how to solve that problem. By the way, shortage can be defined as the lack of something needed. This definition does not need further ideological body to make sense, it defines every situation we have touched here, and doesn't fragment the mean of shortage in specific situations.
    - randomdata 8y ago
      > there's a shortage of oxygen" fits perfectly well. It certainly can fit. Context is important though. If you are twenty thousand leagues under the sea and running out of oxygen, an external mechanism (being isolated from people with oxygen to sell) is preventing price from rising. There is nobody to offer a higher price to. You could have all the money in the world and it still isn't going to buy you oxygen. This is indeed a shortage, by very definition. But this is not the same as being unable to afford oxygen. If your submarine is sitting in harbour, with oxygen vendors by your side, and you would be wise to have more oxygen before you use the sub again, but don't have the budget to buy it, then that does not mean there is a shortage of oxygen. It simply means you are not in the market to buy oxygen. > My point here is that your definition Let's be clear here, it is not my definition. This is the formal definition of the word. > By the way, shortage can be defined as the lack of something needed. This is what a shortage is, yes. Price is how we determine need. The one willing to pay the highest price is the one who is in the most need. Those without the desire or willingness to pay a given price are indicating that they do not have the need at that price point, and thus are no longer counted as part of the market. Only when everyone is prevented from offering more money to get what they need do we say it is shortage. Everything that carries a price is lacking to some degree. That is why it has a price: To determine who gets it and who doesn't. The higher the price, the more something is lacking. A hypothetical post-scarcity world would mean that things like food would be given away for free. But that's not the world we live in. There is only so much food to go around, and price determines who gets it, and how much of it they get. Only when an external mechanism stops the price of food from rising would you call it a shortage, however. If shortage simply meant "lacking something needed", everything that has a price would be in a shortage situation, and that would end up being quite meaningless. After all, if there was no limits to availability for a given good or service, it would be free. There is a good reason why the definition of shortage is more nuanced.

pyrale 8y ago

Can we assume that starved people are not in the market for living? Would submarines never be short of oxygen if we raised oxygen price ?

randomdata 8y ago
> Can we assume that starved people are not in the market for living? I'm not sure that living has a market, but okay, sure. If living is something you can buy, it is quite possible that not everyone will have the desire and willingness to be a buyer. > Would submarines never be short of oxygen if we raised oxygen price ? If you are trying to use short in an economic context to stay consistent with shortage (which, admittedly, makes the phrasing awkward), and not using definitions of short that have no relation to shortage (which would make the question pretty strange in the context of this discussion), then I am not sure why you would want to sell your existing oxygen only to buy it back after the price has gone up? But I guess you can short your oxygen if you wish. Why not?
- pyrale 8y ago
  > and not using definitions of short that have no relation to shortage "there's a shortage of oxygen" fits perfectly well. My point here is that your definition is purposefully narrowing the problem in order to force one solution. Let's come back to shortage of food. Several ways to tackle it have been applied in the past, that didn't rely on free floating prices: * rationing the limited supply * increasing production etc. There is really no reason to stop at "these people can't afford to participate in the food market, let them starve". However, your definition of "shortage" tells us that the only course of action is precisely that. I'll just go on with my tirade a little bit further, and tackle the "increase production" point. Some people will say that by raising the prices, rational economic agents will enter the market to produce and sell more. This is yet another hint that the definition is not there to define a situation, but to hint at a larger scheme of economic agency. This is precisely why the definition is ideological; it is not meant to define a problem, but to introduce someone's opinion on how to solve that problem. By the way, shortage can be defined as the lack of something needed. This definition does not need further ideological body to make sense, it defines every situation we have touched here, and doesn't fragment the mean of shortage in specific situations.
  - randomdata 8y ago
    > there's a shortage of oxygen" fits perfectly well. It certainly can fit. Context is important though. If you are twenty thousand leagues under the sea and running out of oxygen, an external mechanism (being isolated from people with oxygen to sell) is preventing price from rising. There is nobody to offer a higher price to. You could have all the money in the world and it still isn't going to buy you oxygen. This is indeed a shortage, by very definition. But this is not the same as being unable to afford oxygen. If your submarine is sitting in harbour, with oxygen vendors by your side, and you would be wise to have more oxygen before you use the sub again, but don't have the budget to buy it, then that does not mean there is a shortage of oxygen. It simply means you are not in the market to buy oxygen. > My point here is that your definition Let's be clear here, it is not my definition. This is the formal definition of the word. > By the way, shortage can be defined as the lack of something needed. This is what a shortage is, yes. Price is how we determine need. The one willing to pay the highest price is the one who is in the most need. Those without the desire or willingness to pay a given price are indicating that they do not have the need at that price point, and thus are no longer counted as part of the market. Only when everyone is prevented from offering more money to get what they need do we say it is shortage. Everything that carries a price is lacking to some degree. That is why it has a price: To determine who gets it and who doesn't. The higher the price, the more something is lacking. A hypothetical post-scarcity world would mean that things like food would be given away for free. But that's not the world we live in. There is only so much food to go around, and price determines who gets it, and how much of it they get. Only when an external mechanism stops the price of food from rising would you call it a shortage, however. If shortage simply meant "lacking something needed", everything that has a price would be in a shortage situation, and that would end up being quite meaningless. After all, if there was no limits to availability for a given good or service, it would be free. There is a good reason why the definition of shortage is more nuanced.