10 ms·

For those looking for a different, and maybe deeper perspective on this; this was an interesting podcast. It is maybe the latest example of the shock doctrine /

by dv_dt 8y ago

For those looking for a different, and maybe deeper perspective on this; this was an interesting podcast. It is maybe the latest example of the shock doctrine / disaster capitalism pattern where disasters often lead to profits for those with access to capital. https://www.blubrry.com/thedig/34718421/naomi-klein-and-mercedes-martnez-the-battle-for-puerto-rico/ https://www.blubrry.com/thedig/34718421/naomi-klein-and-merc...

2bitmachine 8y ago
The Dig is like EconTalk for leftists. Even if you’re not onboard with the ideology, the intelligence, researched depth, and interest of the host Daniel Denvir is matched by little else in media today.
Nasrudith 8y ago
The source really undermines itself with the starting sentence - both the crypto-bros and the dystopia assertion without any text elaboration. That sounds kind of obvious from a capital standpoint alone. Disasters cause expensive damages so anyone in a position to repair stands to make money. Anyone who lacks the reserves and needs loans and financing would be needed. I don't think it in itself qualifies as unethical even - while uncomfortable to make money from the misfortune of others the alternatives are worse. Now other associated unethical practices may be involved like price gouging, and probably happened with certainty given both the breadth of history and human greed. It goes without saying that causing the bad situation and then benefiting is an ethical failure even without any bad intent. Deliberately causing it being clear evil.
- 2bitmachine 8y ago
  >dystopia assertion without any text elaboration I think 3000+ dead US citizens, whose deaths were dismissed as “inflated numbers” by a mendacious reality TV star at the head of a global nuclear empire, kind of speaks for itself on the angle of dystopia >I don't think it in itself qualifies as unethical even - while uncomfortable to make money from the misfortune of others the alternatives are worse. Economics doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Puerto Rico is for all intents and purposes a colonial territory of the United States. How ethical a given action is isn’t simply rooted in the action itself, but the history that preceded it and established the power relations upon which any given transaction are premised. Crypto-currency speculators might not want to see themselves through the lens of colonialism, but that’s because they’re part of those who have benefited from colonial expropriation. You either respect the right of the Puerto Rican people to understand their own circumstances (of which anti-colonialism is a long-running, dominant narrative) or you mythologize away that history because it makes you money and you just don’t care. But the history is real no matter how you dress up your amorality in the narratives of economics.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  The gouging is there to motivate people to show up with much needed supplies. If gouging is banned, there won't be supplies available.
  - robotrout 8y ago
    Exactly. Price controls result in famines and shortages. Allow gouging, and the gouger will soon have competition to drive the price down. Very quickly, the price will drop to a reasonable level. Conversely, if you price control, there is no incentive to provide the good or service in the first place, and shortages ensue. Government price control regulations distort markets in a dangerous way.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    That's what the government is for, to bring in those supplies.
    - skookumchuck 8y ago
      The only reason the gougers exist is because the government didn't bring in the supplies.
- pathseeker 8y ago
  Price gouging drastically reduces shortages because anyone with supply will be tempted to quickly move in to capture the high price on the curve. It also encourages people to actually plan ahead so the entire population isn't trying to buy a full tank of gas the same day. You think price gouging is unethical, I think price capping is unethical and harmful since it encourages hoarding and shortages.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    Or, you know, crazy idea, maybe a market based solution to resource allocation in emergencies isn't the best idea.
    - tfha 8y ago
      Can you elaborate? Just stating that the grandparent is wrong isn't great discussion.
    - phil21 8y ago
      I've been alive a decent amount of time now and I've seen no evidence that price controls during disasters are anything more than political fluff for easy points. Everyone - even otherwise reasonable folks - love their 2 minutes of hate on "price gougers" even if the facts don't make much sense. As far as I can tell, all they do is simply limit supply. I'd seriously consider loading up a 53 foot trailer full of generators and drive them 2000 miles to Florida some years if it were legal to sell them at 2-3x retail. But it's not, so I don't bother as it's not worth my time and immense financial risk. And I'm not even in the generator selling business. Someone who is I imagine could be quite incentivized to keep the factory open a few more shifts and ship a bit more if profits were there to offset the additional expense and risk. Instead we have these laws that encourage stuff like a single dude living alone buying 3 cases of water at the gas station and the family of 6 who arrives an hour later can't get a single bottle. Or the dual with dual tanks in his pickup truck filling both up and the folks who come by in their Civic needing 1.5gal to evacuate can't. The response of course to my complaints is rationing, which of course brings up a whole other giant can of worms.
- chc 8y ago
  > I don't think it in itself qualifies as unethical even - while uncomfortable to make money from the misfortune of others the alternatives are worse. Some of the alternatives are worse, not all. In fact, lots of people help alleviate misfortune without profiting from it.
  - darawk 8y ago
    And those people may continue to do so. But their efforts are clearly insufficient.
    - solveit 8y ago
      Indeed, if they were sufficient, price gouging wouldn't work!
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      Can you explain how Japan's recovery efforts post-disasters are insufficient, considering how speedy their recovery seems to be with zero price gouging or taking advantage of victims?
      - darawk 8y ago
        Japan has a very strong culture of mutual aid. It is basically unique in the degree to which it works. If your argument is "Well then we should be more like that", then sure, that'd be great. But that doesn't seem very practical. And even if it were, price gouging will be more effective at allocating resources to the problem. Sure, if you happen to have water in Japan, you may share it with others. But you're not going to buy truckloads of it and drive it across the country. On the other hand, if you have the opportunity to sell those bottles of water for $20 each, you may do just that. Money is extremely effective at mobilizing resources.
        fzeroracer 8y ago
        Can you actually cite and back up your claims? As far as I'm aware Japan is one of the most efficient countries in terms of mobilizing people and resources for disaster response. Are you saying that a country with price gouging will be more efficient than a country without? You still haven't explained how Japan's response is insufficient compared to other countries either.
tyu100 8y ago
Puerto Rico, a territory that has nationalized every major aspect of its economy and was running massive deficits as part of vote-buying schemes, as an exemplar for 'disaster capitalism' is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. It's up there with Venezuela and Nicaragua as a self-inflicted victim of the South/Central American 'pink wave' that has caused so much economic devastation in the last decade.

by dv_dt 8y ago

2bitmachine 8y ago

The Dig is like EconTalk for leftists. Even if you’re not onboard with the ideology, the intelligence, researched depth, and interest of the host Daniel Denvir is matched by little else in media today.

Nasrudith 8y ago

The source really undermines itself with the starting sentence - both the crypto-bros and the dystopia assertion without any text elaboration. That sounds kind of obvious from a capital standpoint alone. Disasters cause expensive damages so anyone in a position to repair stands to make money. Anyone who lacks the reserves and needs loans and financing would be needed. I don't think it in itself qualifies as unethical even - while uncomfortable to make money from the misfortune of others the alternatives are worse. Now other associated unethical practices may be involved like price gouging, and probably happened with certainty given both the breadth of history and human greed. It goes without saying that causing the bad situation and then benefiting is an ethical failure even without any bad intent. Deliberately causing it being clear evil.

2bitmachine 8y ago
>dystopia assertion without any text elaboration I think 3000+ dead US citizens, whose deaths were dismissed as “inflated numbers” by a mendacious reality TV star at the head of a global nuclear empire, kind of speaks for itself on the angle of dystopia >I don't think it in itself qualifies as unethical even - while uncomfortable to make money from the misfortune of others the alternatives are worse. Economics doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Puerto Rico is for all intents and purposes a colonial territory of the United States. How ethical a given action is isn’t simply rooted in the action itself, but the history that preceded it and established the power relations upon which any given transaction are premised. Crypto-currency speculators might not want to see themselves through the lens of colonialism, but that’s because they’re part of those who have benefited from colonial expropriation. You either respect the right of the Puerto Rican people to understand their own circumstances (of which anti-colonialism is a long-running, dominant narrative) or you mythologize away that history because it makes you money and you just don’t care. But the history is real no matter how you dress up your amorality in the narratives of economics.
skookumchuck 8y ago
The gouging is there to motivate people to show up with much needed supplies. If gouging is banned, there won't be supplies available.
- robotrout 8y ago
  Exactly. Price controls result in famines and shortages. Allow gouging, and the gouger will soon have competition to drive the price down. Very quickly, the price will drop to a reasonable level. Conversely, if you price control, there is no incentive to provide the good or service in the first place, and shortages ensue. Government price control regulations distort markets in a dangerous way.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  That's what the government is for, to bring in those supplies.
  - skookumchuck 8y ago
    The only reason the gougers exist is because the government didn't bring in the supplies.
pathseeker 8y ago
Price gouging drastically reduces shortages because anyone with supply will be tempted to quickly move in to capture the high price on the curve. It also encourages people to actually plan ahead so the entire population isn't trying to buy a full tank of gas the same day. You think price gouging is unethical, I think price capping is unethical and harmful since it encourages hoarding and shortages.
- monocasa 8y ago
  Or, you know, crazy idea, maybe a market based solution to resource allocation in emergencies isn't the best idea.
  - tfha 8y ago
    Can you elaborate? Just stating that the grandparent is wrong isn't great discussion.
  - phil21 8y ago
    I've been alive a decent amount of time now and I've seen no evidence that price controls during disasters are anything more than political fluff for easy points. Everyone - even otherwise reasonable folks - love their 2 minutes of hate on "price gougers" even if the facts don't make much sense. As far as I can tell, all they do is simply limit supply. I'd seriously consider loading up a 53 foot trailer full of generators and drive them 2000 miles to Florida some years if it were legal to sell them at 2-3x retail. But it's not, so I don't bother as it's not worth my time and immense financial risk. And I'm not even in the generator selling business. Someone who is I imagine could be quite incentivized to keep the factory open a few more shifts and ship a bit more if profits were there to offset the additional expense and risk. Instead we have these laws that encourage stuff like a single dude living alone buying 3 cases of water at the gas station and the family of 6 who arrives an hour later can't get a single bottle. Or the dual with dual tanks in his pickup truck filling both up and the folks who come by in their Civic needing 1.5gal to evacuate can't. The response of course to my complaints is rationing, which of course brings up a whole other giant can of worms.
chc 8y ago
> I don't think it in itself qualifies as unethical even - while uncomfortable to make money from the misfortune of others the alternatives are worse. Some of the alternatives are worse, not all. In fact, lots of people help alleviate misfortune without profiting from it.
- darawk 8y ago
  And those people may continue to do so. But their efforts are clearly insufficient.
  - solveit 8y ago
    Indeed, if they were sufficient, price gouging wouldn't work!
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    Can you explain how Japan's recovery efforts post-disasters are insufficient, considering how speedy their recovery seems to be with zero price gouging or taking advantage of victims?
    - darawk 8y ago
      Japan has a very strong culture of mutual aid. It is basically unique in the degree to which it works. If your argument is "Well then we should be more like that", then sure, that'd be great. But that doesn't seem very practical. And even if it were, price gouging will be more effective at allocating resources to the problem. Sure, if you happen to have water in Japan, you may share it with others. But you're not going to buy truckloads of it and drive it across the country. On the other hand, if you have the opportunity to sell those bottles of water for $20 each, you may do just that. Money is extremely effective at mobilizing resources.
      - fzeroracer 8y ago
        Can you actually cite and back up your claims? As far as I'm aware Japan is one of the most efficient countries in terms of mobilizing people and resources for disaster response. Are you saying that a country with price gouging will be more efficient than a country without? You still haven't explained how Japan's response is insufficient compared to other countries either.

tyu100 8y ago

Puerto Rico, a territory that has nationalized every major aspect of its economy and was running massive deficits as part of vote-buying schemes, as an exemplar for 'disaster capitalism' is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. It's up there with Venezuela and Nicaragua as a self-inflicted victim of the South/Central American 'pink wave' that has caused so much economic devastation in the last decade.