8 ms·

>We would be doing our entire society a severe disservice if our solution to this problem is simply "create so much toilet paper that people can't hoard it." Th

>We would be doing our entire society a severe disservice if our solution to this problem is simply "create so much toilet paper that people can't hoard it." The fuck are we going to do with that much toilet paper. If people want that much toilet paper, the only solution that's going to satisfy them is producing all the toilet paper they want. Society is just an aggregate of people, and if enough of them want for whatever reason a shit-tonne of toilet paper, it would be doing them a disservice to stop the market from giving them what they want.

EdgarVerona 7y ago
Really? Regardless of the consequences? What becomes of that toilet paper when this fear has subsided? What becomes of the companies that had to scale production, create new factories, hire new workers etc... when the existing glut of supply is not only so much that those new facilities are hurting them, but also that it has decreased the demand for their product even with normal production capabilities?
- logicchains 7y ago
  >What becomes of that toilet paper when this fear has subsided? It doesn't expire? People just use it up, and don't buy more until they've used all their store. >What becomes of the companies that had to scale production, create new factories, hire new workers etc... when the existing glut of supply is not only so much that those new facilities are hurting them, but also that it has decreased the demand for their product even with normal production capabilities? They only would have made the decision to scale production if they estimated the profit from filling this short-term demand would make up for the cost of having to eventually scale back the temporary investment. It's not exactly hard to predict that the demand won't last forever. Ultimately the amount of toilet paper bought/consumed isn't going to change significantly, just the purchase dates will cluster together.
  - EdgarVerona 7y ago
    > They only would have made the decision to scale production if they estimated the profit from filling this short-term demand would make up for the cost of having to eventually scale back the temporary investment. It's not exactly hard to predict that the demand won't last forever. So what you're saying is, they wouldn't have scaled production, so your entire proposition about why the price increase would be an effective means to alleviate the problem was false.
    - logicchains 7y ago
      >So what you're saying is, they wouldn't have scaled production, so your entire proposition about why the price increase would be an effective means to alleviate the problem was false. Scaling production is not a binary yes/no thing; they wouldn't scale it so much that scaling back hurt them more than the profit they made from scaling gained them. Or to look at it another way, only the producers who could scale without "too much" cost would scale.
    - EdgarVerona 7y ago
      > only the producers who could scale without "too much" cost would scale. > the rise in price incentivises the market to produce more of the product / incentivises more producers to enter the market It sounds like this is built under an assumption that there is extra capacity available without significant or permanent costs. I don't know the level of capacity at which they are currently producing, but rationally speaking the mere fact that the shelves are empty due to demand would mean that intelligent companies would already have ramped up that capacity in response. So if the shelves remain empty, is that a sign that we've reached the level of demand where the cost of additional supply becomes more expensive/ongoing?
geofft 7y ago
You could, alternatively, convince them that they don't want that much toilet paper. For instance, convince them that stores will not run out of stock and that they will be able to go to stores. This is the normal state of the toilet paper market. The problem here is not that we've suddenly been possessed by demons who want infinite toilet paper, the problem is that people are making rational decisions based on actual facts on the ground changing. Some of those rational decisions are "I'm worried I won't be able to get what I need because I hear that stores are running out." Other rational decisions are "I think I can make a profit on this because of upcoming scarcity." ("Rational" is not a value judgment.) If you can prevent people from believing those "because" clauses, they'll stop demanding it. Also, price-gouging laws do not "stop the market from giving them what they want." If anything, price gouging does - if someone who has $100 in savings wants a year's worth of toilet paper, they're less able to successfully get it if the market can run unchecked. It's true that an unregulated free market is good at getting products sold at the best price for the sellers - that's very different from giving people what they want.
- logicchains 7y ago
  >Also, price-gouging laws do not "stop the market from giving them what they want." If anything, price gouging does - if someone who has $100 in savings wants a year's worth of toilet paper, they're less able to successfully get it if the market can run unchecked. It's true that an unregulated free market is good at getting products sold at the best price for the sellers - that's very different from giving people what they want. This is missing the original point: the rise in price incentivises the market to produce more of the product / incentivises more producers to enter the market. This means more product is produced, so that in the end more people have it than they would otherwise. Without that, whether the guy with $100 worth of toilet paper gets what he wants is just determined by how fast he is to get to the store.
  - geofft 7y ago
    > the rise in price incentivises the market to produce more of the product / incentivises more producers to enter the market I really don't see evidence that it does. Remember that there are two steps here: production and retail sale. It certainly incentivizes price-gouging resellers to collect more of the product and incentivizes people to become resellers - see the various folks who are "hustling" by buying out their local Costco and reselling online for a markup. I haven't seen evidence that e.g. Charmin is saying, "Thanks to higher prices, we're able to see more toilet paper" or "We're limited in supply, we're going to have to raise prices." That was the original point. At the top of the thread you're replying to: > These products are being made in sufficient quantity for everyone. There is not a significant decrease in production. There is a significant increase in hoarding, and in many cases it is for the explicit purpose of creating artificial scarcity to increase the price of a product. If you disagree with that, please present evidence of decreases in production / insufficient production / etc. There's been plenty of evidence in this comment section about the existence of profiteers. (Perhaps the confusion here is whether price-gouging laws prevent your local corner store from selling more expensive toilet paper if their actual wholesale cost goes up? I would think they don't, and I would in fact agree that they should not and such a law would be a bad thing. It should prevent them from charging more markup, and either it should prevent them from buying from opportunistic intermediaries who are charging them more or it should apply to such intermediaries directly.)

EdgarVerona 7y ago

Really? Regardless of the consequences? What becomes of that toilet paper when this fear has subsided? What becomes of the companies that had to scale production, create new factories, hire new workers etc... when the existing glut of supply is not only so much that those new facilities are hurting them, but also that it has decreased the demand for their product even with normal production capabilities?

logicchains 7y ago
>What becomes of that toilet paper when this fear has subsided? It doesn't expire? People just use it up, and don't buy more until they've used all their store. >What becomes of the companies that had to scale production, create new factories, hire new workers etc... when the existing glut of supply is not only so much that those new facilities are hurting them, but also that it has decreased the demand for their product even with normal production capabilities? They only would have made the decision to scale production if they estimated the profit from filling this short-term demand would make up for the cost of having to eventually scale back the temporary investment. It's not exactly hard to predict that the demand won't last forever. Ultimately the amount of toilet paper bought/consumed isn't going to change significantly, just the purchase dates will cluster together.
- EdgarVerona 7y ago
  > They only would have made the decision to scale production if they estimated the profit from filling this short-term demand would make up for the cost of having to eventually scale back the temporary investment. It's not exactly hard to predict that the demand won't last forever. So what you're saying is, they wouldn't have scaled production, so your entire proposition about why the price increase would be an effective means to alleviate the problem was false.
  - logicchains 7y ago
    >So what you're saying is, they wouldn't have scaled production, so your entire proposition about why the price increase would be an effective means to alleviate the problem was false. Scaling production is not a binary yes/no thing; they wouldn't scale it so much that scaling back hurt them more than the profit they made from scaling gained them. Or to look at it another way, only the producers who could scale without "too much" cost would scale.
  - EdgarVerona 7y ago
    > only the producers who could scale without "too much" cost would scale. > the rise in price incentivises the market to produce more of the product / incentivises more producers to enter the market It sounds like this is built under an assumption that there is extra capacity available without significant or permanent costs. I don't know the level of capacity at which they are currently producing, but rationally speaking the mere fact that the shelves are empty due to demand would mean that intelligent companies would already have ramped up that capacity in response. So if the shelves remain empty, is that a sign that we've reached the level of demand where the cost of additional supply becomes more expensive/ongoing?

geofft 7y ago

You could, alternatively, convince them that they don't want that much toilet paper. For instance, convince them that stores will not run out of stock and that they will be able to go to stores. This is the normal state of the toilet paper market. The problem here is not that we've suddenly been possessed by demons who want infinite toilet paper, the problem is that people are making rational decisions based on actual facts on the ground changing. Some of those rational decisions are "I'm worried I won't be able to get what I need because I hear that stores are running out." Other rational decisions are "I think I can make a profit on this because of upcoming scarcity." ("Rational" is not a value judgment.) If you can prevent people from believing those "because" clauses, they'll stop demanding it. Also, price-gouging laws do not "stop the market from giving them what they want." If anything, price gouging does - if someone who has $100 in savings wants a year's worth of toilet paper, they're less able to successfully get it if the market can run unchecked. It's true that an unregulated free market is good at getting products sold at the best price for the sellers - that's very different from giving people what they want.

logicchains 7y ago
>Also, price-gouging laws do not "stop the market from giving them what they want." If anything, price gouging does - if someone who has $100 in savings wants a year's worth of toilet paper, they're less able to successfully get it if the market can run unchecked. It's true that an unregulated free market is good at getting products sold at the best price for the sellers - that's very different from giving people what they want. This is missing the original point: the rise in price incentivises the market to produce more of the product / incentivises more producers to enter the market. This means more product is produced, so that in the end more people have it than they would otherwise. Without that, whether the guy with $100 worth of toilet paper gets what he wants is just determined by how fast he is to get to the store.
- geofft 7y ago
  > the rise in price incentivises the market to produce more of the product / incentivises more producers to enter the market I really don't see evidence that it does. Remember that there are two steps here: production and retail sale. It certainly incentivizes price-gouging resellers to collect more of the product and incentivizes people to become resellers - see the various folks who are "hustling" by buying out their local Costco and reselling online for a markup. I haven't seen evidence that e.g. Charmin is saying, "Thanks to higher prices, we're able to see more toilet paper" or "We're limited in supply, we're going to have to raise prices." That was the original point. At the top of the thread you're replying to: > These products are being made in sufficient quantity for everyone. There is not a significant decrease in production. There is a significant increase in hoarding, and in many cases it is for the explicit purpose of creating artificial scarcity to increase the price of a product. If you disagree with that, please present evidence of decreases in production / insufficient production / etc. There's been plenty of evidence in this comment section about the existence of profiteers. (Perhaps the confusion here is whether price-gouging laws prevent your local corner store from selling more expensive toilet paper if their actual wholesale cost goes up? I would think they don't, and I would in fact agree that they should not and such a law would be a bad thing. It should prevent them from charging more markup, and either it should prevent them from buying from opportunistic intermediaries who are charging them more or it should apply to such intermediaries directly.)