3 ms·

> But if the experts are imperfect and people are banned from helping themselves then there really is a problem. Why? You're comparing apples and oranges. Pe

• roenxi 7y ago
  It wasn't a criteria; it was an observation that a system that allows people to help themselves in parallel to the experts is better. The options aren't "experts hold all the power" or "paniced hoarders have all the power". At the moment, the US has set the dial to experts holding all the power and badly flubbed the response; the obvious solution is a mix of expert- and non-expert- control so that when the experts inevitably muck up it isn't the end of the game. If people want to allocate a massive % of societies resources to masks, ICU beds and COVID-19 tests they should be able to. At present, they aren't allowed to and the government doesn't seem to be reacting very quickly. This is classic economics; centralised control and price control where vendors are scared of being dinged for 'price gouging' have immediately resulted in massive shortages. If the government encouraged prices to rise until supplies were only just running out and gave the medical system enough money to buy what they needed in that environment then the situation would resolve much more quickly. The people making face masks, ventilators, ICU beds and similar should be rolling in so much money from panic buyers that it makes sense to hold emergency reserves for the next crisis. That isn't what is happening, so instead we won't have resources for this crisis or the next one. So called 'panic buying' leads to a very healthy economic response after a month or two; which is where we happen to be vs COVID-19. If we'd had more panic buying earlier we'd be in a better spot now, and rapidly moving to a better spot in a month or two. If we allowed people to allocate resources to testing and hospitals despite the opinions of centralised agencies we'd also be a better spot. People like Bill Gates can fight malaria but they can't fight the CDC.
  • ethbro 7y ago
    > when the experts inevitably muck up > government doesn't seem to be reacting very quickly > If the government encouraged prices to rise until supplies were only just running out and gave the medical system enough money to buy what they needed in that environment then the situation would resolve much more quickly > So called 'panic buying' leads to a very healthy economic response after a month or two Your argument would be stronger if you dropped the opinionated hyperbole. If the government transferred funds through the market, vs direct purchases, then we'd be at the mercy of whatever the masses decided they wanted to buy. As of a few days ago, this would have meant that millions of dollars went to toilet paper manufacturers. You seem to be of the opinion that a free market knows best in crisis situations. I feel otherwise. Doubt I'm going to be able to change your mind.
    • roenxi 7y ago
      > Your argument would be stronger if you dropped the opinionated hyperbole. Not actually true, hyperbole doesn't change the quality of the evidence or the strength of the argument. > As of a few days ago, this would have meant that millions of dollars went to toilet paper manufacturers. Nothing wrong with that. If people feel a desperate need to buy overpriced toilet paper then the toilet paper manufacturers and distributors should be encouraged to take advantage of that. If a roll cost $30 that would stop people buying trolleys of the stuff all at once. Instead, shops in Australia have held prices steady and run out of toilet paper; leaving me peeved I have to say. The situation is pretty much strictly worse than if the free market was encouraged in times of crisis. > You seem to be of the opinion that a free market knows best in crisis situations. No, not at all. But suppressing free market forces in a crisis is one of the worst possible responses because it delays the corrective action by suppliers. Prices should be shooting up and down, and governments should be giving hospitals emergency funding so they can buy what they need. That'll provide the best signals of what is needed in a crisis. I bet the free market understood the need for test kits a lot more than the CDC did in America; there would have been hospitals crying out to test people.