3 ms·

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 produc

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?

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?