3 ms·

It's a profitable activity if there is scarcity in the future, regardless of whether I can influence that scarcity. smallnamespace's made the same point as I m

It's a profitable activity if there is scarcity in the future, regardless of whether I can influence that scarcity. smallnamespace's made the same point as I made in the portion you quoted, but made it much more clearly: "To a very good approximation, the marginal impact of any hoarders on the scarcity of a product is zero. Hoarders are not trying to drive scarcity themselves, they are trying to buy a product now because they think the price will rise, but they're not trying to make the price rise by buying it. The distinction is important!"

nate_meurer 7y ago
Both you and smallnamespace are using the same strawman. Who cares about the marginal impact of an individual's actions? The situation in practice is dead simple: widespread hoarding is creating ongoing shortages of various products, and some of these hoarders are using that temporary scarcity to profit from other peoples' desperation. This is entirely predictable and uncomplicated, and it's both ridiculous and irrelevant to quibble over whether the profiteers are "trying to drive" the artificial scarcity to which they're contributing. I honestly don't even know what you're arguing about.
- rahimnathwani 7y ago
  'Who cares about the marginal impact of an individual's actions?' Someone who is trying to understand their motivation (what they're trying to do). 'it's both ridiculous and irrelevant to quibble over whether the profiteers are "trying to drive" the artificial scarcity to which they're contributing' It's not irrelevant. I responded directly to a claim in the comment to which I replied. No tangent. 'I honestly don't even know what you're arguing about.' I'm really interested to know why some folks (not you) are so insistent that the hoarders/profiteers are trying to create a situation (rig the game) rather than just being players in it. I thought the logic of my original point was pretty obvious and, as you say, it's not even that interesting compared with the wider point about the collective effects of the individual actions. So why are people so interested in this small point?

nate_meurer 7y ago

Both you and smallnamespace are using the same strawman. Who cares about the marginal impact of an individual's actions? The situation in practice is dead simple: widespread hoarding is creating ongoing shortages of various products, and some of these hoarders are using that temporary scarcity to profit from other peoples' desperation. This is entirely predictable and uncomplicated, and it's both ridiculous and irrelevant to quibble over whether the profiteers are "trying to drive" the artificial scarcity to which they're contributing. I honestly don't even know what you're arguing about.

rahimnathwani 7y ago
'Who cares about the marginal impact of an individual's actions?' Someone who is trying to understand their motivation (what they're trying to do). 'it's both ridiculous and irrelevant to quibble over whether the profiteers are "trying to drive" the artificial scarcity to which they're contributing' It's not irrelevant. I responded directly to a claim in the comment to which I replied. No tangent. 'I honestly don't even know what you're arguing about.' I'm really interested to know why some folks (not you) are so insistent that the hoarders/profiteers are trying to create a situation (rig the game) rather than just being players in it. I thought the logic of my original point was pretty obvious and, as you say, it's not even that interesting compared with the wider point about the collective effects of the individual actions. So why are people so interested in this small point?