3 ms·

> 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

by 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.

by ethbro 7y ago

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.