6 ms·

No one said anything about only "rich people" "deserving" anything. If you draw the conclusion that only "rich people" will have access to something if the pric

by epr 7y ago

No one said anything about only "rich people" "deserving" anything. If you draw the conclusion that only "rich people" will have access to something if the price is higher (notice they didn't specify how much) that's fine, but don't go putting words in other people's mouths.

wtallis 7y ago
> but don't go putting words in other people's mouths. It's not "putting words in other people's mouths" to explicitly spell out the direct consequences of what they're saying. When the price of a good spikes to several times its everyday market price or even higher, it's reasonable to assume that it's gone up by enough to make it inaccessible to a meaningful portion of the usual customer base.
- goodside 7y ago
  For a disposable item like face masks, consumers would gladly pay 3x the pre-pandemic mask prices for their own personal use. The buyers who aren’t willing to pay 3x are hoarders and resellers, because there’s no guarantee enough people will pay 5x or 6x for it to be worth it. If the manufacturer prices are allowed to rise, the profits incentivize increased manufacturing. If the prices aren’t allowed to rise, the rationally selfish strategy is to hoard the entire stock of any non-gouging manufacturer and sell the product on a gray market like Amazon where anti-gouging rules are poorly enforced. The profits obtained by resellers could have instead gone to manufacturers, encouraging more people to become manufacturers until prices return to normal. Nobody wants masks to be unavailable to the poor. The disagreement is what measures will best make them available to everyone, the poor included. It’s reasonable for people to disagree on whether relaxing price controls would achieve this end. But to say that free-market advocates believe the poor “don’t deserve” access to masks is as disingenuous as saying anti-gouging advocates believe the public “deserves shortages”, or that people who aren’t tenacious enough to find masks at any price in a hoarding-dominated environment deserve to die. Any sane person acknowledges both solutions have major drawbacks.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    "Free market advocates instead believe the poor should get essential goods last, if there's still enough profit in it." That fits your narrative, no? Free market ultimately amounts to how much can we push people's capacity to suffer in order to profit the Capitalists, can we raise the price of water, can we raise the price of food, can we work people 20 hours a day, will they still work if they can't afford clothes, can we psychological convince them not to riot and so remove even more of their humanity; will the poor still work if life-expectancy is down to 60 years, howabout 59?
TeMPOraL 7y ago
It's the literal and direct point of rising the price. If an item is sought after by everyone, then rising the price primarily cuts off the least wealthy part.
- epr 7y ago
  Raising the price does not "primarily" cut off the least wealthy potential buyers, that is just one of the effects. Much more important is that it prevents people from hoarding, which is by far the most common result of prices being drastically lower than they ought to be. Leaving the prices low predictably causes shortages, which shut out virtually everyone from purchasing the masks, including the microscopic percentage that wouldn't be able to afford the price increase on an item that usually costs pennies.
triceratops 7y ago
You didn't answer why imposing limits on how many each individual may purchase isn't a reasonable solution. It prevents hoarding and keeps prices normal. Sure, the manufacturer or retailer doesn't profit, but if they were happy to get price $X pre-panic, why are they not happy to get the same price now? Their costs haven't changed (yet).
- toohotatopic 7y ago
  It just forces the people who corner the market to employ agents who buy the products in smaller batches. It helps a bit but doesn't fundamentally change the dynamics.
  - triceratops 7y ago
    It does though. If you employ agents, you have to pay them, which increases your costs. If you're buying for yourself, you only pay for the cost of the item. So this would do exactly what everyone is recommending per economic theory - raise costs for scalpers, keep them sane for everyone else. Purchase limits provide an easy selection mechanism between scalpers and others. Also, in a situation like this, how many people would choose to be an agent for someone else, versus buying for themselves?
    - toohotatopic 7y ago
      All the waiters who are out of their jobs and urgently need money.
      - triceratops 7y ago
        Cool. So costs go up only for scalpers and the unemployed get some cash? Sounds like a win-win to me :-)
- pandaman 7y ago
  They were happy to get $X price before the panic because they could produce Y units at that price and there was demand for only Y units. If price is not increased there is no reason to believe they could make more units at the same price. In fact, there is strong reason to believe, that they have already lowered the price to such a level where only making Y units is possible. So, if the demand rises above Y then there are just two possible outcomes: a) price raises to produce more units and satisfy the new demand b) price remain the same and all additional demand remains unsatisfied. For additional reading: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

by epr 7y ago

wtallis 7y ago

> but don't go putting words in other people's mouths. It's not "putting words in other people's mouths" to explicitly spell out the direct consequences of what they're saying. When the price of a good spikes to several times its everyday market price or even higher, it's reasonable to assume that it's gone up by enough to make it inaccessible to a meaningful portion of the usual customer base.

goodside 7y ago
For a disposable item like face masks, consumers would gladly pay 3x the pre-pandemic mask prices for their own personal use. The buyers who aren’t willing to pay 3x are hoarders and resellers, because there’s no guarantee enough people will pay 5x or 6x for it to be worth it. If the manufacturer prices are allowed to rise, the profits incentivize increased manufacturing. If the prices aren’t allowed to rise, the rationally selfish strategy is to hoard the entire stock of any non-gouging manufacturer and sell the product on a gray market like Amazon where anti-gouging rules are poorly enforced. The profits obtained by resellers could have instead gone to manufacturers, encouraging more people to become manufacturers until prices return to normal. Nobody wants masks to be unavailable to the poor. The disagreement is what measures will best make them available to everyone, the poor included. It’s reasonable for people to disagree on whether relaxing price controls would achieve this end. But to say that free-market advocates believe the poor “don’t deserve” access to masks is as disingenuous as saying anti-gouging advocates believe the public “deserves shortages”, or that people who aren’t tenacious enough to find masks at any price in a hoarding-dominated environment deserve to die. Any sane person acknowledges both solutions have major drawbacks.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  "Free market advocates instead believe the poor should get essential goods last, if there's still enough profit in it." That fits your narrative, no? Free market ultimately amounts to how much can we push people's capacity to suffer in order to profit the Capitalists, can we raise the price of water, can we raise the price of food, can we work people 20 hours a day, will they still work if they can't afford clothes, can we psychological convince them not to riot and so remove even more of their humanity; will the poor still work if life-expectancy is down to 60 years, howabout 59?

TeMPOraL 7y ago

It's the literal and direct point of rising the price. If an item is sought after by everyone, then rising the price primarily cuts off the least wealthy part.

epr 7y ago
Raising the price does not "primarily" cut off the least wealthy potential buyers, that is just one of the effects. Much more important is that it prevents people from hoarding, which is by far the most common result of prices being drastically lower than they ought to be. Leaving the prices low predictably causes shortages, which shut out virtually everyone from purchasing the masks, including the microscopic percentage that wouldn't be able to afford the price increase on an item that usually costs pennies.

triceratops 7y ago

You didn't answer why imposing limits on how many each individual may purchase isn't a reasonable solution. It prevents hoarding and keeps prices normal. Sure, the manufacturer or retailer doesn't profit, but if they were happy to get price $X pre-panic, why are they not happy to get the same price now? Their costs haven't changed (yet).

toohotatopic 7y ago
It just forces the people who corner the market to employ agents who buy the products in smaller batches. It helps a bit but doesn't fundamentally change the dynamics.
- triceratops 7y ago
  It does though. If you employ agents, you have to pay them, which increases your costs. If you're buying for yourself, you only pay for the cost of the item. So this would do exactly what everyone is recommending per economic theory - raise costs for scalpers, keep them sane for everyone else. Purchase limits provide an easy selection mechanism between scalpers and others. Also, in a situation like this, how many people would choose to be an agent for someone else, versus buying for themselves?
  - toohotatopic 7y ago
    All the waiters who are out of their jobs and urgently need money.
    - triceratops 7y ago
      Cool. So costs go up only for scalpers and the unemployed get some cash? Sounds like a win-win to me :-)
pandaman 7y ago
They were happy to get $X price before the panic because they could produce Y units at that price and there was demand for only Y units. If price is not increased there is no reason to believe they could make more units at the same price. In fact, there is strong reason to believe, that they have already lowered the price to such a level where only making Y units is possible. So, if the demand rises above Y then there are just two possible outcomes: a) price raises to produce more units and satisfy the new demand b) price remain the same and all additional demand remains unsatisfied. For additional reading: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand