3 ms·

> prioritize those usages that will deal with and help lessen the crisis Who is responsible for that decision? Do they become a bottleneck? Might they make mis

by xapata 7y ago

> prioritize those usages that will deal with and help lessen the crisis Who is responsible for that decision? Do they become a bottleneck? Might they make mistakes? Are they susceptible to corruption? If so, it may be more wise to distribute that decision-making... via the market system.

ineedasername 7y ago
The market system has, so far, benefited hoarders to the detriment of health care providers that need it more. Under normal circumstances, the market system would be just fine. In a crisis, something else is needed on top of normal market forces, which may still play a part for whatever resources are left after they reach those that truly need it. As for who is responsible for that decision, it's a role the government generally fills. Can it be a bottleneck? Yes. But there are extreme bottlenecks now with hospitals already out of, or about to run out of, PPE and ventilators. Might there be mistakes? Sure, but again there are mistakes right now too, with market forces favoring those who can pay, have inside connections, etc., instead of those who need the resources. In short, the detriments you cite are a reality of any system, while their presence during a crisis can be mitigated at least a little, and help critical need be filled at least a little bit easier. Don't let the desire for a "perfect" allocation system blind you to one that is merely "better" than what we currently have now with panic buying, hoarding, price gouging, etc.
- yspeak 7y ago
  I think the point is that if you let prices rise people wouldn't hoard as much. Prices go up demand goes down. High prices also encourage hoarders to sell or other suppliers to come on line, eventually lowering the price for everyone. Government atempts to keep prices low with ill defined and vague "price gouging" laws is a form of price control which while popular never work and result in shortages. This is clearly seen in U.S. gasoline prices. In the 70s when the oil supply was threatened the answer was price controls that led to rationing and shortages. In the 2000s in the U.S. prices quickly climbed from about a $1 a gallon to $4 a gallon or more because of overseas political turmoil and war. Unlike the 70s, prices were allowed to rise, resulting in no shortages, reduced demand as people switched to more efficient cars and other conservation methods, and eventually much more supply as producers were empowered and encouraged by high prices to spend money to explore fracking and other methods leading to the glut of oil and lower prices we have now. Price controls even in a crisis never work and lead to shortages and inefficient behaviors like hoarding or waste. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/coronavirus-there-is-no-such-thing-as-price-gouging/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/coronavirus-there-is-...

by xapata 7y ago

ineedasername 7y ago

The market system has, so far, benefited hoarders to the detriment of health care providers that need it more. Under normal circumstances, the market system would be just fine. In a crisis, something else is needed on top of normal market forces, which may still play a part for whatever resources are left after they reach those that truly need it. As for who is responsible for that decision, it's a role the government generally fills. Can it be a bottleneck? Yes. But there are extreme bottlenecks now with hospitals already out of, or about to run out of, PPE and ventilators. Might there be mistakes? Sure, but again there are mistakes right now too, with market forces favoring those who can pay, have inside connections, etc., instead of those who need the resources. In short, the detriments you cite are a reality of any system, while their presence during a crisis can be mitigated at least a little, and help critical need be filled at least a little bit easier. Don't let the desire for a "perfect" allocation system blind you to one that is merely "better" than what we currently have now with panic buying, hoarding, price gouging, etc.

yspeak 7y ago
I think the point is that if you let prices rise people wouldn't hoard as much. Prices go up demand goes down. High prices also encourage hoarders to sell or other suppliers to come on line, eventually lowering the price for everyone. Government atempts to keep prices low with ill defined and vague "price gouging" laws is a form of price control which while popular never work and result in shortages. This is clearly seen in U.S. gasoline prices. In the 70s when the oil supply was threatened the answer was price controls that led to rationing and shortages. In the 2000s in the U.S. prices quickly climbed from about a $1 a gallon to $4 a gallon or more because of overseas political turmoil and war. Unlike the 70s, prices were allowed to rise, resulting in no shortages, reduced demand as people switched to more efficient cars and other conservation methods, and eventually much more supply as producers were empowered and encouraged by high prices to spend money to explore fracking and other methods leading to the glut of oil and lower prices we have now. Price controls even in a crisis never work and lead to shortages and inefficient behaviors like hoarding or waste. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/coronavirus-there-is-no-such-thing-as-price-gouging/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/coronavirus-there-is-...