6 ms·

Exactly this. Why is Scrooge McDuck buying the entire supply of something somehow better than evenly distributing it? I can't believe people actually think maki

Exactly this. Why is Scrooge McDuck buying the entire supply of something somehow better than evenly distributing it? I can't believe people actually think making toilet paper $20 a roll is the correct outcome instead of rationing with price controls. Maybe it's the Ferengi mentality of people seeing themselves as the exploiters.

hamandcheese 7y ago
If toilet paper was $20/roll, people would think twice before hoarding, and would probably also use less squares overall.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  Hoarding isn't the (entire) problem, a bigger issue is the sudden shift in consumption from commercial to consumer. Nobody is pooping in office buildings, schools, or shopping centers anymore, everyone is doing it at home. Producers that uses to sell 50/50 consumer to commercial are now selling 90/10 in favor of consumer and they can't reconfigure their production lines fast enough. https://marker.medium.com/what-everyones-getting-wrong-about-the-toilet-paper-shortage-c812e1358fe0?utm_source=pocket-newtab https://marker.medium.com/what-everyones-getting-wrong-about...
  - kortilla 7y ago
    And $20/roll would expedite the changeover pretty quickly.
    - asdkjh345fd 7y ago
      Not if the producers believe that this is temporary and will go back to 50/50 again soon. It isn't worth the cost of making big changes just to have to change back again in a month.
      - lukas099 7y ago
        It may incentivize them to invest in the ability to quickly change the ratio.
        Robin_Message 7y ago
        For a once every hundred years event? Probably not.
- jimmaswell 7y ago
  And a lot of people would just have to go without, As opposed to everyone getting a little with price controlled rationing.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    I think this is the biggest flaw in your argument. If toilet paper was $20/roll, that wouldn't deter someone who has none in the slightest bit. They'd buy one roll and pay $20 in a second. But that guy who was trying to buy a thousand? He's thinking twice.
    - jimmaswell 7y ago
      Yes it is going to deter someone who has none. Is it impossible for you to imagine someone who couldn't afford that premium so they resort to using the shower or something? And do you really think a millionaire is going to be deterred from buying too much in that instance?
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        Someone who couldn't afford $20 for something that lasts more than a month? If this person exists it's because they place a below-average value on toilet paper, not because they don't have $20. And there aren't enough millionaires for their toilet paper buying habits to have a meaningful effect on the market unless they each start buying millions of rolls, which is a ridiculous hypothetical with no chance of really happening.
        michaelmrose 7y ago
        Rolls of TP don't last a month in most households. They normally last 1 to 2 days. You either own a bidet or need to see a doctor.
        ric2b 7y ago
        Most households have more than one person, so in that case the $20 is no longer for a single person.
- simonh 7y ago
  If they thought it might increase to $40 a roll soon, they will hoard. They might not be able to hoard as much of it, but they might still do it. Doubling your money on $1000 worth of rolls is still the same outcome whether that represents 50 rolls or 500 rolls, excepting only the logistics.
- xorcist 7y ago
  > If toilet paper was $20/roll, people would think twice before hoarding, The rational response to $20/roll is to buy as much as possible. It will be worth $40 soon.
- aianus 7y ago
  Anecdotally, this fits with my observations at the grocery store in Canada. All the regularly priced milk, chicken, and eggs were sold out around March 25th but the "organic" milk and chicken at double the price was still in stock as was the AAA steak and the expensive Omega-3 eggs. It appears there is still a fair amount of price elasticity of demand even in a pandemic.
alexmingoia 7y ago
The more you have to exchange for something, the more you're foregoing other forms of consumption. If toilet paper cost you your entire budget, you wouldn't buy toilet paper at all. You'd buy food instead. In that way, prices redirect your consumption to higher priority things. That's what is meant by "more important."
- kaitai 7y ago
  Only if you have to think about money. What you point to is that poor and maybe middle-class people have to 'redirect' their consumption to 'higher priority things', which in some cases is equivalent to just going without. Insulin, rent, or food? Ah, just prioritize, honey!
  - Kaiyou 7y ago
    If the problem is only poor people, maybe they should figure out how to, y'know, stop being poor. Or maybe the answer is for poor people to be pruned. Not sure what the incentives are for keeping poor people alive. If there aren't any, it's just irrational behavior.
- SftwrSvior81 7y ago
  Defining "more important" this way seems limited to one actor. In your original post, you talk about multiple actors, namely hospitals and individual people. Different actors are going to have different budgets and preferences. Suppose you consider toilet paper to be an absolute necessity but at $20/roll, it is not affordable to you. I, on the other hand, don't value toilet paper as much but my budget is much bigger than yours so I can afford and am willing to pay $20/roll. When looking across both actors, could we still say that the "more important" need was met?
- roywiggins 7y ago
  If many people can't afford TP, they will start flushing other things, which will block everyone else's toilets.
Camas 7y ago
In real life the problem isn't Scrooge McDuck buying the entire supply. It's everyone who buys a few extra just to be safe that makes demand rocket.
asiachick 7y ago
If I run out of TP and can't get any more at a reasonable price I will just use cloth towels and wash them right after use. Many people still use cloth diapers with their babies. Running out of TP is a first world problem.

hamandcheese 7y ago

If toilet paper was $20/roll, people would think twice before hoarding, and would probably also use less squares overall.

hannasanarion 7y ago
Hoarding isn't the (entire) problem, a bigger issue is the sudden shift in consumption from commercial to consumer. Nobody is pooping in office buildings, schools, or shopping centers anymore, everyone is doing it at home. Producers that uses to sell 50/50 consumer to commercial are now selling 90/10 in favor of consumer and they can't reconfigure their production lines fast enough. https://marker.medium.com/what-everyones-getting-wrong-about-the-toilet-paper-shortage-c812e1358fe0?utm_source=pocket-newtab https://marker.medium.com/what-everyones-getting-wrong-about...
- kortilla 7y ago
  And $20/roll would expedite the changeover pretty quickly.
  - asdkjh345fd 7y ago
    Not if the producers believe that this is temporary and will go back to 50/50 again soon. It isn't worth the cost of making big changes just to have to change back again in a month.
    - lukas099 7y ago
      It may incentivize them to invest in the ability to quickly change the ratio.
      - Robin_Message 7y ago
        For a once every hundred years event? Probably not.
jimmaswell 7y ago
And a lot of people would just have to go without, As opposed to everyone getting a little with price controlled rationing.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  I think this is the biggest flaw in your argument. If toilet paper was $20/roll, that wouldn't deter someone who has none in the slightest bit. They'd buy one roll and pay $20 in a second. But that guy who was trying to buy a thousand? He's thinking twice.
  - jimmaswell 7y ago
    Yes it is going to deter someone who has none. Is it impossible for you to imagine someone who couldn't afford that premium so they resort to using the shower or something? And do you really think a millionaire is going to be deterred from buying too much in that instance?
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      Someone who couldn't afford $20 for something that lasts more than a month? If this person exists it's because they place a below-average value on toilet paper, not because they don't have $20. And there aren't enough millionaires for their toilet paper buying habits to have a meaningful effect on the market unless they each start buying millions of rolls, which is a ridiculous hypothetical with no chance of really happening.
      - michaelmrose 7y ago
        Rolls of TP don't last a month in most households. They normally last 1 to 2 days. You either own a bidet or need to see a doctor.
        ric2b 7y ago
        Most households have more than one person, so in that case the $20 is no longer for a single person.
simonh 7y ago
If they thought it might increase to $40 a roll soon, they will hoard. They might not be able to hoard as much of it, but they might still do it. Doubling your money on $1000 worth of rolls is still the same outcome whether that represents 50 rolls or 500 rolls, excepting only the logistics.
xorcist 7y ago
> If toilet paper was $20/roll, people would think twice before hoarding, The rational response to $20/roll is to buy as much as possible. It will be worth $40 soon.
aianus 7y ago
Anecdotally, this fits with my observations at the grocery store in Canada. All the regularly priced milk, chicken, and eggs were sold out around March 25th but the "organic" milk and chicken at double the price was still in stock as was the AAA steak and the expensive Omega-3 eggs. It appears there is still a fair amount of price elasticity of demand even in a pandemic.

alexmingoia 7y ago

The more you have to exchange for something, the more you're foregoing other forms of consumption. If toilet paper cost you your entire budget, you wouldn't buy toilet paper at all. You'd buy food instead. In that way, prices redirect your consumption to higher priority things. That's what is meant by "more important."

kaitai 7y ago
Only if you have to think about money. What you point to is that poor and maybe middle-class people have to 'redirect' their consumption to 'higher priority things', which in some cases is equivalent to just going without. Insulin, rent, or food? Ah, just prioritize, honey!
- Kaiyou 7y ago
  If the problem is only poor people, maybe they should figure out how to, y'know, stop being poor. Or maybe the answer is for poor people to be pruned. Not sure what the incentives are for keeping poor people alive. If there aren't any, it's just irrational behavior.
SftwrSvior81 7y ago
Defining "more important" this way seems limited to one actor. In your original post, you talk about multiple actors, namely hospitals and individual people. Different actors are going to have different budgets and preferences. Suppose you consider toilet paper to be an absolute necessity but at $20/roll, it is not affordable to you. I, on the other hand, don't value toilet paper as much but my budget is much bigger than yours so I can afford and am willing to pay $20/roll. When looking across both actors, could we still say that the "more important" need was met?
roywiggins 7y ago
If many people can't afford TP, they will start flushing other things, which will block everyone else's toilets.

Camas 7y ago

In real life the problem isn't Scrooge McDuck buying the entire supply. It's everyone who buys a few extra just to be safe that makes demand rocket.

asiachick 7y ago

If I run out of TP and can't get any more at a reasonable price I will just use cloth towels and wash them right after use. Many people still use cloth diapers with their babies. Running out of TP is a first world problem.