6 ms·

> High prices will redirect scarce resources to those who have the means and desire to pay for them. That's true. Don't you think it's also true that those who

> High prices will redirect scarce resources to those who have the means and desire to pay for them. That's true. Don't you think it's also true that those who need a good more have a greater desire to pay for that good? I understand that not everyone has the same ability to pay, but we can't crucify the market on the cross of equity. History shows that when you try to allocate goods based on feelings (some random official's idea of "need") and not prices (which reflect true preferences), you create shortages, black markets, and misery. Command economies just don't work. There are ways of addressing monetary inequality (e.g., a stipend) in an emergency that don't break the fundamental resource allocation function of the market.

numbsafari 7y ago
It is both immoral and incorrect to measure need based on who has the most liquidity.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  Or as we call it 'the US healthcare system'
- quotemstr 7y ago
  No it isn't. Are you against the idea of prices and money generally? If yes, that's been tried. Doesn't work. If no, why are you carving out a special case in your general acceptance of the price mechanism for this particular family of goods? Why is it okay to charge for food?
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    The opinion that charging people out the nose for basic necessities is a bad way to allocate resources isn't the same as being "opposed to money"
    - numbsafari 7y ago
      100% Correct. Money is still really important, but it’s dishonest and counterfactual to argue that mere access to liquidity can determine the clearing price for a market. We know it doesn’t. That’s why we have the Fed.
- someguydave 7y ago
  I’m assuming this is sarcasm. Can you propose an alternative method of measuring need?
  - fatbird 7y ago
    The field of moral philosophy has extensive literature on exactly this subject. The NYTimes has an 'ask an ethicist' column. Every hospital has an ethics board with prepared guidelines on patient triage in times of crisis. That the accepted answer to this question has become "who has the most money?" is a victory for... well, the people with the most money, so I guess we can call this a sterling example of the effects of income inequality. The vast majority not only don't have the majority of the money; they don't even have the moral standing of "legitimate" need.
    - someguydave 7y ago
      The only alternative to “highest bidder wins” is “third party decides”. If people need charity, seeking that charity should be a private matter, not one enforced out the barrel of a gun by uninformed third parties.
      - fatbird 7y ago
        Except the whole point of human governance is to delegate that enforcement to a third party that is a just and neutral arbiter. Unless you want to revert to a state of nature and anarchy without laws or money, you're going to have that third party, and if you have it, then you have other options than "highest bidder", which is itself a value choice enforced on other, non-consenting citizens at the the point of a gun.
        quotemstr 7y ago
        Too much delegation to a third party is called a command economy and history is full of examples of that approach not working, examples going all the way back to the palace economies of the ancient Minoans. The problem is that no third party has enough information or the right incentives to decide fully who should produce what when --- the problem is called "the calculation problem" and has a huge literature. Decentralizing resource allocation decisions using pricing is the only approach that's been shown to work.
saghm 7y ago
> I understand that not everyone has the same ability to pay, but we can't crucify the market on the cross of equity It's mildly astonishing to me that someone would attempt to make an argument in favor of not regulating absurd prices by comparing the alternative to gruesome public execution. Even ignoring the hyperbole, it isn't a very compelling argument; yes, we all agree that destroying the economy is bad, but the whole discussion is about whether enacting these regulations would _actually_ harm the economy more than it helps, so just asserting that it would with an exaggerated metaphor doesn't really add anything useful.
dahart 7y ago
What’s the economic difference between a stipend to consumers and a price cap on suppliers? It sounds like you just suggested regulation as an alternative to regulation...

numbsafari 7y ago

It is both immoral and incorrect to measure need based on who has the most liquidity.

arcticbull 7y ago
Or as we call it 'the US healthcare system'
quotemstr 7y ago
No it isn't. Are you against the idea of prices and money generally? If yes, that's been tried. Doesn't work. If no, why are you carving out a special case in your general acceptance of the price mechanism for this particular family of goods? Why is it okay to charge for food?
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  The opinion that charging people out the nose for basic necessities is a bad way to allocate resources isn't the same as being "opposed to money"
  - numbsafari 7y ago
    100% Correct. Money is still really important, but it’s dishonest and counterfactual to argue that mere access to liquidity can determine the clearing price for a market. We know it doesn’t. That’s why we have the Fed.
someguydave 7y ago
I’m assuming this is sarcasm. Can you propose an alternative method of measuring need?
- fatbird 7y ago
  The field of moral philosophy has extensive literature on exactly this subject. The NYTimes has an 'ask an ethicist' column. Every hospital has an ethics board with prepared guidelines on patient triage in times of crisis. That the accepted answer to this question has become "who has the most money?" is a victory for... well, the people with the most money, so I guess we can call this a sterling example of the effects of income inequality. The vast majority not only don't have the majority of the money; they don't even have the moral standing of "legitimate" need.
  - someguydave 7y ago
    The only alternative to “highest bidder wins” is “third party decides”. If people need charity, seeking that charity should be a private matter, not one enforced out the barrel of a gun by uninformed third parties.
    - fatbird 7y ago
      Except the whole point of human governance is to delegate that enforcement to a third party that is a just and neutral arbiter. Unless you want to revert to a state of nature and anarchy without laws or money, you're going to have that third party, and if you have it, then you have other options than "highest bidder", which is itself a value choice enforced on other, non-consenting citizens at the the point of a gun.
      - quotemstr 7y ago
        Too much delegation to a third party is called a command economy and history is full of examples of that approach not working, examples going all the way back to the palace economies of the ancient Minoans. The problem is that no third party has enough information or the right incentives to decide fully who should produce what when --- the problem is called "the calculation problem" and has a huge literature. Decentralizing resource allocation decisions using pricing is the only approach that's been shown to work.

saghm 7y ago

> I understand that not everyone has the same ability to pay, but we can't crucify the market on the cross of equity It's mildly astonishing to me that someone would attempt to make an argument in favor of not regulating absurd prices by comparing the alternative to gruesome public execution. Even ignoring the hyperbole, it isn't a very compelling argument; yes, we all agree that destroying the economy is bad, but the whole discussion is about whether enacting these regulations would _actually_ harm the economy more than it helps, so just asserting that it would with an exaggerated metaphor doesn't really add anything useful.

dahart 7y ago

What’s the economic difference between a stipend to consumers and a price cap on suppliers? It sounds like you just suggested regulation as an alternative to regulation...