3 ms·
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
by 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 agoOnly 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 agoIf 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 agoDefining "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 agoIf many people can't afford TP, they will start flushing other things, which will block everyone else's toilets.