3 ms·

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.
      - Kaiyou 7y ago
        I'm buying toilet paper about once every five years. Not sure how others manage to go through the stuff so quickly. On the bright side, I bought some last year, so I'm covered for a few years.
- neilwilson 7y ago
  "But that guy who was trying to buy a thousand? He's thinking twice." Why wouldn't he just borrow the money to pay for it, hoard the supply and then flip it back onto the market when the price hits $40? You're assuming a finite amount of money, but the monetary system is necessarily elastic. Then the hoard, because it has gone up in value, becomes collateral for more loans. Whereas rationing necessarily solves the distributional conflict instantly. Price auctions only work when the demand is optional and the supply is elastic.
  - bb88 7y ago
    > Why wouldn't he just borrow the money to pay for it, hoard the supply and then flip it back onto the market when the price hits $40? Interesting data point: about three weeks ago a guy was selling single rolls for $5 a piece outside our development. He put his kids in gas masks and had them prance around with a big sign. I'm sure he wasn't doing it for the kindness of his heart.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    Because they are running an enormous risk of a 50 crates of toilet paper being driven up in a hastily hired farm truck direct from a commercial factory at $19 a roll. Then they lose money per roll and that has a crippling effect on their finances because debt magnifies gains and losses. We know that the amount of toilet paper being produced matches how much is being consumed because it did pre-crisis and consumption/production aren't really changing. Any ramp up at all from the factories will quickly lead to a glut of the stuff. The problem is the commercial-private shift causing a mismatch between the orders for consumers and the supply for commercial toilets. If the price goes high enough someone will figure out how to match the two and it will happen really quickly. The price isn't going to climb after the initial spike; it is going to fall.
    - Leherenn 7y ago
      I think the issue here is that we are talking about toilet paper, which is not really vital. In this case, having people priced out for say 2 weeks before prices come down again is not the end of the world. If we were talking about something really vital like food, those same 2 weeks become unacceptable. It's a good thing that it did not happen at the same scale for food (supply is more elastic? demand is less elastic?) and that we can debate about an annoyance, not people starving.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

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.
    - Kaiyou 7y ago
      I'm buying toilet paper about once every five years. Not sure how others manage to go through the stuff so quickly. On the bright side, I bought some last year, so I'm covered for a few years.
neilwilson 7y ago
"But that guy who was trying to buy a thousand? He's thinking twice." Why wouldn't he just borrow the money to pay for it, hoard the supply and then flip it back onto the market when the price hits $40? You're assuming a finite amount of money, but the monetary system is necessarily elastic. Then the hoard, because it has gone up in value, becomes collateral for more loans. Whereas rationing necessarily solves the distributional conflict instantly. Price auctions only work when the demand is optional and the supply is elastic.
- bb88 7y ago
  > Why wouldn't he just borrow the money to pay for it, hoard the supply and then flip it back onto the market when the price hits $40? Interesting data point: about three weeks ago a guy was selling single rolls for $5 a piece outside our development. He put his kids in gas masks and had them prance around with a big sign. I'm sure he wasn't doing it for the kindness of his heart.
- roenxi 7y ago
  Because they are running an enormous risk of a 50 crates of toilet paper being driven up in a hastily hired farm truck direct from a commercial factory at $19 a roll. Then they lose money per roll and that has a crippling effect on their finances because debt magnifies gains and losses. We know that the amount of toilet paper being produced matches how much is being consumed because it did pre-crisis and consumption/production aren't really changing. Any ramp up at all from the factories will quickly lead to a glut of the stuff. The problem is the commercial-private shift causing a mismatch between the orders for consumers and the supply for commercial toilets. If the price goes high enough someone will figure out how to match the two and it will happen really quickly. The price isn't going to climb after the initial spike; it is going to fall.
  - Leherenn 7y ago
    I think the issue here is that we are talking about toilet paper, which is not really vital. In this case, having people priced out for say 2 weeks before prices come down again is not the end of the world. If we were talking about something really vital like food, those same 2 weeks become unacceptable. It's a good thing that it did not happen at the same scale for food (supply is more elastic? demand is less elastic?) and that we can debate about an annoyance, not people starving.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]