5 ms·

You aren't seeing a "free market" because all of these big corps are scared to death of being accused of "profiteering" on supplies (with potential liability fr

You aren't seeing a "free market" because all of these big corps are scared to death of being accused of "profiteering" on supplies (with potential liability from anti-"gouging" laws), so they can't raise prices. Their only other option is to restrict the buyer's quantities.

perl4ever 7y ago
They can raise prices moderately on everything to make up for it, and/or stock things that are slightly less appealing in normal times to slow turnover and bias sales towards those more in need. For instance, the pasta section was about 5% full and almost entirely things like whole wheat, cauliflower gluten-free, or turmeric. But that's fine with me. Your tone is that this is not the optimal solution and some misguided people are causing it by mistake. I don't think that's the case. People who get upset about the lack of high prices for scarce commodities seem to me to be inconsistent - if you aren't in a high stakes zero-sum competition, then why should you care much about being able to outbid others? And if you think that you are, how can you ethically defend everyone not getting a minimum ration or be sure that in a so-called free market you will get yours?
- sokoloff 7y ago
  I think the core belief is that supply and demand is a force that can actually cause more supply to come into a market where there is imbalance. IOW: rather than curtail the expression of demand via rationing, actually increase the supply. If the marginal profit on TP is $0.10/roll and the price is not allowed to increase in time of excess demand, you’re likely to see factories optimize to squeeze every efficiency out, trying to eek out another penny per pack of 6 rolls. Imagine instead a world where prices rise in times of excess demand. Producers now have an incentive to maintain flexibility in monthly production, not squeezing the last fractional penny out and instead allowing flex to over-produce when demand is high (and prices/marginal profit is higher). Likewise, warehouse and distribution adapts to capitalize on high prices, using those high prices as a signal to get more goods to flow to those demanding the goods. In other words, more toilet paper is available for people who want toilet paper. Instead of today’s world where I have to shop twice a week instead of once, or can’t add a more vulnerable neighbor’s shopping to my own, because we are limited to how many eggs I can buy in a single trip. How does that help anyone’s health?
  - someguydave 7y ago
    Agreed. It’s deeply scary to me that it this stuff isn’t intuitively obvious to people who have lived in a free market economy their entire lives. The idea that a Soviet bread line is the most “ethical” way to distribute goods is madness.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "I think the core belief is that supply and demand is a force that can actually cause more supply to come into a market" Everybody believes that, in general. But in the short term, the elasticity of supply with respect to price approaches zero. If we ramped up production though, it would be too late, and then there would be a glut.
    - someguydave 7y ago
      How about we let the suppliers and buyers figure that out, rather than having the government get between them with restrictions on how they can contract?
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        Who are the suppliers? The management of the supermarket figured out that the appropriate thing to do was to ration the product. Are you implying they are not suppliers? There's a whole chain of people that work to bring products to people, hence the phrase "supply chain". If some other store did not ration the product, then they would have empty shelves, so I'd go to the one that did.
        someguydave 7y ago
        >The management of the supermarket figured out that the appropriate thing to do was to ration the product. Because they had a government gun to their head in the form of anti-gouging laws, or implications for the same. That's what I am arguing against. If they were free to set prices, they might consider raising prices to keep stores in stock, rather than ration. They might not, if they calculate it will be a long-term PR hit. But right now, they are not free to choose.
- someguydave 7y ago
  > how can you ethically defend everyone not getting a minimum ration To me, the fairest way to distribute any good is to the highest bidder. If someone is truly desperate for food, they will find a way to get the money to pay for it. I would rather that food be instantly available to that highest bidder with a true need, rather than having to jump through some kind of Soviet bread line to get their “ration”. Are you saying it is “ethically” better to have an empty shelf with government price controls than a full shelf with prices set by your high-bidding neighbors? With an empty shelf there is no negotiation possible, simply the will of the government bureaucrat or store manager (with a government gun to his head). They don’t have any personal knowledge of the hungry. With a full shelf the food is right there, and it’s only money. The hungry can communicate their immediate need for food on the spot by forking over the cash. So hell yes the capitalist system is the most ethical. Hunger is a private matter that affects individuals - not a faceless mass to be treated as robots with a government program.
  - Nursie 7y ago
    Historically ignorant and hysterically unethical. This is one of the saddest things I've ever seen on HN.
    - quotemstr 7y ago
      This is why the label "ethical" has become semantically meaningless. People, as you have done here, just define "ethical" as their own point of view and "unethical" as any point of view they reject.
      - Nursie 7y ago
        If that helps you sleep at night. Try re-reading the post I replied to. If it's not making you feel a bit sick, might want to spend some time on introspection. Qu'ils mangent de la brioche though I guess.
        someguydave 7y ago

perl4ever 7y ago

They can raise prices moderately on everything to make up for it, and/or stock things that are slightly less appealing in normal times to slow turnover and bias sales towards those more in need. For instance, the pasta section was about 5% full and almost entirely things like whole wheat, cauliflower gluten-free, or turmeric. But that's fine with me. Your tone is that this is not the optimal solution and some misguided people are causing it by mistake. I don't think that's the case. People who get upset about the lack of high prices for scarce commodities seem to me to be inconsistent - if you aren't in a high stakes zero-sum competition, then why should you care much about being able to outbid others? And if you think that you are, how can you ethically defend everyone not getting a minimum ration or be sure that in a so-called free market you will get yours?

sokoloff 7y ago
I think the core belief is that supply and demand is a force that can actually cause more supply to come into a market where there is imbalance. IOW: rather than curtail the expression of demand via rationing, actually increase the supply. If the marginal profit on TP is $0.10/roll and the price is not allowed to increase in time of excess demand, you’re likely to see factories optimize to squeeze every efficiency out, trying to eek out another penny per pack of 6 rolls. Imagine instead a world where prices rise in times of excess demand. Producers now have an incentive to maintain flexibility in monthly production, not squeezing the last fractional penny out and instead allowing flex to over-produce when demand is high (and prices/marginal profit is higher). Likewise, warehouse and distribution adapts to capitalize on high prices, using those high prices as a signal to get more goods to flow to those demanding the goods. In other words, more toilet paper is available for people who want toilet paper. Instead of today’s world where I have to shop twice a week instead of once, or can’t add a more vulnerable neighbor’s shopping to my own, because we are limited to how many eggs I can buy in a single trip. How does that help anyone’s health?
- someguydave 7y ago
  Agreed. It’s deeply scary to me that it this stuff isn’t intuitively obvious to people who have lived in a free market economy their entire lives. The idea that a Soviet bread line is the most “ethical” way to distribute goods is madness.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "I think the core belief is that supply and demand is a force that can actually cause more supply to come into a market" Everybody believes that, in general. But in the short term, the elasticity of supply with respect to price approaches zero. If we ramped up production though, it would be too late, and then there would be a glut.
  - someguydave 7y ago
    How about we let the suppliers and buyers figure that out, rather than having the government get between them with restrictions on how they can contract?
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      Who are the suppliers? The management of the supermarket figured out that the appropriate thing to do was to ration the product. Are you implying they are not suppliers? There's a whole chain of people that work to bring products to people, hence the phrase "supply chain". If some other store did not ration the product, then they would have empty shelves, so I'd go to the one that did.
      - someguydave 7y ago
        >The management of the supermarket figured out that the appropriate thing to do was to ration the product. Because they had a government gun to their head in the form of anti-gouging laws, or implications for the same. That's what I am arguing against. If they were free to set prices, they might consider raising prices to keep stores in stock, rather than ration. They might not, if they calculate it will be a long-term PR hit. But right now, they are not free to choose.
someguydave 7y ago
> how can you ethically defend everyone not getting a minimum ration To me, the fairest way to distribute any good is to the highest bidder. If someone is truly desperate for food, they will find a way to get the money to pay for it. I would rather that food be instantly available to that highest bidder with a true need, rather than having to jump through some kind of Soviet bread line to get their “ration”. Are you saying it is “ethically” better to have an empty shelf with government price controls than a full shelf with prices set by your high-bidding neighbors? With an empty shelf there is no negotiation possible, simply the will of the government bureaucrat or store manager (with a government gun to his head). They don’t have any personal knowledge of the hungry. With a full shelf the food is right there, and it’s only money. The hungry can communicate their immediate need for food on the spot by forking over the cash. So hell yes the capitalist system is the most ethical. Hunger is a private matter that affects individuals - not a faceless mass to be treated as robots with a government program.
- Nursie 7y ago
  Historically ignorant and hysterically unethical. This is one of the saddest things I've ever seen on HN.
  - quotemstr 7y ago
    This is why the label "ethical" has become semantically meaningless. People, as you have done here, just define "ethical" as their own point of view and "unethical" as any point of view they reject.
    - Nursie 7y ago
      If that helps you sleep at night. Try re-reading the post I replied to. If it's not making you feel a bit sick, might want to spend some time on introspection. Qu'ils mangent de la brioche though I guess.
      - someguydave 7y ago