6 ms·

The fact that the current government did a crap job isn't reason to jump on a free market solution. The free market does optimize, just not to anything fair, eq

The fact that the current government did a crap job isn't reason to jump on a free market solution. The free market does optimize, just not to anything fair, equitable, or even the most efficient in protecting the population. The solution is to have a government plan that optimizes for the proper variables and the means to apply that plan.

geofft 6y ago
Also, the free market is extremely slow! Remember the whole PS5 hoarding saga from like a week ago - if you let the free market figure out the vaccine, someone will decide they can buy thousands of doses and resell them for profit in a couple of weeks once supply becomes smaller, and in the meantime, as the author worries, exponential spread will continue. Even if you apply rationing (you could say that every dose purchased must be associated with a natural person who is going to get the vaccine as soon as it's shipped), the vaccine maker is now in the same position - why sell the vaccine for $100/dose to Hospital A today if they suspect that the bigger, richer, more bureaucratic Hospital B will get around to making an offer for $110/dose tomorrow? So the "free market" solution here involves compelling the vaccine makers to accept any price offered immediately as well as preventing a secondary market, i.e., killing every mechanism for price discovery, which is the core mechanism of free markets. You can't really call it a market at that point, and all your intuitions about market efficiency go out the window.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  There's a pretty short shelf life, so lots of incentive to avoid holding it. A PS5 ages very well by comparison. Which isn't to say that I think a market allocation would be working any better (there'd be plenty of stupid buyers and so on).
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    Six months is a pretty long time. Whether vaccine or PS5, six months is more than long enough to enable you to sell at peak price.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      Are there 1 billion high bidders (they have huge production goals)? Also, the 6 months is for deep freeze storage, the next level of storage, the shippers+dry ice, is 30 days.
  - greggman3 6y ago
    As an example of something that expires quickly, concert tickets, and yet people do buy them only to resell them.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > Also, the free market is extremely slow! The free market is the second fastest organisational method we have, beaten only by the military which can achieve specific operational goals extremely quickly. The free market is by far the fastest and most efficient force at sustained logistics. As I recall it first group to have good Coronavirus testing was the Koreans who let private industry do its thing [0]. The free market with government as another equal client would be faster than the government at distribution a vaccine. [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/12/asia/coronavirus-south-korea-testing-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/12/asia/coronavirus-south-ko...
  - majormajor 6y ago
    This is a pretty specific operational goal so why haven't we used our military? WTF are we spending so much money on them for if not for combating something that's caused hundreds of thousands of deaths?
    - roenxi 6y ago
      > This is a pretty specific operational goal so why haven't we used our military? As in "fly over to Pakistan and assassinate bin Laden" sort of goals. Stuff that burns unreasonable amounts of resources to do something very specific very quickly. If something takes months to execute the market will be faster. "Get a vaccine to everyone who can afford it" is something that the market will be fastest at. It would be prudent to leave it alone to solve that problem. Government can go solve a different problem.
      - majormajor 6y ago
        I disagree on the effectiveness of market solutions for fighting a year-long military campaign. No, it's not a single "assassinate bin Laden" mission, but it maps pretty well to a war where you have both tactical goals to achieve with logistical challenges AND overarching strategic goals. The market SUCKS at strategic goals. It's basically the opposite: you're giving up on strategic goals because you're in a situation where you don't think central planning can be as effective as competition. But military history shows us that central planning can be very effective for this sort of campaign, complete with elaborate supply chains and logistical accomplishments.
solidsnack9000 6y ago
If you can get that government plan, great. The point that the author is making, is that in the absence of any such plan, market mechanisms would have allowed many of the people with regards to whom it is a collective benefit for us all if they have received the vaccine -- first responders, people who have jobs that require them to travel or be in public, and people who want to party -- to actually be able to get it. The free market doesn't always optimize to what is best, but the author makes a reasonable argument that in this case it would. You don't seem to disagree with their analysis, just markets in general -- and that's a politicized, unhelpful approach.

geofft 6y ago

Also, the free market is extremely slow! Remember the whole PS5 hoarding saga from like a week ago - if you let the free market figure out the vaccine, someone will decide they can buy thousands of doses and resell them for profit in a couple of weeks once supply becomes smaller, and in the meantime, as the author worries, exponential spread will continue. Even if you apply rationing (you could say that every dose purchased must be associated with a natural person who is going to get the vaccine as soon as it's shipped), the vaccine maker is now in the same position - why sell the vaccine for $100/dose to Hospital A today if they suspect that the bigger, richer, more bureaucratic Hospital B will get around to making an offer for $110/dose tomorrow? So the "free market" solution here involves compelling the vaccine makers to accept any price offered immediately as well as preventing a secondary market, i.e., killing every mechanism for price discovery, which is the core mechanism of free markets. You can't really call it a market at that point, and all your intuitions about market efficiency go out the window.

maxerickson 6y ago
There's a pretty short shelf life, so lots of incentive to avoid holding it. A PS5 ages very well by comparison. Which isn't to say that I think a market allocation would be working any better (there'd be plenty of stupid buyers and so on).
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  Six months is a pretty long time. Whether vaccine or PS5, six months is more than long enough to enable you to sell at peak price.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    Are there 1 billion high bidders (they have huge production goals)? Also, the 6 months is for deep freeze storage, the next level of storage, the shippers+dry ice, is 30 days.
- greggman3 6y ago
  As an example of something that expires quickly, concert tickets, and yet people do buy them only to resell them.
roenxi 6y ago
> Also, the free market is extremely slow! The free market is the second fastest organisational method we have, beaten only by the military which can achieve specific operational goals extremely quickly. The free market is by far the fastest and most efficient force at sustained logistics. As I recall it first group to have good Coronavirus testing was the Koreans who let private industry do its thing [0]. The free market with government as another equal client would be faster than the government at distribution a vaccine. [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/12/asia/coronavirus-south-korea-testing-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/12/asia/coronavirus-south-ko...
- majormajor 6y ago
  This is a pretty specific operational goal so why haven't we used our military? WTF are we spending so much money on them for if not for combating something that's caused hundreds of thousands of deaths?
  - roenxi 6y ago
    > This is a pretty specific operational goal so why haven't we used our military? As in "fly over to Pakistan and assassinate bin Laden" sort of goals. Stuff that burns unreasonable amounts of resources to do something very specific very quickly. If something takes months to execute the market will be faster. "Get a vaccine to everyone who can afford it" is something that the market will be fastest at. It would be prudent to leave it alone to solve that problem. Government can go solve a different problem.
    - majormajor 6y ago
      I disagree on the effectiveness of market solutions for fighting a year-long military campaign. No, it's not a single "assassinate bin Laden" mission, but it maps pretty well to a war where you have both tactical goals to achieve with logistical challenges AND overarching strategic goals. The market SUCKS at strategic goals. It's basically the opposite: you're giving up on strategic goals because you're in a situation where you don't think central planning can be as effective as competition. But military history shows us that central planning can be very effective for this sort of campaign, complete with elaborate supply chains and logistical accomplishments.

solidsnack9000 6y ago

If you can get that government plan, great. The point that the author is making, is that in the absence of any such plan, market mechanisms would have allowed many of the people with regards to whom it is a collective benefit for us all if they have received the vaccine -- first responders, people who have jobs that require them to travel or be in public, and people who want to party -- to actually be able to get it. The free market doesn't always optimize to what is best, but the author makes a reasonable argument that in this case it would. You don't seem to disagree with their analysis, just markets in general -- and that's a politicized, unhelpful approach.