6 ms·

It is 1000% rational for individuals to hoard and over-purchase during a shortage. Your charity will only lead to prolonged pain for you as everyone else hoards

It is 1000% rational for individuals to hoard and over-purchase during a shortage. Your charity will only lead to prolonged pain for you as everyone else hoards and over-purchases basic supplies. We saw it with a bunch of commodities last spring. The correct solution for shortages is not to call upon a bunch of suckers to deprive themselves of basic goods, but to enforce rationing, by whatever means necessary. That is, if the goal is to reduce the pain from the shortage. I'm sure people actually hate rationing and love feeling accomplished and resourceful as they screw their community out of supplies. So maybe calling upon suckers to be suckers is, in fact, the rational choice for governments as well.

nostrademons 5y ago
Or let the price rise to equilibrate supply & demand. Rationing tends to create a black market as people who need cash more than they need fuel trade their fuel for cash with people who need fuel more than they need cash.
- thenewwazoo 5y ago
  This comment is precisely right if the goal is to efficiently allocate capital, or if the state isn't prepared to punish those who violate rationing orders sufficiently to make the risk outweigh the reward (whether on the supply side or the demand side).
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  That would tend to allocate the resource according to wealth. It's probably not the largest issue here, but historically this has turned ugly when food shortages were involved and the market cheerfully prioritized middle class hoarding over lower class life-and-death needs.
  - throwaway09223 5y ago
    Resources are allocated according to wealth, full stop. If you have money you can always pay someone to obtain it (by waiting in line or whatever) Recognizing and accepting this fact is the first step towards fixing supply issues.
    - javajosh 5y ago
      Fraud has risk.
    - markvdb 5y ago
      Your reasoning may hold true in many cases. Just please don't follow this "resources are allocated according to wealth, full stop" line to the absurd as you did. You'll get revolts by the have-nots. They will go get what they need from the haves. Money is not just an abstract store of wealth. It's a store of wealth backed by state violence.
      - throwaway09223 5y ago
        I haven't followed anything to the absurd. This is how things currently are as a matter of fact. Using the above example, wealthy people will be able to get gas for their cars during a shortage, regardless of whether there's rationing in place. Whether we like it or not, this is trivially observable. People don't revolt because wealthy people can gas their cars. They revolt when they don't have what they need. Again using the above example, the vehicles of wealthy people simply don't represent a significant consumption of gas. It's not reasonable to talk of revolts or other such nonsense in this context.
      - hooande 5y ago
        The pointless throwaway account is right. Even if the have-nots revolt, they will immediately go back to using some form of money to exchange goods with each other. We can debate how wealthy individuals should become or how high tax rates can be, but wealth will always be how resources are ultimately allocated
        danielheath 5y ago
        When a mob, driven by ongoing deprivation, smashes your window and takes your goods - it may be a stretch to say money was the cause of the redistribution.
      - nostrademons 5y ago
        Revolts by the have-nots are pretty common in world history. Revolts by the have-nots where they actually succeed in displacing the haves are rare; I can only think of the French and Russian revolutions. Revolts where everybody suddenly has enough without creating new classes of haves and have-nots are unheard of. Most revolts end up with poor people killing other poor people, or at "best", everybody killing everybody. When "money" (distinct from wealth) ceases to have the backing of state violence, it's replaced by private violence, backed by other forms of wealth.
- legerdemain 5y ago
  What a textbook response. Do you think American consumers, to take one example, are orderly enough to abide by a $1000 roll of Charmin?
  - gbacon 5y ago
    American consumers have been taught the incorrect cost-plus concept of price formation under which significant increases are tantamount to the imaginary crime of "price gouging."
    - adrianN 5y ago
      Usury is a crime where I live.
      - Lammy 5y ago
        Fun fact: South Dakota gave lenders exemption from usury laws in 1980, leading to the modern credit card industry as we all know it: https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/2072176 https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/2072176 https://www.argusleader.com/story/stu-whitney/2015/04/04/whitney-real-story-behind-citibank/25296111/ https://www.argusleader.com/story/stu-whitney/2015/04/04/whi...
  - treeman79 5y ago
    A bidet is less then that. If one product becomes extremely scarce, find an alternative. Trying to force the price down causes a lot of problems.
    - alisonkisk 5y ago
      A bidet is less than that not during a crisis.
- resonantjacket5 5y ago
  You can do a tiered system. First 10 something gallons is 'rationed' price with it getting slightly more expensive as you want more. Allows you to get more if you really need it, but also ensures that most can get at least some. Albeit it is a lot more complicated to rollout.
  - InvertedRhodium 5y ago
    >Allows you to get more if you really need it Well, not really. It allows me to get more if I can afford it, regardless of need.
    - throwaway316943 5y ago
      Unfortunately we don’t have a better way of determining need other than the amount of work, wealth or property someone is willing to exchange for something. Open to good suggestions though.
      - alisonkisk 5y ago
        Tax the rich so they can't outbid on everything.
  - treeman79 5y ago
    Now you need government workers to decide all this. Costing lot and Reducing efficiency further. So now the base level price of gas is much higher and you don’t have any extra gas to go around. Everyone is poorer. Let prices rise. People will scramble to send gas where it is needed to make a quick buck. Those that it hits hard will drive a lot less. Those that hate the high bills will get more efficient vehicles. Supply goes up, demand goes down, prices fall again.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  There's nothing wrong with that. Black markets are in general a Good Thing.
ehnto 5y ago
My biggest criticism of modern America (and elsewhere) is that individualism coupled with the internet has made many forget that you still live in local communities. You're not hoarding from unknown "others" you are hoarding it from the people around you. But it's hard to tell as society has become so disconnected, you can hardly blame people for not making the connection. That "me versus you all, me first you last" mentality IS totally rational in that context, but it is still detrimental to your community and you have to be comfortable making that choice. My advice is to take enough not too much, there is a difference between hoarding and being supplied and it's pretty obvious when someone is hoarding.
- edrxty 5y ago
  Communities are also becoming bigger. My friends are in mostly one city but scattered over about a thousand square miles. I live in a small-ish community by most standards and yet know basically nobody around me other than a really nosy couple next door that keeps wandering into my garage.
vegardx 5y ago
I've always thought of it as some metric of public trust. If you trust the suppliers and government to step up and be honest about the situation you're currently in and how they're going to get out of it, you're less likely to feel the need to hoard things during a supply shortage. For most people it's about predictability, and trust in a system is a key part of predictability.
brokenkebab 5y ago
You statement stands on the assumption that rationing in itself has no price to pay, which is definitely not true. Rationing is complex, and expensive activity, even if you take the easiest form (e.g. 1 liter to every citizen). Also, rationing which takes into account differences of needs is even more hard, and more often than not is close to impossible. Without it rationing is inherently unfair, and may lead to more strain in society. Finally, it does breed black market, and corruption. All in all, there's no sense in it for a mild, and days-term shortage of something which is not drinking water.
hackeraccount 5y ago
I think this comes down to how you think over purchasing in a shortage works. Is it a large number of people buying just a little bit extra just in case or is it a small number of people buying a whole lot extra just in case? If it's the later rationing seems reasonable; if it's the former increasing the price a small amount would work.
slowhand09 5y ago
Which government do you entrust with this "rationing" strategy? This one? https://www.npr.org/2020/01/20/797996503/political-unrest-in-puerto-rico-after-discovery-of-unused-hurricane-aid https://www.npr.org/2020/01/20/797996503/political-unrest-in...

nostrademons 5y ago

Or let the price rise to equilibrate supply & demand. Rationing tends to create a black market as people who need cash more than they need fuel trade their fuel for cash with people who need fuel more than they need cash.

thenewwazoo 5y ago
This comment is precisely right if the goal is to efficiently allocate capital, or if the state isn't prepared to punish those who violate rationing orders sufficiently to make the risk outweigh the reward (whether on the supply side or the demand side).
jjoonathan 5y ago
That would tend to allocate the resource according to wealth. It's probably not the largest issue here, but historically this has turned ugly when food shortages were involved and the market cheerfully prioritized middle class hoarding over lower class life-and-death needs.
- throwaway09223 5y ago
  Resources are allocated according to wealth, full stop. If you have money you can always pay someone to obtain it (by waiting in line or whatever) Recognizing and accepting this fact is the first step towards fixing supply issues.
  - javajosh 5y ago
    Fraud has risk.
  - markvdb 5y ago
    Your reasoning may hold true in many cases. Just please don't follow this "resources are allocated according to wealth, full stop" line to the absurd as you did. You'll get revolts by the have-nots. They will go get what they need from the haves. Money is not just an abstract store of wealth. It's a store of wealth backed by state violence.
    - throwaway09223 5y ago
      I haven't followed anything to the absurd. This is how things currently are as a matter of fact. Using the above example, wealthy people will be able to get gas for their cars during a shortage, regardless of whether there's rationing in place. Whether we like it or not, this is trivially observable. People don't revolt because wealthy people can gas their cars. They revolt when they don't have what they need. Again using the above example, the vehicles of wealthy people simply don't represent a significant consumption of gas. It's not reasonable to talk of revolts or other such nonsense in this context.
    - hooande 5y ago
      The pointless throwaway account is right. Even if the have-nots revolt, they will immediately go back to using some form of money to exchange goods with each other. We can debate how wealthy individuals should become or how high tax rates can be, but wealth will always be how resources are ultimately allocated
      - danielheath 5y ago
        When a mob, driven by ongoing deprivation, smashes your window and takes your goods - it may be a stretch to say money was the cause of the redistribution.
    - nostrademons 5y ago
      Revolts by the have-nots are pretty common in world history. Revolts by the have-nots where they actually succeed in displacing the haves are rare; I can only think of the French and Russian revolutions. Revolts where everybody suddenly has enough without creating new classes of haves and have-nots are unheard of. Most revolts end up with poor people killing other poor people, or at "best", everybody killing everybody. When "money" (distinct from wealth) ceases to have the backing of state violence, it's replaced by private violence, backed by other forms of wealth.
legerdemain 5y ago
What a textbook response. Do you think American consumers, to take one example, are orderly enough to abide by a $1000 roll of Charmin?
- gbacon 5y ago
  American consumers have been taught the incorrect cost-plus concept of price formation under which significant increases are tantamount to the imaginary crime of "price gouging."
  - adrianN 5y ago
    Usury is a crime where I live.
    - Lammy 5y ago
      Fun fact: South Dakota gave lenders exemption from usury laws in 1980, leading to the modern credit card industry as we all know it: https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/2072176 https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/2072176 https://www.argusleader.com/story/stu-whitney/2015/04/04/whitney-real-story-behind-citibank/25296111/ https://www.argusleader.com/story/stu-whitney/2015/04/04/whi...
- treeman79 5y ago
  A bidet is less then that. If one product becomes extremely scarce, find an alternative. Trying to force the price down causes a lot of problems.
  - alisonkisk 5y ago
    A bidet is less than that not during a crisis.
resonantjacket5 5y ago
You can do a tiered system. First 10 something gallons is 'rationed' price with it getting slightly more expensive as you want more. Allows you to get more if you really need it, but also ensures that most can get at least some. Albeit it is a lot more complicated to rollout.
- InvertedRhodium 5y ago
  >Allows you to get more if you really need it Well, not really. It allows me to get more if I can afford it, regardless of need.
  - throwaway316943 5y ago
    Unfortunately we don’t have a better way of determining need other than the amount of work, wealth or property someone is willing to exchange for something. Open to good suggestions though.
    - alisonkisk 5y ago
      Tax the rich so they can't outbid on everything.
- treeman79 5y ago
  Now you need government workers to decide all this. Costing lot and Reducing efficiency further. So now the base level price of gas is much higher and you don’t have any extra gas to go around. Everyone is poorer. Let prices rise. People will scramble to send gas where it is needed to make a quick buck. Those that it hits hard will drive a lot less. Those that hate the high bills will get more efficient vehicles. Supply goes up, demand goes down, prices fall again.
anigbrowl 5y ago
There's nothing wrong with that. Black markets are in general a Good Thing.

ehnto 5y ago

My biggest criticism of modern America (and elsewhere) is that individualism coupled with the internet has made many forget that you still live in local communities. You're not hoarding from unknown "others" you are hoarding it from the people around you. But it's hard to tell as society has become so disconnected, you can hardly blame people for not making the connection. That "me versus you all, me first you last" mentality IS totally rational in that context, but it is still detrimental to your community and you have to be comfortable making that choice. My advice is to take enough not too much, there is a difference between hoarding and being supplied and it's pretty obvious when someone is hoarding.

edrxty 5y ago
Communities are also becoming bigger. My friends are in mostly one city but scattered over about a thousand square miles. I live in a small-ish community by most standards and yet know basically nobody around me other than a really nosy couple next door that keeps wandering into my garage.

vegardx 5y ago

I've always thought of it as some metric of public trust. If you trust the suppliers and government to step up and be honest about the situation you're currently in and how they're going to get out of it, you're less likely to feel the need to hoard things during a supply shortage. For most people it's about predictability, and trust in a system is a key part of predictability.

brokenkebab 5y ago

You statement stands on the assumption that rationing in itself has no price to pay, which is definitely not true. Rationing is complex, and expensive activity, even if you take the easiest form (e.g. 1 liter to every citizen). Also, rationing which takes into account differences of needs is even more hard, and more often than not is close to impossible. Without it rationing is inherently unfair, and may lead to more strain in society. Finally, it does breed black market, and corruption. All in all, there's no sense in it for a mild, and days-term shortage of something which is not drinking water.

hackeraccount 5y ago

I think this comes down to how you think over purchasing in a shortage works. Is it a large number of people buying just a little bit extra just in case or is it a small number of people buying a whole lot extra just in case? If it's the later rationing seems reasonable; if it's the former increasing the price a small amount would work.

slowhand09 5y ago

Which government do you entrust with this "rationing" strategy? This one? https://www.npr.org/2020/01/20/797996503/political-unrest-in-puerto-rico-after-discovery-of-unused-hurricane-aid https://www.npr.org/2020/01/20/797996503/political-unrest-in...