19 ms·

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

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.
kolinko 5y ago
I lived in a communist country that rationed everything (meat, fuel, and so on, due to persistent shortages). No, money didn’t matter much. You could have money and still do nothing with it. You needed connections and an ability to kombinować (untranslable word, but somenthing akin to hustle or hack). Not saying here that rationing is bad by itself (I think people would starve or revolt otherwise). But that your „full stop” is not always true. Also, during mask shortages and toilet paper shortages last year, in no country I think, money would help you much. I could pay $1000 for N95 back then (literally), and wasn’t able to find one. Oh oh, and remember that scene in Titanic where a rich guy offers a pile of money to get on a life boat? :,)
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > kombinować To scheme or connive feels about right to me haha. It's a tough word for sure.
- kolinko 5y ago
  I would love someone to explain the downvotes here, thanks.
  - throwaway09223 5y ago
    I didn't downvote you, but I think people may have downvoted you because some of the points you made are either not accurate or are somewhat misleading. * It's always been possible to buy a n95 mask at a $1k/mask price point in the US. I'm sure you never tried making that offer. * My post was about wealth, and your reply switches this with "money," and then points out that sometimes money loses value. This is a straw man. If money has reduced value then it isn't necessarily indicative of wealth. When I talk about wealth it may be money in healthy, capitalist countries. In communist countries, wealth may take the form of political connections, of less measurable forms of power. * The titanic scenario you propose, a zero-sum scramble for life, is not at all like the business situations we're discussing where people are typically focused on making a living through the exchange of goods and services.
    - 5y ago

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.

kolinko 5y ago

I lived in a communist country that rationed everything (meat, fuel, and so on, due to persistent shortages). No, money didn’t matter much. You could have money and still do nothing with it. You needed connections and an ability to kombinować (untranslable word, but somenthing akin to hustle or hack). Not saying here that rationing is bad by itself (I think people would starve or revolt otherwise). But that your „full stop” is not always true. Also, during mask shortages and toilet paper shortages last year, in no country I think, money would help you much. I could pay $1000 for N95 back then (literally), and wasn’t able to find one. Oh oh, and remember that scene in Titanic where a rich guy offers a pile of money to get on a life boat? :,)

arcticbull 5y ago
> kombinować To scheme or connive feels about right to me haha. It's a tough word for sure.
kolinko 5y ago
I would love someone to explain the downvotes here, thanks.
- throwaway09223 5y ago
  I didn't downvote you, but I think people may have downvoted you because some of the points you made are either not accurate or are somewhat misleading. * It's always been possible to buy a n95 mask at a $1k/mask price point in the US. I'm sure you never tried making that offer. * My post was about wealth, and your reply switches this with "money," and then points out that sometimes money loses value. This is a straw man. If money has reduced value then it isn't necessarily indicative of wealth. When I talk about wealth it may be money in healthy, capitalist countries. In communist countries, wealth may take the form of political connections, of less measurable forms of power. * The titanic scenario you propose, a zero-sum scramble for life, is not at all like the business situations we're discussing where people are typically focused on making a living through the exchange of goods and services.
  - 5y ago