5 ms·

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

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.

kolinko 5y ago
Thanks for the reply. You are right that I conflated wealth with money. For a broad definition of wealth I think I can agree with you then. As for n95, perhaps it was different in US, but in Poland there was no way I could find one in March. You couldn’t find them online anywhere regardless of price, and when I asked around, nobody had them available. I honestly wonder where could I make such an offer online - craigslist? As for Titanic, agree.
- throwaway09223 5y ago
  Yeah, people definitely had them. Not advertised, but I'm sure for $1k you could get one. Prior to the pandemic I had several boxes of n95/n99 which I bought years prior to manage California wildfire smoke. I donated most of them to local hospitals when they asked, but I always had a couple left in an opened box which they wouldn't take and I certainly would've sold them at a $1k price point if offered. But, to be more clear, we're talking about reaching price equilibrium to manage demand, and the critique that wealthy people aren't limited by high prices. My argument is that things always have a price (if they're available at all, as you point out). What I'd add is that the wealthy generally consume negligible amounts of resources in these types of scenarios. We didn't run out of masks because billionaires bought them all up. We didn't run out of gas because wealthy people are driving a lot. I think there's a fixation on fairness without stopping to consider whether the issue is particularly relevant. Raising the prices changes the consumption behaviors for the majority, and that's what matters in terms of conservation.

kolinko 5y ago

Thanks for the reply. You are right that I conflated wealth with money. For a broad definition of wealth I think I can agree with you then. As for n95, perhaps it was different in US, but in Poland there was no way I could find one in March. You couldn’t find them online anywhere regardless of price, and when I asked around, nobody had them available. I honestly wonder where could I make such an offer online - craigslist? As for Titanic, agree.

throwaway09223 5y ago
Yeah, people definitely had them. Not advertised, but I'm sure for $1k you could get one. Prior to the pandemic I had several boxes of n95/n99 which I bought years prior to manage California wildfire smoke. I donated most of them to local hospitals when they asked, but I always had a couple left in an opened box which they wouldn't take and I certainly would've sold them at a $1k price point if offered. But, to be more clear, we're talking about reaching price equilibrium to manage demand, and the critique that wealthy people aren't limited by high prices. My argument is that things always have a price (if they're available at all, as you point out). What I'd add is that the wealthy generally consume negligible amounts of resources in these types of scenarios. We didn't run out of masks because billionaires bought them all up. We didn't run out of gas because wealthy people are driving a lot. I think there's a fixation on fairness without stopping to consider whether the issue is particularly relevant. Raising the prices changes the consumption behaviors for the majority, and that's what matters in terms of conservation.