4 ms·

> together with forced production a.k.a. slavery > For obvious reasons (and very good ones), this is something people won't accept unless the shock is really

> together with forced production a.k.a. slavery > For obvious reasons (and very good ones), this is something people won't accept unless the shock is really serious, like a war. No kidding. But again, it depends on what the goal of the price control is. In a war the goal is not to make life easier for the consumer -- the goal in that case is to get the consumer to stop consuming what the war machine needs for itself.

marcosdumay 5y ago
> a.k.a. slavery On the case of war, conscription. It's disturbingly similar, but it's different. In peace times it's usually on the lines of "keep producing or your business will be closed", what is not that similar as the working people are not the ones facing the ultimatum (if it's ever done to a small company, then yes, it's like slavery). > In a war the goal is not to make life easier for the consumer -- the goal in that case is to get the consumer to stop consuming what the war machine needs for itself. Economies are large complicated beasts that move all kinds of products. When governments intervene, they do it in more than one way and with more than one goal. Price fixing also goes with rationing so that the population stays fed.
- cryptonector 5y ago
  > > a.k.a. slavery > On the case of war, conscription. That works for getting labor for the military. It doesn't work for getting producers of things to produce more for less -- unless you put a gun to their heads, they won't do it, not even during war time.
  - not2b 5y ago
    Counterexample: WW2, where most of US industrial capacity was repurposed to win the war. Producers got paid, but the amounts they got were limited. They didn't get to just name their price.
    - cryptonector 5y ago
      They got paid more than their input costs. None were forced to go bankrupt, and most made a profit.
      - not2b 5y ago
        Right, and in times where price controls were imposed this principle (you can't force people to operate at a loss, but you can limit price gouging) have been applied.

marcosdumay 5y ago

> a.k.a. slavery On the case of war, conscription. It's disturbingly similar, but it's different. In peace times it's usually on the lines of "keep producing or your business will be closed", what is not that similar as the working people are not the ones facing the ultimatum (if it's ever done to a small company, then yes, it's like slavery). > In a war the goal is not to make life easier for the consumer -- the goal in that case is to get the consumer to stop consuming what the war machine needs for itself. Economies are large complicated beasts that move all kinds of products. When governments intervene, they do it in more than one way and with more than one goal. Price fixing also goes with rationing so that the population stays fed.

cryptonector 5y ago
> > a.k.a. slavery > On the case of war, conscription. That works for getting labor for the military. It doesn't work for getting producers of things to produce more for less -- unless you put a gun to their heads, they won't do it, not even during war time.
- not2b 5y ago
  Counterexample: WW2, where most of US industrial capacity was repurposed to win the war. Producers got paid, but the amounts they got were limited. They didn't get to just name their price.
  - cryptonector 5y ago
    They got paid more than their input costs. None were forced to go bankrupt, and most made a profit.
    - not2b 5y ago
      Right, and in times where price controls were imposed this principle (you can't force people to operate at a loss, but you can limit price gouging) have been applied.