11 ms·

> You can also implement rationing to further mitigate imbalances. So price may be low, but you can only buy 1 per day, or something like that. Generally it go

> You can also implement rationing to further mitigate imbalances. So price may be low, but you can only buy 1 per day, or something like that. Generally it goes the other way around. First government imposes price controls, which cause scarcity. Then they impose rationing. > Lack of price controls did not prevent blackouts to Texans in the US last year. It did cause many folks to be saddled with insane bills. Price controls are not the only way you get to end up with limited supply, that's true, and that situation was temporary, also true, and there was no rationing (some areas did not lose power because they were "privileged") while all others did lose power. The people who were "saddled with insane bills" were those who had a specialty spot-price utility. > Wartime/Emergency: stated purpose is to shift supply toward military/medical uses. Shortages and black markets are acceptable negative side effects. I acknowledge the wartime thing, but that is quite exceptional. We've had lots of price controls during peace time here and all over the world, and they have never worked for their ostensible reasons. When was the last time we had wartime price controls in the U.S.? Not since WWII.

tombert 5y ago
> Generally it goes the other way around. First government imposes price controls, which cause scarcity. Then they impose rationing. So if price controls + rationing were implemented at the same time, you think it could work to avoid scarcity? If not then why even bring up the order in which things are implemented?
- kajecounterhack 5y ago
  +1 this is my point, you can frequently implement multiple overlapping policies whose combined effect is better than an individual policy. Order doesn't matter. When you say "price controls don't work" you lack imagination for the space of possible policy problems and solutions. Sometimes price controls will be a useful part of a policy solution and likely more often than some randos on the internet can think of off the top of their heads. In general I would not bet on the idea that "mechanism X is shit because it's not the free market." Our societies have implemented many engineered economic mechanisms, some of which are easy scapegoats because they fail, but many of which are overlooked because they work quietly in the background.

tombert 5y ago

> Generally it goes the other way around. First government imposes price controls, which cause scarcity. Then they impose rationing. So if price controls + rationing were implemented at the same time, you think it could work to avoid scarcity? If not then why even bring up the order in which things are implemented?

kajecounterhack 5y ago
+1 this is my point, you can frequently implement multiple overlapping policies whose combined effect is better than an individual policy. Order doesn't matter. When you say "price controls don't work" you lack imagination for the space of possible policy problems and solutions. Sometimes price controls will be a useful part of a policy solution and likely more often than some randos on the internet can think of off the top of their heads. In general I would not bet on the idea that "mechanism X is shit because it's not the free market." Our societies have implemented many engineered economic mechanisms, some of which are easy scapegoats because they fail, but many of which are overlooked because they work quietly in the background.