3 ms·

That is either an unreasonable or a flawed analogy, depending on exactly what you meant. It is almost never reasonable to use essentials like food when the disc

That is either an unreasonable or a flawed analogy, depending on exactly what you meant. It is almost never reasonable to use essentials like food when the discussion is about luxuries. If by bread you meant specifically and only bread, then there is no issue. People will simply do without bread, perhaps buy pasta, you will be out a huge amount of money, things go about how you'd expect. In that case your analogy is flawed because you have not changed the market price. Instead you have lost yourself a lot of money. If by bread you meant "the food supply in general" then it is an unreasonable analogy. The food supply likely requires legal protections that luxuries don't because lives are at stake. You are able to manipulate it only because people are physically unable to "do without".

mhuffman 4y ago
>That is either an unreasonable or a flawed analogy, depending on exactly what you meant. What I meant was not necessarily related to the items I suggested, you can change them for whatever you like. I was addressing your argument about "selling below market price" and illustrating that the market can be manipulated and the natural "market price" be specifically manipulated by arbitrage of the entire available stock of something. It seems you want to turn the discussion back to specific types of items instead of your original argument. Regarding that I will say that I do not think that manipulating the price of any item (luxury or critical) by acquiring the entire available stock and raising the price is good for the market or for society. I will say that I do not think that arbitrage of a single item if there is an otherwise existing market and supply of the item is a problem (ie. you can sell your single ticket for whatever you can get), but to clean out the supply and artificially raise it is.

mhuffman 4y ago

>That is either an unreasonable or a flawed analogy, depending on exactly what you meant. What I meant was not necessarily related to the items I suggested, you can change them for whatever you like. I was addressing your argument about "selling below market price" and illustrating that the market can be manipulated and the natural "market price" be specifically manipulated by arbitrage of the entire available stock of something. It seems you want to turn the discussion back to specific types of items instead of your original argument. Regarding that I will say that I do not think that manipulating the price of any item (luxury or critical) by acquiring the entire available stock and raising the price is good for the market or for society. I will say that I do not think that arbitrage of a single item if there is an otherwise existing market and supply of the item is a problem (ie. you can sell your single ticket for whatever you can get), but to clean out the supply and artificially raise it is.