3 ms·

1. "those who value it most highly" is a dream of economists that has never ever been true. Personal value is relative to wealth and income. I might value somet

by franga2000 4y ago

1. "those who value it most highly" is a dream of economists that has never ever been true. Personal value is relative to wealth and income. I might value something at one full month's salary, but an average CEO could outbid me with a few work days at most. 2. "prices go up when demand is high" makes sense to incentivize more production and reward those that produce thing we need the most. A farmer getting more for their corn during a shortage makes sense, because we'd be hungry if it weren't for them. A scalper, on the other hand, does not create any value. Neither does a stock trader when they buy low and sell high for that matter. Even artificial scarcity of luxury items can be interpreted as creating some value - owning a limited edition shoe that they can brag about to their friends is valuable to some people. But buying something before others get to it, just to immediately sell it for a much higher price is just exploitation.

benj111 4y ago
Re 1, have you got a better plan? There's communism, are you suggesting that? >2. "prices go up when demand is high" makes sense to incentivize more production and reward those that produce thing we need the most Precisely, so why isn't Nike producing more? That is the issue. Again, scalpers are a symptom. >A farmer getting more for their corn during a shortage makes sense, because we'd be hungry if it weren't for them. One doesn't follow the other. If a farmer gets £1 a tonne one year, why does it mean that them getting £10 a tonne the next mean that people won't go hungry. If there's a corn shortage, that implies there isn't enough, so people are going hungry. Further this seems to verging on a moral argument. If we go hungry if it isn't for farmers then that implies that the state should be stepping in to control their excesses, setting the price at £1 a tonne. >Even artificial scarcity of luxury items can be interpreted as creating some value And so can buying a good and selling it on for a higher price. Why does one person have the right to brag about owning a shoe, and not another, who just so happens to be willing to pay a higher price? Why is artificial scarcity acceptable, but creating a functional open market out of that not? And a stock trader does create value. If a person can't buy stock and sell it on for a higher price, that stock is worth less, which means during an IPO a company can raise less money. It's not even clear to me if you could have PLCs at all, because eventually everyone dies, what happens to a company who is owned by a dead person(s) does it get taken over by the state? If we were talking about actual necessities then I'd agree with you, although my solution would be to have Nike produce more, not hold people to ransom. But for trainers, a specific brand and model, let the free market function, it's the best we've got.
- 8note 4y ago
  > Why does one person have the right to brag about owning a shoe, and not another, who just so happens to be willing to pay a higher price? Why is artificial scarcity acceptable, but creating a functional open market out of that not? It's a luxury for poor people. Making it a market turns it into a luxury for rich people
  - benj111 4y ago
    1. By definition a luxury is a luxury. You don't need it, so what's the problem? 2. Are you going to get any part of the market to admit to this?
- psd1 4y ago
  Re 1, no: it is not communism. You've conflated "communism" with "something disallowed by my preferred dogma". How very HN of you. Americans using the word "communism" is invariably an indicator of fallacy. Maybe you could develop some awareness of your own cultural baggage.
  - benj111 4y ago
    I'm not American, I'm European and somewhat left of centre at that, as you may have detected from my use of the word trainers. the parent was suggesting moving away from a system where those who are willing to pay most, get a good. What other options are there? Socialism? But to me a socialist state that starts controlling footwear is communist anyway. What dogma are you proposing I have? I know capitalism has its problems, I know communism has its problems, as does socialism and all the other isms. If capitalism is good at anything though, it's good at making trainers available. If youre saying it's unsuitable for that, then it's time to find something else. It's ok saying the current system is bad, but if you're proposing to get rid of it, you need a replacement and as Churchill may have said, free market capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the other economic systems. So why don't you debate my position, rather than my assumed nationality, dogma and cultural baggage?

benj111 4y ago

Re 1, have you got a better plan? There's communism, are you suggesting that? >2. "prices go up when demand is high" makes sense to incentivize more production and reward those that produce thing we need the most Precisely, so why isn't Nike producing more? That is the issue. Again, scalpers are a symptom. >A farmer getting more for their corn during a shortage makes sense, because we'd be hungry if it weren't for them. One doesn't follow the other. If a farmer gets £1 a tonne one year, why does it mean that them getting £10 a tonne the next mean that people won't go hungry. If there's a corn shortage, that implies there isn't enough, so people are going hungry. Further this seems to verging on a moral argument. If we go hungry if it isn't for farmers then that implies that the state should be stepping in to control their excesses, setting the price at £1 a tonne. >Even artificial scarcity of luxury items can be interpreted as creating some value And so can buying a good and selling it on for a higher price. Why does one person have the right to brag about owning a shoe, and not another, who just so happens to be willing to pay a higher price? Why is artificial scarcity acceptable, but creating a functional open market out of that not? And a stock trader does create value. If a person can't buy stock and sell it on for a higher price, that stock is worth less, which means during an IPO a company can raise less money. It's not even clear to me if you could have PLCs at all, because eventually everyone dies, what happens to a company who is owned by a dead person(s) does it get taken over by the state? If we were talking about actual necessities then I'd agree with you, although my solution would be to have Nike produce more, not hold people to ransom. But for trainers, a specific brand and model, let the free market function, it's the best we've got.

8note 4y ago
> Why does one person have the right to brag about owning a shoe, and not another, who just so happens to be willing to pay a higher price? Why is artificial scarcity acceptable, but creating a functional open market out of that not? It's a luxury for poor people. Making it a market turns it into a luxury for rich people
- benj111 4y ago
  1. By definition a luxury is a luxury. You don't need it, so what's the problem? 2. Are you going to get any part of the market to admit to this?
psd1 4y ago
Re 1, no: it is not communism. You've conflated "communism" with "something disallowed by my preferred dogma". How very HN of you. Americans using the word "communism" is invariably an indicator of fallacy. Maybe you could develop some awareness of your own cultural baggage.
- benj111 4y ago
  I'm not American, I'm European and somewhat left of centre at that, as you may have detected from my use of the word trainers. the parent was suggesting moving away from a system where those who are willing to pay most, get a good. What other options are there? Socialism? But to me a socialist state that starts controlling footwear is communist anyway. What dogma are you proposing I have? I know capitalism has its problems, I know communism has its problems, as does socialism and all the other isms. If capitalism is good at anything though, it's good at making trainers available. If youre saying it's unsuitable for that, then it's time to find something else. It's ok saying the current system is bad, but if you're proposing to get rid of it, you need a replacement and as Churchill may have said, free market capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the other economic systems. So why don't you debate my position, rather than my assumed nationality, dogma and cultural baggage?