4 ms·

This objectivist fairy tale falls apart on first contact with reality. - Income and savings are not evenly distributed, your rich birdfeeder would barely notic

This objectivist fairy tale falls apart on first contact with reality. - Income and savings are not evenly distributed, your rich birdfeeder would barely notice the price bump while the poor starver would have even less to eat. Rationing would be a closer solution, but that needs to be planned carefully to avoid similar loopholes (for example: if you can afford meat then you'll need less wheat, leaving more available for waste). - Crisis-induced profit incentives aren't going to lead to increased production, because 1) setting up production lines takes time and long-term investments, and 2) solving the crisis brings the price back down to normal, anyone who wouldn't invest at the normal prices would be stuck holding the bag in the end. We saw this in action a year ago, during the COVID chip shortage.

joshlemer 4y ago
I'm not invoking Ayn Rand or Objectivism here, merely basic mainstream economics. Imagining a single billionaire who has a bird feeding hobby is not realistic. True, I don't think an extremely wealthy bird feeder is going to cut back, but there's a continuum of producers and consumers all the way up and down the wealth scale and many of whom are price sensitive. A million different small adjustments all combine to re-allocate capital and labour to more efficiently allocate food towards people who are hungry. Manufacturers of bird feed packs may switch their ingredients on the margin away from grains that humans consume. Pig farmers may switch away from purchasing bread. Food processors, restaurants, etc will on the margin switch towards less wasteful/decadent products, since the relative increase in the price of staples make them more profitable than luxury foods. Distributors will find it makes sense to spend more money to buy food from further abroad, diverting trucks, trains, and ships from less urgent needs towards food transportation. All these millions of actions do have an effect.

joshlemer 4y ago

I'm not invoking Ayn Rand or Objectivism here, merely basic mainstream economics. Imagining a single billionaire who has a bird feeding hobby is not realistic. True, I don't think an extremely wealthy bird feeder is going to cut back, but there's a continuum of producers and consumers all the way up and down the wealth scale and many of whom are price sensitive. A million different small adjustments all combine to re-allocate capital and labour to more efficiently allocate food towards people who are hungry. Manufacturers of bird feed packs may switch their ingredients on the margin away from grains that humans consume. Pig farmers may switch away from purchasing bread. Food processors, restaurants, etc will on the margin switch towards less wasteful/decadent products, since the relative increase in the price of staples make them more profitable than luxury foods. Distributors will find it makes sense to spend more money to buy food from further abroad, diverting trucks, trains, and ships from less urgent needs towards food transportation. All these millions of actions do have an effect.