3 ms·

why shouldn't surplus be destroyed? Capitalism is a tool, not a law of nature. Perhaps we quite simply do not want to eliminate all surplus, because we like th

by ip26 3y ago

why shouldn't surplus be destroyed? Capitalism is a tool, not a law of nature. Perhaps we quite simply do not want to eliminate all surplus, because we like the result of a system with surplus.

satvikpendem 3y ago
Why would you want such a system? Capitalism is not a law of nature but markets, in aggregate, across many cultures, certainly are, for some definition of nature (perhaps human nature) which is not wholly consistent with the literal laws of nature such as those of the physical world.
- scoofy 3y ago
  Imagine you see a painting you like... you really like it... but you don't even have to look at the price because you already know what it is. It's the most you would possibly pay for it. That's eliminating the consumer surplus. Everything would be priced at the highest possible price that you'd still pay. Need to fly home for a funeral? Suddenly plane tickets are $10,000 because they know you wouldn't miss it for the world. You need only look at the difference between catering/decor for a wedding and catering/decor for any other event to see how much wealth extraction... how much poorer we would all be, if we lose the consumer surplus.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    > Everything would be priced at the highest possible price that you'd still pay. That is almost always the case anyway. Things are priced at the point that one would pay. To lament that on behalf of the consumer and not of the business is hypocritical, or more concretely, self-interested, as of course we all are. > how much poorer we would all be, if we lose the consumer surplus. To summarize my point, imagine how richer we would all be if we didn't have to pay anything at all. Unfortunately, that is a false world; production depends on consumers paying what they can and businesses charging what they must.
    - vkou 3y ago
      > Things are priced at the point that one would pay. No, things are priced at the point that the market, as a whole, is willing to pay. If you're someone with an above-median income, you're usually paying less than you otherwise would. Most purchases you make don't start with the merchant checking how much money you have in your savings account.
      - satvikpendem 3y ago
        By "one," I meant the market, of course. It is a generic term, not a specific one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_(pronoun) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_(pronoun)
        scoofy 3y ago
        >> Everything would be priced at the highest possible price that you'd still pay. >That is almost always the case anyway. Things are priced at the point that one would pay. No... not at all. When you need to fly home for a funeral of a close friend, suddenly plane tickets cost $10,000 for you and only you. Your neighbor could get the same flight for $200, but would not be allowed to transfer the ticket to you, because, well, them's the rules in a no-consumer-surplus world. The vast, vast, vast majority of the time, most people are paying far less than the would pay for things if the companies they bought them from could use dynamic pricing. This is what the consumer surplus is, and is why markets generally worth for both consumer and seller.
        satvikpendem 3y ago
        > suddenly plane tickets cost $10,000 for you and only you. Your neighbor could get the same flight for $200 No? How can the neighbor get a different deal than one you are looking for in the case of plane tickets? It's not like the airline knows that you are flying for a funeral. Even if they did, as you mention in a non-surplus world, well, yeah, that's how markets work, people have different needs and pay for that privilege. There are business and first class tickets for a reason, as well as prices being more expensive during holidays and summers. Of all of the examples, you chose one of the worst as flight prices are inherently dynamic.

by ip26 3y ago

why shouldn't surplus be destroyed? Capitalism is a tool, not a law of nature. Perhaps we quite simply do not want to eliminate all surplus, because we like the result of a system with surplus.

satvikpendem 3y ago

Why would you want such a system? Capitalism is not a law of nature but markets, in aggregate, across many cultures, certainly are, for some definition of nature (perhaps human nature) which is not wholly consistent with the literal laws of nature such as those of the physical world.

scoofy 3y ago
Imagine you see a painting you like... you really like it... but you don't even have to look at the price because you already know what it is. It's the most you would possibly pay for it. That's eliminating the consumer surplus. Everything would be priced at the highest possible price that you'd still pay. Need to fly home for a funeral? Suddenly plane tickets are $10,000 because they know you wouldn't miss it for the world. You need only look at the difference between catering/decor for a wedding and catering/decor for any other event to see how much wealth extraction... how much poorer we would all be, if we lose the consumer surplus.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  > Everything would be priced at the highest possible price that you'd still pay. That is almost always the case anyway. Things are priced at the point that one would pay. To lament that on behalf of the consumer and not of the business is hypocritical, or more concretely, self-interested, as of course we all are. > how much poorer we would all be, if we lose the consumer surplus. To summarize my point, imagine how richer we would all be if we didn't have to pay anything at all. Unfortunately, that is a false world; production depends on consumers paying what they can and businesses charging what they must.
  - vkou 3y ago
    > Things are priced at the point that one would pay. No, things are priced at the point that the market, as a whole, is willing to pay. If you're someone with an above-median income, you're usually paying less than you otherwise would. Most purchases you make don't start with the merchant checking how much money you have in your savings account.
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      By "one," I meant the market, of course. It is a generic term, not a specific one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_(pronoun) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_(pronoun)
      - scoofy 3y ago
        >> Everything would be priced at the highest possible price that you'd still pay. >That is almost always the case anyway. Things are priced at the point that one would pay. No... not at all. When you need to fly home for a funeral of a close friend, suddenly plane tickets cost $10,000 for you and only you. Your neighbor could get the same flight for $200, but would not be allowed to transfer the ticket to you, because, well, them's the rules in a no-consumer-surplus world. The vast, vast, vast majority of the time, most people are paying far less than the would pay for things if the companies they bought them from could use dynamic pricing. This is what the consumer surplus is, and is why markets generally worth for both consumer and seller.
        satvikpendem 3y ago
        > suddenly plane tickets cost $10,000 for you and only you. Your neighbor could get the same flight for $200 No? How can the neighbor get a different deal than one you are looking for in the case of plane tickets? It's not like the airline knows that you are flying for a funeral. Even if they did, as you mention in a non-surplus world, well, yeah, that's how markets work, people have different needs and pay for that privilege. There are business and first class tickets for a reason, as well as prices being more expensive during holidays and summers. Of all of the examples, you chose one of the worst as flight prices are inherently dynamic.