4 ms·

I agree, in the case of "rent is $20,000/month" calling that a "shortage" doesn't say anything. It is no different than a case where "rent is $200/month". There

I agree, in the case of "rent is $20,000/month" calling that a "shortage" doesn't say anything. It is no different than a case where "rent is $200/month". There is nothing the reader/listener can learn by adding shortage into the mix in either case. Pointless, yes, but I'm not sure pedantic is the right term for describing using a word in a way that does not communicate anything. But, to each their own.

Dylan16807 3y ago
You can set reasonable price benchmarks to define "shortage" by. Your definition of shortage is too narrow. Price is always able to select a buyer. People will skip eating if you give them enough money. But if that only supplies a couple percent of buyers, that's not going to disprove a shortage.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > You can set reasonable price benchmarks to define "shortage" by. If there is some kind of useful benchmark, exclaiming "shortage" doesn't tell you anything about that benchmark. Again, nothing is communicated. Pointless, indeed. > Price is always able to select a buyer. Always, except for when there is a shortage. There are all kinds of examples of where price cannot select a buyer, most commonly as a result of government intervention making it illegal to pay more than a certain price, leaving many buyers all willing to pay the maximum allowable price for a given good or service, thereby requiring some other kind of mechanism, such as a lottery, to determine the 'winner'.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Do you think there can only be shortages if there's price fixing? If not, please give an example that doesn't involve price fixing. I'll give an example for my argument: If there's only enough food for 90 people out of 100 today, it's easy for anyone with enough money to get fed, but it is also a shortage of food.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      > Do you think there can only be shortages if there's price fixing? Clearly not. I just got finished pointing to government intervention as the most likely reason for a shortage. How did you manage to not finish reading the comment before replying? Price fixing can also theoretically lead to a shortage, but this is the least likely case. Usually price fixers want to push the price higher than buyers are looking to spend, not the other way around. > If there's only enough food for 90 people out of 100 today, it's easy for anyone with enough money to get fed, but it is also a shortage of food. Agreed, in two ways: 1. It is apt to end up a shortage as many governments have 'price gouging' laws that would prevent the vendor of that food from charging the fair market value in this type of event. 2. In this scenario, eventually no amount of money can buy food. You could be the richest person on earth, willing to spend every last cent you have, but you're still not eating if you happen to come late to the party. Price is unable to select a buyer, relying on a first-come, first-served mechanism instead. That doesn't match the housing situation, though. The richest person in the world isn't going to find himself unable to buy a home, even if he takes his sweet time deciding whether he wants one or not. Even at the peak of housing insanity, there were still many houses available for purchase by anyone in the market.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        When I say fixing I primarily mean government fixing. But thanks for insulting my ability to read because I used the wrong synonym (fixing/control). Therefore I will ignore price gouging laws because that's a form of the above but also if reasonable they won't apply to a person selling their own single allocation. > In this scenario, eventually no amount of money can buy food. You could be the richest person on earth, willing to spend every last cent you have, but you're still not eating if you happen to come late to the party. If you come after everyone eats for the day then that's not a shortage by my reckoning. Price works just fine as long as you're not insisting on being served between meals. It's not like you can expect to buy a house in less than a day no matter your budget. So I still don't see a big difference here between 90 meals and 90 houses for 100 people. There's always a price that will get you one.

Dylan16807 3y ago

You can set reasonable price benchmarks to define "shortage" by. Your definition of shortage is too narrow. Price is always able to select a buyer. People will skip eating if you give them enough money. But if that only supplies a couple percent of buyers, that's not going to disprove a shortage.

randomdata 3y ago
> You can set reasonable price benchmarks to define "shortage" by. If there is some kind of useful benchmark, exclaiming "shortage" doesn't tell you anything about that benchmark. Again, nothing is communicated. Pointless, indeed. > Price is always able to select a buyer. Always, except for when there is a shortage. There are all kinds of examples of where price cannot select a buyer, most commonly as a result of government intervention making it illegal to pay more than a certain price, leaving many buyers all willing to pay the maximum allowable price for a given good or service, thereby requiring some other kind of mechanism, such as a lottery, to determine the 'winner'.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Do you think there can only be shortages if there's price fixing? If not, please give an example that doesn't involve price fixing. I'll give an example for my argument: If there's only enough food for 90 people out of 100 today, it's easy for anyone with enough money to get fed, but it is also a shortage of food.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > Do you think there can only be shortages if there's price fixing? Clearly not. I just got finished pointing to government intervention as the most likely reason for a shortage. How did you manage to not finish reading the comment before replying? Price fixing can also theoretically lead to a shortage, but this is the least likely case. Usually price fixers want to push the price higher than buyers are looking to spend, not the other way around. > If there's only enough food for 90 people out of 100 today, it's easy for anyone with enough money to get fed, but it is also a shortage of food. Agreed, in two ways: 1. It is apt to end up a shortage as many governments have 'price gouging' laws that would prevent the vendor of that food from charging the fair market value in this type of event. 2. In this scenario, eventually no amount of money can buy food. You could be the richest person on earth, willing to spend every last cent you have, but you're still not eating if you happen to come late to the party. Price is unable to select a buyer, relying on a first-come, first-served mechanism instead. That doesn't match the housing situation, though. The richest person in the world isn't going to find himself unable to buy a home, even if he takes his sweet time deciding whether he wants one or not. Even at the peak of housing insanity, there were still many houses available for purchase by anyone in the market.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      When I say fixing I primarily mean government fixing. But thanks for insulting my ability to read because I used the wrong synonym (fixing/control). Therefore I will ignore price gouging laws because that's a form of the above but also if reasonable they won't apply to a person selling their own single allocation. > In this scenario, eventually no amount of money can buy food. You could be the richest person on earth, willing to spend every last cent you have, but you're still not eating if you happen to come late to the party. If you come after everyone eats for the day then that's not a shortage by my reckoning. Price works just fine as long as you're not insisting on being served between meals. It's not like you can expect to buy a house in less than a day no matter your budget. So I still don't see a big difference here between 90 meals and 90 houses for 100 people. There's always a price that will get you one.