5 ms·

> If people give up, then it's not a shortage? No...? That doesn't make any sense. People also have to give up when there is a shortage. Some people giving up

> If people give up, then it's not a shortage? No...? That doesn't make any sense. People also have to give up when there is a shortage. Some people giving up is a constant here. I am sorry to report that the world does not have infinite resources. Economics is a thing only because we have to manage allocation of the limited resources. If you want to take that angle, the mechanism by which they give up is what is significant. If they give up to a price-based mechanism, then you have what is considered a normally functioning market. But if price is unable to rise and thereby they have to give up to some other mechanism, then you have what is considered a shortage. > You claim my definition makes everything a shortage Frankly, I have no idea what your definition is. I stated that if you want to consider dreamers participants in the market then everything that comes with a cost is in shortage. Obviously. That's why there is a price. If we had the resources to allow everyone to have everything they could ever dream up, everything would be free. Any time you see a price of more than free – even just 1¢ - you know there are people wanting more of something than there are of those somethings available. If it is that this does align with your definition – which I'm guessing is why you called it your definition – what are you communicating by exclaiming 'shortage', exactly? It doesn't say anything.

Dylan16807 3y ago
> If they give up to a price-based mechanism, then you have what is considered a normally functioning market. But if price is unable to rise and thereby they have to give up to some other mechanism, then you have what is considered a shortage. In that case I can take just about any situation that has a "shortage", then reintroduce prices. Did I just solve the shortage? Assume I haven't changed production or consumption at all. For example, if there's a lottery then simply allow resale after the lottery runs. > Frankly, I have no idea what your definition is. I stated that if you want to consider dreamers participants in the market then everything that comes with a cost is in shortage. We can establish a ballpark for what a sensible price is for most things. Don't worry about the exact number right now. If every house costs $1-10, there is not a shortage. If every house costs $1B-10B, there is a shortage. I think over 90% of people you ask would agree with those two statements.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > In that case I can take just about any situation that has a "shortage", then reintroduce prices. Did I just solve the shortage? If there was a situation where price was unable to rise, and you found some way to enable price to start rising again thereby seeing a reversion to a price-based mechanism, yes, you 'solved' the shortage. > For example, if there's a lottery then simply allow resale after the lottery runs. Or just allow price to rise in the first place, not requiring a lottery to fall back on at all. If you can wave your magic wand like that so easily, I'm not sure what you've gained in the indirection? Of course, in reality, if price is unable to rise before the lottery, for whatever reason, it's probably still not able to rise after the lottery. Sure, if it is policy driven you might be able to change the policy, but, again, why not change it right from the get go? You don't need to wait. > We can establish a ballpark for what a sensible price is for most things. Okay, let's put that to the test. OpenAI releases true AGI tomorrow. What's the sensible price for it? I've picked my number. Now you pick yours and let's see if we're in the same ballpark. What happens if you aren't in the same ballpark as me? Does that not invalidate your claim? My intuition is that the only way we can come to agree on a ballpark is if we actually stop and talk about the numbers. Which is all well and good, but just saying "there's a shortage" does not get us there. "Shortage" does not communicate anything here. > If every house costs $1-10, there is not a shortage. If every house costs $1B-10B, there is a shortage. I think over 90% of people you ask would agree with those two statements. But what have you communicated with the use of shortage? Let's remove shortage and just say "Every house costs $1-10" and "Every house costs $1B-10B". What information was lost in the removal of "there is/there is not a shortage"? Are you trying to use shortage as an indication of your emotions? As in, "Every house costs $1B-10B, there is a shortage." being roughly analogous to "Every house costs $1B-10B, I feel that is too expensive."? If that's the case, how can others agree? What grounds would you disagree on? You can't logically dispute how someone else is feeling. That like you saying "My romantic partner is great, I love them." with the retort "I disagree, you actually hate them!". It is nonsensical.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    I have no more detail to give to my argument, so I'll keep this very brief. > It is nonsensical. You can have that opinion, but I find the idea that price-based distribution makes shortages stop being shortages, with no change in supply, significantly more nonsensical. > What information was lost in the removal of "there is/there is not a shortage"? Shortage is less information but it's also easier to say. For more realistic numbers the word shortage is more than an order of magnitude easier to communicate than raw statistics.

Dylan16807 3y ago

> If they give up to a price-based mechanism, then you have what is considered a normally functioning market. But if price is unable to rise and thereby they have to give up to some other mechanism, then you have what is considered a shortage. In that case I can take just about any situation that has a "shortage", then reintroduce prices. Did I just solve the shortage? Assume I haven't changed production or consumption at all. For example, if there's a lottery then simply allow resale after the lottery runs. > Frankly, I have no idea what your definition is. I stated that if you want to consider dreamers participants in the market then everything that comes with a cost is in shortage. We can establish a ballpark for what a sensible price is for most things. Don't worry about the exact number right now. If every house costs $1-10, there is not a shortage. If every house costs $1B-10B, there is a shortage. I think over 90% of people you ask would agree with those two statements.

randomdata 3y ago
> In that case I can take just about any situation that has a "shortage", then reintroduce prices. Did I just solve the shortage? If there was a situation where price was unable to rise, and you found some way to enable price to start rising again thereby seeing a reversion to a price-based mechanism, yes, you 'solved' the shortage. > For example, if there's a lottery then simply allow resale after the lottery runs. Or just allow price to rise in the first place, not requiring a lottery to fall back on at all. If you can wave your magic wand like that so easily, I'm not sure what you've gained in the indirection? Of course, in reality, if price is unable to rise before the lottery, for whatever reason, it's probably still not able to rise after the lottery. Sure, if it is policy driven you might be able to change the policy, but, again, why not change it right from the get go? You don't need to wait. > We can establish a ballpark for what a sensible price is for most things. Okay, let's put that to the test. OpenAI releases true AGI tomorrow. What's the sensible price for it? I've picked my number. Now you pick yours and let's see if we're in the same ballpark. What happens if you aren't in the same ballpark as me? Does that not invalidate your claim? My intuition is that the only way we can come to agree on a ballpark is if we actually stop and talk about the numbers. Which is all well and good, but just saying "there's a shortage" does not get us there. "Shortage" does not communicate anything here. > If every house costs $1-10, there is not a shortage. If every house costs $1B-10B, there is a shortage. I think over 90% of people you ask would agree with those two statements. But what have you communicated with the use of shortage? Let's remove shortage and just say "Every house costs $1-10" and "Every house costs $1B-10B". What information was lost in the removal of "there is/there is not a shortage"? Are you trying to use shortage as an indication of your emotions? As in, "Every house costs $1B-10B, there is a shortage." being roughly analogous to "Every house costs $1B-10B, I feel that is too expensive."? If that's the case, how can others agree? What grounds would you disagree on? You can't logically dispute how someone else is feeling. That like you saying "My romantic partner is great, I love them." with the retort "I disagree, you actually hate them!". It is nonsensical.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  I have no more detail to give to my argument, so I'll keep this very brief. > It is nonsensical. You can have that opinion, but I find the idea that price-based distribution makes shortages stop being shortages, with no change in supply, significantly more nonsensical. > What information was lost in the removal of "there is/there is not a shortage"? Shortage is less information but it's also easier to say. For more realistic numbers the word shortage is more than an order of magnitude easier to communicate than raw statistics.