3 ms·

> Raising the price so high that demand disappears is not a way to alleviate a shortage. Then this must mean that there is a shortage of jets? I most definitel

> Raising the price so high that demand disappears is not a way to alleviate a shortage. Then this must mean that there is a shortage of jets? I most definitely am not paying that high price – you presumably aren't paying that high price – the price of jets is so high that demand has disappeared from almost all people. I'd certainly buy one if they were significantly cheaper. Who wouldn't? But at the prevailing price, no way. Does that differ from a $1 plastic trinket? I'd take a plastic trinket if it were free, but for $1 my demand is lost. I'd rather spend $1 on something else. I guess that means the plastic trinket is also in shortage since I have decided not to buy due to the price tag being too high? And not just me. The average run for a plastic trinket is around 25,000 units, so we know demand disappears by the vast majority of people at the high price of $1. What's not in shortage? Even literal garbage will see an increase in demand if the price goes low (negative) enough. > If 95% of the houses in the world disappeared overnight, that would cause an extreme housing shortage Agreed. The nature of lag would ensure that price could not react in a timely manner to such an extreme event. Eventually correction could take place, but a shortage would ensue for a period of time. > "Shortage" is not a niche word that only applies when supply and demand has been prevented. What on earth does "supply and demand being prevented" mean? You cannot prevent supply and demand. It's not a thing that can be manipulated, it's just the observation of humans (and sometimes animals!) interacting with each other in the face of scarcity. > "If I give a three minute explanation, and also a 20 second summary, the summary added absolutely nothing." Well, then, let's reverse it: "Housing, there is a shortage" and "Housing, there is not a shortage". What did I learn from those statements? We will assume I didn't learn that price is able to rise in one case and not in the other. But there is nothing else I can possibly learn from that. It doesn't say anything. If I read you correctly, I am of the understanding you intend it to mean that housing costs more/less than some "reasonable" number range you've randomly come up with, but as you have not communicated the range held in your mind, it leaves me with nothing. The only way that can work is for you tell me the range, but once you've done that, "shortage" doesn't add anything. Why would you include it?

Dylan16807 3y ago
If you can't learn any information from "shortage" then that's your problem. Most people can. > Agreed. The nature of lag would ensure that price could not react in a timely manner to such an extreme event. Eventually correction could take place, but a shortage would ensue for a period of time. Even after the prices correct, it would still be a shortage. Digging out of that pit of missing units would take orders of magnitude longer than the price adjustments. > jets, trinkets You could easily get a trinket at trivial cost if you wanted it, so it's not a shortage. For jets, we need to consider the utility of them and the production cost. You can't get one, but having one is not important to you, and the price is not being inflated by supply problems. So it's not a shortage (For individuals, at least. Airlines or countries can experience a jet shortage.) > What on earth does "supply and demand being prevented" mean? You cannot prevent supply and demand. It's not a thing that can be manipulated, it's just the observation of humans (and sometimes animals!) interacting with each other in the face of scarcity. The stuff you said earlier about government intervention, lotteries, etc.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > If you can't learn any information from "shortage" then that's your problem. I can learn information when used as people usually use the term. The dictionary definition conveying how most people use the word is quite clear. It is just your usage that doesn't seem to communicate anything. Although I keep asking what it is you are trying to say in an effort to figure out what your non-standard usage is attempting to communicate, but perhaps it is not explainable. I do wonder if your usage's intent is as a scare word? Do you hope we are frightened when you say "shortage"? > You could easily get a trinket at trivial cost if you wanted it Yeah, okay, it's trivial compared to my means, but exceedingly expensive to other people. $1 is a substantial chunk of the typical yearly income in Niger, for example. They flat out can't afford a $1 trinket. That is a shortage by what you're telling us, surely? If not, I take it that shortage only applies when people are as well off or more well off than you? But how can we know how well off you are? And what makes you the benchmark? Why not, say, Jeff Bezos? > but having one is not important to you Says who? I would say it is quite important to me. My quality of life is severely diminished not being able to afford a jet. If I want to fly, I have to, <shudder>, rent space on a flight with other flightmates to get the cost down to something manageable, and even then it's still a substantial cost. If that's not important, then buying a home isn't important either. You can equally find a group of housemates and rent a house. Everyone who wants a roof over their head can have one, even if it requires some compromise on comfort. Owning a home is not a necessity. In fact, historically, owning a home was quite unusual. Only in last ~75 years has it become 'normal'. > The stuff you said earlier about government intervention, lotteries, etc. I don't follow. How does that relate to "preventing" supply and demand? That is supply and demand.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    > dictionary I'm not seeing how "a state or situation in which something needed cannot be obtained in sufficient amounts" favors your description over mine. And yes both "needed" and "sufficient" are partly subjective. Most concepts are. > Why not, say, Jeff Bezos? Is this a real question, in good faith? Having a fuzzy line is different from "yolo, no lines, nothing subjective can decide" as you seem to be suggesting. Bezos is not a reasonable benchmark. > In fact, historically, owning a home was quite unusual. It affects rent too. Keeping a roof is getting unreasonably difficult. > I don't follow. How does that relate to "preventing" supply and demand? That is supply and demand. Fixing the price or using a lottery to allocate "is" supply and demand? What? I can't understand your logic at all now, this isn't worth continuing if we're drifting this far apart.

Dylan16807 3y ago

If you can't learn any information from "shortage" then that's your problem. Most people can. > Agreed. The nature of lag would ensure that price could not react in a timely manner to such an extreme event. Eventually correction could take place, but a shortage would ensue for a period of time. Even after the prices correct, it would still be a shortage. Digging out of that pit of missing units would take orders of magnitude longer than the price adjustments. > jets, trinkets You could easily get a trinket at trivial cost if you wanted it, so it's not a shortage. For jets, we need to consider the utility of them and the production cost. You can't get one, but having one is not important to you, and the price is not being inflated by supply problems. So it's not a shortage (For individuals, at least. Airlines or countries can experience a jet shortage.) > What on earth does "supply and demand being prevented" mean? You cannot prevent supply and demand. It's not a thing that can be manipulated, it's just the observation of humans (and sometimes animals!) interacting with each other in the face of scarcity. The stuff you said earlier about government intervention, lotteries, etc.

randomdata 3y ago
> If you can't learn any information from "shortage" then that's your problem. I can learn information when used as people usually use the term. The dictionary definition conveying how most people use the word is quite clear. It is just your usage that doesn't seem to communicate anything. Although I keep asking what it is you are trying to say in an effort to figure out what your non-standard usage is attempting to communicate, but perhaps it is not explainable. I do wonder if your usage's intent is as a scare word? Do you hope we are frightened when you say "shortage"? > You could easily get a trinket at trivial cost if you wanted it Yeah, okay, it's trivial compared to my means, but exceedingly expensive to other people. $1 is a substantial chunk of the typical yearly income in Niger, for example. They flat out can't afford a $1 trinket. That is a shortage by what you're telling us, surely? If not, I take it that shortage only applies when people are as well off or more well off than you? But how can we know how well off you are? And what makes you the benchmark? Why not, say, Jeff Bezos? > but having one is not important to you Says who? I would say it is quite important to me. My quality of life is severely diminished not being able to afford a jet. If I want to fly, I have to, <shudder>, rent space on a flight with other flightmates to get the cost down to something manageable, and even then it's still a substantial cost. If that's not important, then buying a home isn't important either. You can equally find a group of housemates and rent a house. Everyone who wants a roof over their head can have one, even if it requires some compromise on comfort. Owning a home is not a necessity. In fact, historically, owning a home was quite unusual. Only in last ~75 years has it become 'normal'. > The stuff you said earlier about government intervention, lotteries, etc. I don't follow. How does that relate to "preventing" supply and demand? That is supply and demand.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > dictionary I'm not seeing how "a state or situation in which something needed cannot be obtained in sufficient amounts" favors your description over mine. And yes both "needed" and "sufficient" are partly subjective. Most concepts are. > Why not, say, Jeff Bezos? Is this a real question, in good faith? Having a fuzzy line is different from "yolo, no lines, nothing subjective can decide" as you seem to be suggesting. Bezos is not a reasonable benchmark. > In fact, historically, owning a home was quite unusual. It affects rent too. Keeping a roof is getting unreasonably difficult. > I don't follow. How does that relate to "preventing" supply and demand? That is supply and demand. Fixing the price or using a lottery to allocate "is" supply and demand? What? I can't understand your logic at all now, this isn't worth continuing if we're drifting this far apart.