3 ms·

> I'm trying to invoke broad consensus and reference to both history and cost (as independent from price). Perhaps I'm not interpreting you correctly, but tryi

> I'm trying to invoke broad consensus and reference to both history and cost (as independent from price). Perhaps I'm not interpreting you correctly, but trying to compare houses in history to houses today is like trying to compare modern jetliners to the Wright Flyer. Houses have changed dramatically. For one, houses have more than doubled in size over the last 100 years. And while I don't have size data for the previous 100 years, to my eye the typical home from 200 years ago was probably half the size again. Those early homes were tiny – just one room – with an average of 7 children living in them! The bigger the house, the higher the cost. Secondly, we have much higher building standards today. Build a home to 1800 standards and you could build it for a song. But you'll be in violation of all kinds of codes. Those standards are not free. Not even close. Even trying to build a home to a more normal size is a code violation in many jurisdictions. > It feels like you're not attempting to understand what I'm saying, though I'm just waiting for you to say it. When I asked you point blank what "shortage" added to a sentence, all I got back was "I have no more detail to give to my argument". > That is the type of situation I am trying to refer to. Got it. Yes, if price is able to rise then demand can adjust as the market needs. That is a normally functioning market. When price is not able to rise then something has broken down. That unique situation is deserving of unique identification – to have a word to describe it. What word do you suggest? A normally functioning market doesn't mean you can get what you want, of course. "Normally functioning" is not in reference to quality of life, or ensuring that you have a roof over your head, or whatever, it just refers to behaviour matching a certain economic model.

Dylan16807 3y ago
> Houses have changed dramatically. That makes it easier to have a shortage, but doesn't disqualify there being one. It's not like I can buy a 200 year old house at a discount proportional to the difference in build methods. > I'm just waiting for you to say it. When I asked you point blank what "shortage" added to a sentence, all I got back was "I have no more detail to give to my argument". "Shortage" is the summary. It provides no value if you already explained the entire situation. It provides plenty of value if you're starting from a blank slate and want to describe the situation concisely. > Got it. Yes, if price is able to rise then demand can adjust as the market needs. That is a normally functioning market. When price is not able to rise then something has broken down. That unique situation is deserving of unique identification – to have a word to describe it. What word do you suggest? I'm not sure, but definitely not "shortage". Shortages are about the supply at a "reasonable" price, whether or not the market is functioning normally. You can have that kind of market error without a shortage, and you can have a shortage without that kind of market error.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > "Shortage" is the summary. Yes, economically it summarizes a situation where price is unable to rise. Your regional milage may vary, but I've seen a few shortages around town lately. Here are a couple of them: 1. Price gouging laws prevented the price of toilet paper from rising when supply stocks were low in 2020. Instead of them selling for thousands of dollars per roll (or whatever it would have taken to satisfy the market), people were running the store as fast as they could to cheaply buy up everything they could get their hands on, soon leaving the shelves bare. Eventually stores had to place limitations on how many rolls individuals could buy. Here, a price-based mechanism failed to manage resource allocation, so other mechanisms (first-come, first-served initially, followed by rationing) came into effect. 2. Laws intending to maintain fairness in the medical system prevent medical practitioners accepting any amount of money from patients (i.e. the price cannot rise above zero) as to not allow those with means to offer more money to pull a doctor away from surgery to look at their common cold symptoms. As a price-based mechanism is not available, we resort to a needs-based system. If you show up with cold-like symptoms and someone else shows up with a heart attack, and there is only one doctor available, you have to give up on seeing the doctor no matter how much money you have to spend. Sorry. That's what shortages look like, from the economic point of view. But what does "shortage" summarize socially? I respect that you have a social take, but you've still not explained it. You hand-wavingly say it summarizes supply at a "reasonable" price, yet fail to offer the mathematical formula for determining what is reasonable. No doubt because it cannot be described mathematically as it is just arbitrary judgement. But if you accept that it is, indeed, just arbitrary judgment then how can it be summarized further? I can't read your mind. You have to explicitly tell me what judgment you have made. Once we have established what you have judged, why are you providing a secondary summary? All the information I need to know about your judgment has already been communicated. "Shortage" works economically to summarize a situation as the conditions that define it are external. But socially, it seems the conditions are internal and thus needs to be communicated in full anyway, so there is nothing left to summarize. This so-called summary doesn't say anything.

Dylan16807 3y ago

> Houses have changed dramatically. That makes it easier to have a shortage, but doesn't disqualify there being one. It's not like I can buy a 200 year old house at a discount proportional to the difference in build methods. > I'm just waiting for you to say it. When I asked you point blank what "shortage" added to a sentence, all I got back was "I have no more detail to give to my argument". "Shortage" is the summary. It provides no value if you already explained the entire situation. It provides plenty of value if you're starting from a blank slate and want to describe the situation concisely. > Got it. Yes, if price is able to rise then demand can adjust as the market needs. That is a normally functioning market. When price is not able to rise then something has broken down. That unique situation is deserving of unique identification – to have a word to describe it. What word do you suggest? I'm not sure, but definitely not "shortage". Shortages are about the supply at a "reasonable" price, whether or not the market is functioning normally. You can have that kind of market error without a shortage, and you can have a shortage without that kind of market error.

randomdata 3y ago
> "Shortage" is the summary. Yes, economically it summarizes a situation where price is unable to rise. Your regional milage may vary, but I've seen a few shortages around town lately. Here are a couple of them: 1. Price gouging laws prevented the price of toilet paper from rising when supply stocks were low in 2020. Instead of them selling for thousands of dollars per roll (or whatever it would have taken to satisfy the market), people were running the store as fast as they could to cheaply buy up everything they could get their hands on, soon leaving the shelves bare. Eventually stores had to place limitations on how many rolls individuals could buy. Here, a price-based mechanism failed to manage resource allocation, so other mechanisms (first-come, first-served initially, followed by rationing) came into effect. 2. Laws intending to maintain fairness in the medical system prevent medical practitioners accepting any amount of money from patients (i.e. the price cannot rise above zero) as to not allow those with means to offer more money to pull a doctor away from surgery to look at their common cold symptoms. As a price-based mechanism is not available, we resort to a needs-based system. If you show up with cold-like symptoms and someone else shows up with a heart attack, and there is only one doctor available, you have to give up on seeing the doctor no matter how much money you have to spend. Sorry. That's what shortages look like, from the economic point of view. But what does "shortage" summarize socially? I respect that you have a social take, but you've still not explained it. You hand-wavingly say it summarizes supply at a "reasonable" price, yet fail to offer the mathematical formula for determining what is reasonable. No doubt because it cannot be described mathematically as it is just arbitrary judgement. But if you accept that it is, indeed, just arbitrary judgment then how can it be summarized further? I can't read your mind. You have to explicitly tell me what judgment you have made. Once we have established what you have judged, why are you providing a secondary summary? All the information I need to know about your judgment has already been communicated. "Shortage" works economically to summarize a situation as the conditions that define it are external. But socially, it seems the conditions are internal and thus needs to be communicated in full anyway, so there is nothing left to summarize. This so-called summary doesn't say anything.