5 ms·
- Subsidy starts: prices drop. - Greed kicks in because capitalism: prices rise again, maybe not back to pre-subsidy levels, but they rise. - Subsidy gets axe
by isoprophlex 1y ago
- Subsidy starts: prices drop.
- Greed kicks in because capitalism: prices rise again, maybe not back to pre-subsidy levels, but they rise.
- Subsidy gets axed: prices rise to above pre-subsidy levels.
(Note: I'm personally entirely pro "subsidize things you want more of". But that requires a stable, trustworthy government that plans on longer timescales.)
- genericresponse 1y agoThere are two more steps: - Demand drops due to increased price to buyers. - Prices drop so manufacturers can remain profitable.
- apexalpha 1y agoSounds like a situation where there's not enough competition. the Netherlands had a net-metering subsidiy + good competition + frictionless install and as a result we have 3,5 solar panels per person installed.
- bdcravens 1y agoOr price fixing.
- robertlagrant 1y ago> Greed kicks in because capitalism There were no greedy people before capitalism. Of that we can be sure.
- komali2 1y agoGreed is a Bad attribute in basically every ethical system and religion throughout history. Capitalism, on the contrary, rewards it. The best way to be under capitalism is greedy (sneakily so, if necessary). So yes, it is uniquely new to have a value system that rewards greed.
- robertlagrant 1y agoIt doesn't reward greed, it rewards value. You could just as well say national borders reward invasions.
- ty6853 1y agoNo, greed is a necessary component. Because under capitalism both parties don't execute the trade, rationally at least, unless both are greedily better off. Without greed it goes from a positive sum system to a destructive system because you no longer have the parties being better off from the transaction. From a cursory standpoint that might be ok (the economy won't implode if some small fraction does this like a minority of commercial activity being charity functions) but you basically lose most the information conveyed in prices and cost causing complete loss of productive allocation and it is an economic implosion.
- isoprophlex 1y agoDo note that nothing in this system incentivizes behaviour that creates societies that could last, say, several hundred years.
- robertlagrant 1y agoYou're mischaracterising "not wanting to overpay" and "getting something you need in return for what you have in excess" as "greed". It's a pointless conversation if you're willing to do that. You're just changing definitions before arguing them.
- ty6853 1y agoI will allow for sake of argument then trading for needs to be excepted. Under your definition it would also implode, just not fully destruct.
- robertlagrant 1y agoTrading for wants is no different to trading for needs from a capitalism perspective. It just removes the need for a central bureaucracy that decides what counts as a need.
- jagger27 1y agoThe perpetual existence of greed is not a good enough reason to structure all of society around that singular trait.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]