4 ms·

Yes, that is why I asked you define what you meant by 'strict'. What characteristic are you trying to identify with that term?

by gwright 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ynniv 14y ago
The parent wondered why the price of gasoline was not currently astronomically high to reduce demand to meet supply. My response is that this means of sharing a limited resource disproportionally burdens those less wealthy. Over the long term it is reasonable to say that a resource has a high price. In the short term, strict capitalism would say that a wealthy businessman makes better use of that tank of gasoline than someone who is desperately hoping to transport their family out of a flooded house to stay with relatives in another city. That social burden created by the loss the family man endures doesn't carry a dollar amount, so a system based strictly on capitalism can't recognize that it has become poorer than if the resource had been shared in some other fashion.
- gwright 14y ago
  So charging more for a temporarily scarce resource is what 'ruins societies'? How much gas do you think someone needs to transport themselves to another city? Imagine gas prices doubled so that someone had to spend $120 instead of $60 to fill their tank. Are you really trying to tell me that $60 is all that separates a functioning society from 'ruin'? During a shortage, the high prices don't last forever, they only last as long as the shortage persists. Arguing as if the high prices are an ongoing problem for the poor or the rich doesn't make sense. In any case, it would be much better for the government to give the poor person $60 to purchase the more expensive gas (or the ice, or the food, or whatever was most critical for that person) rather than artificially manipulate market prices.
  - ynniv 14y ago
    So charging more for a temporarily scarce resource is what 'ruins societies'? Thoughtless adherence to an academic principal ruins societies. it would be much better for the government to give the poor person $60 to purchase the more expensive gas Why do you think that doubling the price will level supply and demand? It would take at least an order of magnitude, and the seller would have to conduct an auction in the presence of a representative sample of buyers in order to determine pricing. Also you're arguing for setting up an effective social program in the middle of an emergency. It's far more practical to suspend the free market for a week. Unfettered capitalism in an emergency creates a divided, third world community of normal and desperate. If you want to argue anything, argue that.

Yes, that is why I asked you define what you meant by 'strict'. What characteristic are you trying to identify with that term?

by gwright 14y ago

Yes, that is why I asked you define what you meant by 'strict'. What characteristic are you trying to identify with that term?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

ynniv 14y ago

The parent wondered why the price of gasoline was not currently astronomically high to reduce demand to meet supply. My response is that this means of sharing a limited resource disproportionally burdens those less wealthy. Over the long term it is reasonable to say that a resource has a high price. In the short term, strict capitalism would say that a wealthy businessman makes better use of that tank of gasoline than someone who is desperately hoping to transport their family out of a flooded house to stay with relatives in another city. That social burden created by the loss the family man endures doesn't carry a dollar amount, so a system based strictly on capitalism can't recognize that it has become poorer than if the resource had been shared in some other fashion.

gwright 14y ago
So charging more for a temporarily scarce resource is what 'ruins societies'? How much gas do you think someone needs to transport themselves to another city? Imagine gas prices doubled so that someone had to spend $120 instead of $60 to fill their tank. Are you really trying to tell me that $60 is all that separates a functioning society from 'ruin'? During a shortage, the high prices don't last forever, they only last as long as the shortage persists. Arguing as if the high prices are an ongoing problem for the poor or the rich doesn't make sense. In any case, it would be much better for the government to give the poor person $60 to purchase the more expensive gas (or the ice, or the food, or whatever was most critical for that person) rather than artificially manipulate market prices.
- ynniv 14y ago
  So charging more for a temporarily scarce resource is what 'ruins societies'? Thoughtless adherence to an academic principal ruins societies. it would be much better for the government to give the poor person $60 to purchase the more expensive gas Why do you think that doubling the price will level supply and demand? It would take at least an order of magnitude, and the seller would have to conduct an auction in the presence of a representative sample of buyers in order to determine pricing. Also you're arguing for setting up an effective social program in the middle of an emergency. It's far more practical to suspend the free market for a week. Unfettered capitalism in an emergency creates a divided, third world community of normal and desperate. If you want to argue anything, argue that.