2 ms·

I don't think your Uber example counts. Yes, they were paying 2x to drivers, in order to get them out on the road and meeting the needs of their users, but they

by rosser 11y ago

I don't think your Uber example counts. Yes, they were paying 2x to drivers, in order to get them out on the road and meeting the needs of their users, but they were charging riders 1x. The other example is closer to what I'm looking for, but I'm not convinced it's entirely what I'm talking about, either. Yes, there was a (broadly) localized price increase, but it was in the context of a global price up-trend (which can be blamed on biofuels as much as it can poor harvests). Your cited article points out that global corn prices, for example, were up 84%, and had doubled (or, up 100%) in the horn of Africa. (About which, btw: we're talking about one of the most lawless places on the planet. I very much doubt the usual rules of economics apply unmodified in such an environment.) Those aren't egregiously divergent price increases.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
"Later this morning we will be reverting back to standard Surge Pricing for riders..." I'm not sure why you believe the "lawlessness" of a region changes the laws of arithmetic. Scarcity is scarcity, regardless of whether the UN refuses to recognize your government.
Natsu 11y ago
Maybe it's simpler to put it into an example: if there are exactly 3 loaves of bread on the only grocery store's shelf, then handing 100 locals $1,000 each does nothing to ensure that everyone will get fed. In that case, perhaps it makes more sense to use that money to deliver a large truck full of food to everyone. So it's important to have a clear idea of what is and isn't needed when trying to help people and that can depend very strongly on the circumstances they face.