gwright

52 ms·

691.
by gwright 7y ago
> If the end goal is to have availability to sanitation supplies across the population to prevent the spread, then surge pricing is not the answer. That is just an assertion with no justification that goes against all standard economic
692.
by gwright 7y ago
Purchase limit per customer? So a single person and a family of four and a family of six are subject to the same limit? Much easier to raise the price then ask people to prove their need for a product. And how are you going to prevent peop
693.
by gwright 7y ago
> people buying in surplus isn't demand. It's just, well, hoarding Of course it is demand. You may also call it "hoarding" those aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
694.
by gwright 7y ago
Not young at all. Your belief in the wisdom of centralized groups of "experts", is historical naive and dangerous. Note. I'm pretty much poking fun at the idea of things being centralized and driven top down. Not at the notio
695.
by gwright 7y ago
The price float did not happen and what was the result? Empty shelves. Is that a satisfactory outcome from your standpoint?
696.
by gwright 7y ago
It is not that. A higher price doesn't magically mean that rich people get it and poor people don't. Everyone will respond to that price signal and adjust their behavior. Everyone will also change their priorities. There seems
697.
by gwright 7y ago
They should be charging increased prices. They should have charged increased prices the moment demand went up (like Uber surge pricing). That would have snuffed out the speculators right quick. One reason they don't do this is because
698.
by gwright 7y ago
And how do the "poor" benefit from an empty shelf? This argument about poor people not being able to afford TP at 2x, 3x, or even higher prices doesn't make any sense to me. Especially when we are talking about a very short t
699.
by gwright 7y ago
Sigh. The fact remains that perfectly rational actors have concluded that they may not want to be shopping for the next two, three, or four weeks. That means purchasing more now for your own completely rational use. If everyone does that a
700.
by gwright 7y ago
Have you noticed that the shelves are empty? The price gouging laws don't help that situation they create that situation. How are empty shelves better than the items available for 2x, 3x or even 5x the regular price for a short per
701.
by gwright 7y ago
> enlightened selfishness is still the enemy of progress Baloney.
702.
by gwright 7y ago
> These types of situations are textbook explanations for WAR PROFITEERING (except we are in a crisis instead of war). Meh. I don't think it is the same thing at all. There is no shortage of raw materials or of labor (as in war time
703.
by gwright 7y ago
> factories cannot surge up immediately Really? How about longer shifts, double shifts, weekend shifts? If you could suddenly make twice the profit on your product you would figure that out pretty quick! If you can't make any extra
704.
by gwright 7y ago
> it's (rightly) considered predatory and criminally anti-social It is this attitude that creates these opportunities. If we collectively understood that allow "surge" pricing is the fastest way to respond to a spike in d
705.
by gwright 7y ago
And what is the end result of empty shelves? Is that an acceptable solution? I don't understand people who advocate for policies that almost guarantee empty shelves instead of a policy that would avoid shortages but at a higher price
706.
by gwright 7y ago
They won't if they can't sell it for higher price. But adding capacity could just mean running extra shifts or producing on the weekend. But that means higher costs (paying people to work on the weekend).
707.
by gwright 7y ago
Letting the price float is the fastest way to discourage the hoarders and let the market come back to a sane equilibrium. By not allowing the price to float you can see that the result is empty shelves. The empty shelf is also a "real
708.
by gwright 7y ago
> it's madness that the economic impact is supposed to just stop at landlords, moneylenders, etc. Who is advocating this position that you think is "madness"? This is an evolving situation that individuals, local, state, a
709.
by gwright 7y ago
so? That is not the same thing as saying it is a hoax. Plenty of reasonable criticisms to make but that doesn’t mean the President thinks the virus itself is a hoax. I am arguing for clear communication and facts and people are basically s
710.
by gwright 7y ago
The president didn't say that the virus is a partisan hoax. His actions clearly indicate he doesn't believe it is a hoax. The president did claim that some criticisms about his handling of the situation were a "new hoax"
711.
by gwright 7y ago
What nonsense. It isn't hard to understand what the President is saying. And the idea that there are particular words that shouldn't be used because we are in a crisis is just weird. Yes we should strive for clear communication b
712.
by gwright 7y ago
Trump has been using "hoax" to refer to the false attacks on him for long before COVID-19 was a thing.
713.
by gwright 7y ago
It isn't hard to parse at all. He has been using the word "hoax" to refer to false narratives and accusations for months if not years. He is clearly pushing back on the criticisms as being false, as being a "hoax".
714.
by gwright 7y ago
It is very clear. He uses it to refer to the unfounded conspiracy theories and accusations directed at him. What is so difficult to understand about that usage?
715.
by gwright 7y ago
> But he did call it a hoax. No he didn't. He characterized the criticism as a hoax. That is an entirely different thing. By perpetuating the lie that he considered the outbreak as a hoax you are adding to the problem. If you disag
716.
by gwright 7y ago
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/no-trump-didnt-ca...
717.
by gwright 7y ago
> The root cause of this Outbreak in North America is we have a president call it a HOAX, Wrong. You are just repeating misinformation. He labeled some of the criticism a hoax, not the outbreak.
718.
by gwright 7y ago
An interesting thought experiment but I would suspect that there needs to be some additional fact pattern there before you could show liability: knowledge that some employees had recently travelled to hot spots or were symptomatic, the meet
719.
by gwright 7y ago
We'll see, but I think this "lack of confidence" is much more an artifact of crappy reporting than crappy reactions by public health organizations. The test kit snafu seems like an unforced error though. It is going to be clo
720.
by gwright 7y ago
I was curious about "capacity" and found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_hosp... I'm not sure how to interpret that table. The range of beds/person is amazing to me. Does tha

More ›