Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 275 posts

Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

#181

Post by perl4ever »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #152
aianus wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an entire Costco package of toilet paper that will last me months while some poor bastard near me is probably wiping his ass with his hand (or worse, flushing paper towel and causing thousands of dollars of damage) because there is no effective way for me to resell my excess in a way that is legal and won’t result in crazy social media backlash against me. I similarly have months of supply of hand sanitizer (o…

Wouldn't you be within the law if you simply sold the rolls at your own cost, or even your cost plus 10%, rather than trying to turn a large profit from them?

You could give them to your friend(s) if you have any.

Or try freecycle.

It's not difficult once you realize that if you actually care about waste, then you don't have to profit.

Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

#182

Post by Karishma1234fff »

dfee wrote: post #57
burkaman wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would certainly look bad, and I think it would potentially be illegal in some states. https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/price-gou... For example, Georgia: > Selling items or services determined by the Governor during a declared state of emergency to be necessary for public safety at a higher cost than they were immediately prior to the declaration. Kansas: > For any supplier of a "necessary proper…

I don’t know how I feel about this. In the general case, I feel like price gouging during emergencies is unethical. But, when there is a non-artificial supply and demand issue, I struggle with the derivative effects of these policies. My concern is that rather than simply evaluating on the consumers ability to pay (and backwards-looking at prior statements instead of increased go-forward costs), these policies add on…

I find price gouging to be perfectly normal and perhaps even desirable during times like these. If the toilet paper prices go up drastically people will not be able to hoard it the way they are doing today.

Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

#184

Post by 2J0 »

edmundsauto wrote: post #92
dfee wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know how I feel about this. In the general case, I feel like price gouging during emergencies is unethical. But, when there is a non-artificial supply and demand issue, I struggle with the derivative effects of these policies. My concern is that rather than simply evaluating on the consumers ability to pay (and backwards-looking at prior statements instead of increased go-forward costs), these policies add on…

The additional dimension is time-smoothing. Emergency declarations that solely serve to smooth over a few weeks spike can be effective. There does not appear to be a predictive estimator whether emergency declarations will be appropriately time limited.

my father , a Depression Era banker, observed : "who asks How Much is fine but the man who asks When you are paying him is finished."

Government has to smooth time.

Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

#185

Post by mgkimsal »

Karishma1234fff wrote: post #182
dfee wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know how I feel about this. In the general case, I feel like price gouging during emergencies is unethical. But, when there is a non-artificial supply and demand issue, I struggle with the derivative effects of these policies. My concern is that rather than simply evaluating on the consumers ability to pay (and backwards-looking at prior statements instead of increased go-forward costs), these policies add on…

I find price gouging to be perfectly normal and perhaps even desirable during times like these. If the toilet paper prices go up drastically people will not be able to hoard it the way they are doing today.

variable pricing for volume - reverse discounts, in effect - might have worked well.

buying 1 pack of TP? $2. 2 packs? $5. 3 packs? $12. etc.

The people that truly need 1 or 2 can afford those. The people that want to buy 10 or 20 at a time will pay a huge premium, enough such that it won't really even be easy for them to turn a profit trying to resell to the people who got there 10 minutes after them.

Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

#186

Post by stainforth »

lend000 wrote: post #95
burkaman wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would certainly look bad, and I think it would potentially be illegal in some states. https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/price-gou... For example, Georgia: > Selling items or services determined by the Governor during a declared state of emergency to be necessary for public safety at a higher cost than they were immediately prior to the declaration. Kansas: > For any supplier of a "necessary proper…

I wonder how many masks would be floating around by now if there were no laws or public shaming for raising prices in an emergency.

So make it $500 a mask and you just cordon off a good for the rich.

Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

#187

Post by aianus »

perl4ever wrote: post #177
aianus wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an entire Costco package of toilet paper that will last me months while some poor bastard near me is probably wiping his ass with his hand (or worse, flushing paper towel and causing thousands of dollars of damage) because there is no effective way for me to resell my excess in a way that is legal and won’t result in crazy social media backlash against me. I similarly have months of supply of hand sanitizer (o…

You don't seem to be responding to my comment. High prices cannot necessarily increase supply when the timeframe is strictly limited. This is a reality that a lot of people seem to not accept. So the effect of price is just to determine the distribution of a limited supply. That significantly reduces the utility of a market pricing system. Directing production is a fundamental reason why markets are useful in normal…

High prices encourage people like me who have more than enough to get off their asses and share the excess.

There is already plenty of TP in existence in the country for everyone, it’s just poorly distributed because the gov has removed the incentive for the TP-haves to distribute it better towards the TP-have-nots.

Or, more to the point of the article, there is no incentive for someone with a useless side project to give up their Azure instance to someone delivering food or medicine.

Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

#188

Post by lend000 »

stainforth wrote: post #186
lend000 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how many masks would be floating around by now if there were no laws or public shaming for raising prices in an emergency.

So make it $500 a mask and you just cordon off a good for the rich.

Econ 101: Today, masks are $500. Tomorrow, 100 companies in various industries begin to repurpose their factories to produce masks and arbitrage the price down until it isn't profitable anymore. Supply increases; thus, there are more masks than there were before the price increase. Even if you don't like who gets the first mask, you can't deny that supply increases, and therefore more people now have masks.

Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

#189

Post by hannasanarion »

Karishma1234fff wrote: post #182
dfee wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know how I feel about this. In the general case, I feel like price gouging during emergencies is unethical. But, when there is a non-artificial supply and demand issue, I struggle with the derivative effects of these policies. My concern is that rather than simply evaluating on the consumers ability to pay (and backwards-looking at prior statements instead of increased go-forward costs), these policies add on…

I find price gouging to be perfectly normal and perhaps even desirable during times like these. If the toilet paper prices go up drastically people will not be able to hoard it the way they are doing today.

People will still be able to hoard things. The difference is that only the rich will hoard, because everybody else never got the chance.

The normal market logic that high prices encourage extra production doesn't apply during an emergency, when the demand is panic-induced and momentary, and supply changes won't take effect until after the emergency is over.

The actual solution that makes sure everyone gets what they need and theres no hoarding is rationing: limit the number that one person can buy. And that's exactly what most grocery stores are doing.

Re: Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

#190

Post by perl4ever »

aianus wrote: post #187
perl4ever wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't seem to be responding to my comment. High prices cannot necessarily increase supply when the timeframe is strictly limited. This is a reality that a lot of people seem to not accept. So the effect of price is just to determine the distribution of a limited supply. That significantly reduces the utility of a market pricing system. Directing production is a fundamental reason why markets are useful in normal…

High prices encourage people like me who have more than enough to get off their asses and share the excess. There is already plenty of TP in existence in the country for everyone, it’s just poorly distributed because the gov has removed the incentive for the TP-haves to distribute it better towards the TP-have-nots. Or, more to the point of the article, there is no incentive for someone with a useless side project to…

But it was the high price of the stuff that made the people who require "incentives" grab it. It's circular, like a stock market bubble. First people panic and buy, then other people buy because the price is going up, it's absurd to say that price represents some fundamental truth.

When I went to the grocery store a week ago, there were a lot of things, just not toilet paper. If the laws against price gouging are causing a problem, why is it so selective?

Microsoft seems to be doing the same, sensible, thing that grocery stores are doing in some cases - try to ration stuff per customer.

People are talking about how this dynamic is playing out on a bigger scale, as states compete for resources in the absence of the federal government coordinating.

Post reply on HN