Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#101

Post by dahart » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 4:20 AM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #25

SftwrSvior81 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> high prices direct resources to more important uses I don't think that that is always true. High prices will redirect scarce resources to those who have the means and desire to pay for them. That doesn't necessarily mean that those uses are more important, regardless of how one defines what it means for the resource usage to be important.

> High prices will redirect scarce resources to those who have the means and desire to pay for them. That's true. Don't you think it's also true that those who need a good more have a greater desire to pay for that good? I understand that not everyone has the same ability to pay, but we can't crucify the market on the cross of equity. History shows that when you try to allocate goods based on feelings (some random of…

What’s the economic difference between a stipend to consumers and a price cap on suppliers? It sounds like you just suggested regulation as an alternative to regulation...

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#102

Post by inreverse » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 4:22 AM UTC

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #96

theschmed wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there another kind of argument from morality EXCEPT those that go, "We shouldn't do that because it could harm people?" Hard to take someone seriously who blithely compares genocide to a minimum wage....

Eugenics and wage “protections” like minimum wage are both tied to the same racist underpinnings. The minimum wage was established to price out black workers.

Was the minimum wage in, for example, New Zealand established to price out black workers?

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#103

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 4:24 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #45

alexmingoia wrote: post #4

Increased production doesn’t occur because the economics don’t work, it doesn’t occur because there’s just no way to physically ramp up production that fast. That’s not really a critique of the economics. If production could be increased that fast the manufacturers would. An important point the article didn’t address is that high prices direct resources to more important uses. If prices are very high then hospitals m…

> An important point the article didn’t address is that high prices direct resources to more important uses. Neither do high prices. Those direct them to people with more money to spend. Confusing "richer" with "more important" is always a bad idea, but especially so with goods like medical supplies. A billionaire who wants to stockpile a million masks just in case definitely not "more important" than a million poor…

> A billionaire who wants to stockpile a million masks just in case definitely not "more important" than a million poor people getting 1 mask each.

Real people don't behave like this. A billionaire can't make personal use of a million masks and there is no point in stockpiling them during a crisis just in case there is some future crisis. They're not going to be worth more a year from now than they are today because by then either demand will be lower or production will be higher.

So nobody would be buying a million masks to hoard in a bunker right now. The people buying them would be the people who intend to use them.

Then you need to differentiate who needs them the most, but there is no way to do that efficiently from the top of a tower. And willingness to pay is a pretty good proxy when marginal utility falls off pretty quickly with quantity. A software engineer isn't going to pay a high price for a thousand masks they don't need any more than the billionaire is going to buy a million. But a doctor's office might very well pay a high price for a thousand masks they do need, which is exactly what you want to see because it causes them to get what they need.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#104

Post by p1necone » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 4:27 AM UTC

nonidentified wrote: post #76

Speaking as an economist, I tend to get nervous when other economists talk about circumstances where "morality trumps economics." As a profession, we have a miserable track record on morality. Economists widely endorsed eugenics in the first half of the 20th century, for example. And many modern economists endorse a minimum wage, as eugenicists did then, but with even less regard for the harm it causes. Personally, I…

"And many modern economists endorse a minimum wage, as eugenicists did then, but with even less regard for the harm it causes."

Come on, you know the idea of a minimum wage is pretty widely accepted as a good idea by a lot of people, including (most? edit: apparently majority, but not by much) economists. You can't just phrase something as if it was widely accepted as true and make it so.

Don't get me wrong, you're absolutely allowed to voice your opinion on this, but the way you've phrased it strikes me as being rather intellectually dishonest.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#105

Post by dantheman » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 4:27 AM UTC

h0l0cube wrote: post #91

nonidentified wrote: post #76

Speaking as an economist, I tend to get nervous when other economists talk about circumstances where "morality trumps economics." As a profession, we have a miserable track record on morality. Economists widely endorsed eugenics in the first half of the 20th century, for example. And many modern economists endorse a minimum wage, as eugenicists did then, but with even less regard for the harm it causes. Personally, I…

> And many modern economists endorse a minimum wage, as eugenicists did then, but with even less regard for the harm it causes. What are the harms of a minimum wage? Do you have any empirical sources to back that up?

Minimum wage puts a floor on the amount of value necessary for someone to be employable. Many people, especially those just starting out can't produce that much value.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#106

Post by perl4ever » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 4:28 AM UTC

someguydave wrote: post #77

lettergram wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they had allowed dynamic pricing then people who needed more would probably be willing to pay $10/roll of paper towels Vs the fixed $2/roll. They aren’t necessary for life, so setting fixed prices are why they need hard limits. Seems crazy to me we aren’t seeing a “free market” at play, where both inherently the stores “win” and the people receive the goods they need / can justify.

You aren't seeing a "free market" because all of these big corps are scared to death of being accused of "profiteering" on supplies (with potential liability from anti-"gouging" laws), so they can't raise prices. Their only other option is to restrict the buyer's quantities.

They can raise prices moderately on everything to make up for it, and/or stock things that are slightly less appealing in normal times to slow turnover and bias sales towards those more in need. For instance, the pasta section was about 5% full and almost entirely things like whole wheat, cauliflower gluten-free, or turmeric. But that's fine with me. Your tone is that this is not the optimal solution and some misguided people are causing it by mistake. I don't think that's the case.

People who get upset about the lack of high prices for scarce commodities seem to me to be inconsistent - if you aren't in a high stakes zero-sum competition, then why should you care much about being able to outbid others? And if you think that you are, how can you ethically defend everyone not getting a minimum ration or be sure that in a so-called free market you will get yours?

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#107

Post by logicchains » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 4:28 AM UTC

inreverse wrote: post #102

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eugenics and wage “protections” like minimum wage are both tied to the same racist underpinnings. The minimum wage was established to price out black workers.

Was the minimum wage in, for example, New Zealand established to price out black workers?

I don't know about New Zealand, but in 1912 Arthur Holcombe of Harvard University said about Australia's minimum wage:

"[The minimum wage will] protect the white Australian’s standard of living from the invidious competition of the colored races, particularly of the Chinese."

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#108

Post by pm » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 4:29 AM UTC

h0l0cube wrote: post #91

nonidentified wrote: post #76

Speaking as an economist, I tend to get nervous when other economists talk about circumstances where "morality trumps economics." As a profession, we have a miserable track record on morality. Economists widely endorsed eugenics in the first half of the 20th century, for example. And many modern economists endorse a minimum wage, as eugenicists did then, but with even less regard for the harm it causes. Personally, I…

> And many modern economists endorse a minimum wage, as eugenicists did then, but with even less regard for the harm it causes. What are the harms of a minimum wage? Do you have any empirical sources to back that up?

Agreed, what harm does a minimum wage cause? We have a reasonable minimum wage in Australia (though I don't think it's been adjusted for inflation for a while) and it facilitates time for education, which in turn facilitates social mobility.

On the other hand, you can have no minimum wage, and end up with a class of working poor who have no time to educate themselves, thus condemning them to a life of constant work with no hope of social mobility.

I don't see how a minimum wage is harmful.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#109

Post by logicchains » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 4:30 AM UTC

p1necone wrote: post #104

nonidentified wrote: post #76

Speaking as an economist, I tend to get nervous when other economists talk about circumstances where "morality trumps economics." As a profession, we have a miserable track record on morality. Economists widely endorsed eugenics in the first half of the 20th century, for example. And many modern economists endorse a minimum wage, as eugenicists did then, but with even less regard for the harm it causes. Personally, I…

"And many modern economists endorse a minimum wage, as eugenicists did then, but with even less regard for the harm it causes." Come on, you know the idea of a minimum wage is pretty widely accepted as a good idea by a lot of people, including (most? edit: apparently majority, but not by much) economists. You can't just phrase something as if it was widely accepted as true and make it so. Don't get me wrong, you're a…

>Come on, you know the idea of a minimum wage is pretty widely accepted as a good idea by a lot of people, including (most?) economists.

From a recent study https://cei.org/blog/what-do-economists-think-about-minimum-... : "A new poll of professional economists finds 74 percent of respondents opposing a $15 per hour minimum wage—and nearly a mirror image of non-economist public opinion, which is nearly a mirror opposite. 84 percent believe it would have a negative impact on youth employment levels. 43 percent favor eliminating the minimum wage outright. Only 12 percent of respondents identify as Republicans, which is roughly representative of the profession as a whole, with 35 percent identifying as Democratic and 46 percent as independents."

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#110

Post by xvedejas » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 4:30 AM UTC

p1necone wrote: post #104

nonidentified wrote: post #76

Speaking as an economist, I tend to get nervous when other economists talk about circumstances where "morality trumps economics." As a profession, we have a miserable track record on morality. Economists widely endorsed eugenics in the first half of the 20th century, for example. And many modern economists endorse a minimum wage, as eugenicists did then, but with even less regard for the harm it causes. Personally, I…

"And many modern economists endorse a minimum wage, as eugenicists did then, but with even less regard for the harm it causes." Come on, you know the idea of a minimum wage is pretty widely accepted as a good idea by a lot of people, including (most? edit: apparently majority, but not by much) economists. You can't just phrase something as if it was widely accepted as true and make it so. Don't get me wrong, you're a…

I dunno, we might want to start getting some sources in on this. This is the one article I've seen beforehand that discusses how much economists endorse the idea of a minimum wage ($15/hr specifically) and it casts doubt on your very confident tone. I don't really know what to believe, maybe more polls are necessary.

https://epionline.org/studies/survey-of-us-economists-on-a-1...