Live data from Hacker News

Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

economist.com

231–240 of 509 posts

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#231
post #61
post #15

It's very interesting to me that (nearly) everyone agrees that reselling disaster supplies like masks, hand sanitizer, etc. for a large profit is terrible, but somehow selling literal essentials like food, housing, and healthcare for profit is just fine.

Yep. The flaws of that system are becoming clearer and clearer, not that you'd see it from the responses you're getting. "If people can't pay for housing, they deserve to be homeless! If people can't pay for healthcare, they deserve to be sick and die! Without a profit motive, we cannot do anything for our fellow man! It would be immoral to serve without profit, or to look for the greater profit to society!" Housing…

Who is "we?"

I have a question, if you don't mind answering. What are you doing personally to help the homeless and less fortunate than yourself?

I get that it is easy to sit behind a keyboard and complain that other people aren't doing enough. The way to help people isn't to demand that other people pay more, but to use your own resources for the causes which are most important for you.

Simply giving more money to the state solves nothing. It just makes the state bigger, more corrupt and less efficient. The resources get diverted to other goals which don't match up with your own. Perhaps it would be better to keep more of your hard earned money so that you can utilize it as you feel most appropriate?

Relevant?: https://i.imgur.com/MogFw59.jpg

It seems to me that the flaws aren't with the system, but with people who idly sit and wait for things to improve at the cost of someone else (the "rich people" scapegoat). Your time is often more valuable than money to those in need. Why don't you give up more of your time to help people. Perhaps quit your job and become a full time altruist?

Look, nobody "deserves to be homeless," but nor does anybody "deserve to be homed at the cost of somebody else's labour" Nobody "deserves to be sick," but also nobody "deserves to have healthcare given to them without compensating the healthcare giver for their time". It isn't "immoral to help people who can't pay" at all, but it isn't "moral to steal other people's property to pay to help others" either.

You seem to have a cartoon world view in which everyone should be in prosperity by default - but the reality is that poverty is the default state of all of humanity, and the only way that humans have ever lifted themselves out of poverty is through productive labour and innovation. If you are not productive and you can't innovate, you are not entitled to the successes of those who are.

This might seem a bit cold-hearted, but the people who are in the best position to help others are those who are not spending every hour of every day undergoing basic survival. People have a self-interest to look after themselves and their families first - and then once they've secured that goal, can begin to look how they can help others less close to them. The simple fact is that the vast majority of humans are in the category of figuring out how their own family is going to survive month to month, and the less fortunate are simply just that. You can't help everyone. You have limited capacity as a human, and the most effective way you can help anybody is to secure the well-being of yourself and your family so that you have excess resources and time to dedicate to helping others. If your economic output is limited, your time dedicated to helping people directly is infinitely more valuable than your time campaigning for more socialism.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#232
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes that people actually behave rationally. Do we have actual numbers on rich people buying TP during the present crisis? If most people including the rich are going to hoard anyway a rising price just transfers more money to sellers when many need it most. Worse it incentivizes people to buy for resale if the price is trending upward. TP selling for 200% that is headed to 400% shortly is a smarter buy than…

> This assumes that people actually behave rationally. There isn't an alternative. If you assume people behave irrationally you may as well send the army in straight away. People are often stupid but rarely irrational given what they can understand. There is pretty solid evidence that people with money are the ones who spend it rationally. And besides a private buyer's opinion of what is rational is just as valid as…

People are actually usually irrational. Predicting how people behave always involves building an elaborate mental model of the exact way that their own model diverges wildly from observable reality. The fact that they are rational by their own model doesn't mean they even kind of are objectively.

The point is not that you desire to be able to buy TP its that you are willing to sacrifice the general well being for your own convenience.

Hoarding of some non emergency items is self limiting and self correcting in a way that doesn't rob the poor of the ability to wipe their asses. It's a problem that doesn't need solving beyond the simple expedient of not allowing one person to buy too much of it to give other buys a chance.

Your solution by contrast is actually more likely to shift whose hoarding it and why then solve the problem.

If your position was apt then surely you can give one example of such a system working?

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Either that job is an internship (non-permanent and I already addressed it) or you will quickly become a fully productive worker (this is literally just training/ramp up and is not a significant cost to employers). You're asking for examples and then pigeonholing any possibilities into one box or the other. Some occupations take a long time to learn. Years. Particularly if it's effectively half training and half wo…

> Is that a sufficient example? You say I'm pigeonholing you but you have yet to name a single occupation - what am I pigeonholing? Also, my "pigeonholing" is not arbitrary, it is the breadth of jobs that can exist with a minimum wage enacted... No, it is not a sufficient example because you haven't said a word about what this person is doing. You can see how this feels like pulling teeth on my end, yes? I just want…

> you have yet to name a single occupation

Because it isn't in any way specific to an occupation. It's anything where the employee receives a non-monetary benefit from working somewhere that offsets a reduction in monetary compensation. It doesn't matter if what they're teaching you is to be a lawyer or an electrician or an auto worker, what happens is that you receive long-term training in exchange for less pay.

> My argument is exactly that you need a minimum wage in a sellers market because the market is exceedingly inefficient for workers and allows companies to exploit workers and pass that profit off to already wealthy shareholders and upper management.

This is not a description of a seller's market. When labor becomes more scarce or more in demand, the price goes up without need for any special rules.

> If it is between a job that pays enough to survive vs one that does not?

The point is that minimum wage is a garbage metric for this.

Suppose one job requires you to incur $4000/year more in transportation expenses for commuting and then pays $15,000/year instead of $12,000/year. The lower paying job leaves you with $1000 more in your pocket after expenses, but it's prohibited. If either of those jobs doesn't pay enough to live it's the one with the higher nominal pay.

> I fully agree that would be a better policy. It has proved much harder to pass through the political system.

I don't think they've had an easy time raising the minimum wage either (for much more legitimate reasons) and would do better to give up on the worse policy so they can concentrate on the better one.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#234
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As is often the case, the problem is millions of millionaires instead of a handful of billionaires. There are 18.6 million millionaires in the US. If each of them bought 10 n95 masks just in case, or for themselves + family + friends, that's 186 million masks. They could easily pay $20 / mask (that's only $200 per millionaire), which would significantly push up the cost to hospitals of acquiring masks. Hospitals migh…

Except that has never happened.

That is absolutely factually wrong. Mask prices on Amazon were already inflated back in February, and stocks were already very low.

But the most annoying thing about this thread is how it has turned into some kind of let's-forecast-the-markets game, instead of dealing with the underlying reality - that the markets failed to provide an essential good when it was needed, resulting in a significant number of avoidable deaths.

There should be a special word for the moral delusion that markets exist in an abstract philosophical vacuum and price signals are somehow more important than people's lives.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#235
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes that people actually behave rationally. Do we have actual numbers on rich people buying TP during the present crisis? If most people including the rich are going to hoard anyway a rising price just transfers more money to sellers when many need it most. Worse it incentivizes people to buy for resale if the price is trending upward. TP selling for 200% that is headed to 400% shortly is a smarter buy than…

> This assumes that people actually behave rationally. There isn't an alternative. If you assume people behave irrationally you may as well send the army in straight away. People are often stupid but rarely irrational given what they can understand. There is pretty solid evidence that people with money are the ones who spend it rationally. And besides a private buyer's opinion of what is rational is just as valid as…

> If you assume people behave irrationally you may as well send the army in straight away.

This is false, as well as being a false dichotomy. We know people act at least somewhat irrationally. That's why we have laws on gambling. It doesn't mean sending in the military.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that has never happened.

That is absolutely factually wrong. Mask prices on Amazon were already inflated back in February, and stocks were already very low. But the most annoying thing about this thread is how it has turned into some kind of let's-forecast-the-markets game, instead of dealing with the underlying reality - that the markets failed to provide an essential good when it was needed, resulting in a significant number of avoidable d…

> Mask prices on Amazon were already inflated back in February, and stocks were already very low.

Please cite evidence that this was "millions of millionaires" buying masks.

When an oil refinery blows up and gas prices rise, that isn't evidence of millionaires hoarding, either. It's evidence of supply and demand at work.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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...

Also wowww, research that this employment policies institute was involved in might not be the most unbiased source: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Employment_Policies_In...

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#238
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes that people actually behave rationally. Do we have actual numbers on rich people buying TP during the present crisis? If most people including the rich are going to hoard anyway a rising price just transfers more money to sellers when many need it most. Worse it incentivizes people to buy for resale if the price is trending upward. TP selling for 200% that is headed to 400% shortly is a smarter buy than…

> This assumes that people actually behave rationally. There isn't an alternative. If you assume people behave irrationally you may as well send the army in straight away. People are often stupid but rarely irrational given what they can understand. There is pretty solid evidence that people with money are the ones who spend it rationally. And besides a private buyer's opinion of what is rational is just as valid as…

There is an alternative to assumming people behave rationally, which is to model behaviors based on large scale evidence, not clean ideals. This is pretty much why Sociology and Anthropology exist and are fairly complicated subjects.

Economic modelling often fails because they assume a small number of rational and logic rules. But people are highly variable and rational for one person is irrational for another, depending upon experience and situations.

Your claim that people with money spend it rationally is countered by evidence that poor people are often spending money rationally, given their situation, needs and income. Different situations lead to very different definitions of rational and "common sense". (Mental stress & fatigue also becomes a decision making factor at low income levels.)

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#239
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

As is often the case, the problem is millions of millionaires instead of a handful of billionaires. There are 18.6 million millionaires in the US. If each of them bought 10 n95 masks just in case, or for themselves + family + friends, that's 186 million masks. They could easily pay $20 / mask (that's only $200 per millionaire), which would significantly push up the cost to hospitals of acquiring masks. Hospitals migh…

I agree with you and would add that it's not just millionaires. People on median incomes are buying masks at these inflated prices from profiteers, so the market is massively inflated.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If prices are very high then hospitals may be the only ones who can afford them, versus people on the street. Outlawing price gauging alone just ensures masks go to people who don’t need them as much as doctors. The problem is that doesn't seem to reflect the reality of the situation. Why are hospitals still experiencing shortages? What stops manufacturers and sellers from limiting supply to drive up prices? This i…

AFAIK, hospitals aren't experiencing a shortage because of lack of money to buy masks. They're experiencing a shortage because there aren't enough masks.

But were experiencing shortages because of profiteering.

>In New York police arrested a man who had stockpiled medical gear, allegedly selling it for a 700% mark-up.

Post reply on HN