Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

Post by p1necone » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 10:43 AM UTC

h0l0cube wrote: post #148

4773ueudjj wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of online questioning is the lazy dismissal of the 21st century. This comment has a positive score and even a child that agrees with it and yet it's akin to asking any theorist "do you have sources for that?" in response to them saying something wildly uncontroversial within their domain. It adds nothing to the discussion and only shows that the respondent is so wildly out of touch with the relevant mainstr…

> Hacker News supposedly has a rule against shallow comments and yet for some reason knee jerk requests for sources with no additional substance to drive the dialogue forward are considered 'reasonable'. Their statement begged the question, and it was asked. I wasn't asking out of hostility, but out of curiosity. If the point can be made, and as you say, there is overwhelming evidence, I'd like the self-described exp…

Post by throw0101a » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 10:47 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…

Post by cool_dude85 » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 10:50 AM UTC

agent008t wrote: post #254

TeMPOraL wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buying for resale doesn't magically create TP. The amount of TP available to consumers is the same, the amount of money made by TP producers is the same. But consumers have to spend more money, because there's a parasitic layer of resellers introducing friction into the system.

I would rather people buy to resell, than buy to hoard "just in case". The former does increase the amount available to consumers.

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 10:50 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #248

neilwilson wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But that guy who was trying to buy a thousand? He's thinking twice." Why wouldn't he just borrow the money to pay for it, hoard the supply and then flip it back onto the market when the price hits $40? You're assuming a finite amount of money, but the monetary system is necessarily elastic. Then the hoard, because it has gone up in value, becomes collateral for more loans. Whereas rationing necessarily solves the di…

Because at some point, TP will go back to $0.50/roll essentially permanently. You can’t be sure that you’re buying on a sustained upswing in prices.

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 10:58 AM UTC

tomp wrote: post #201

hannasanarion wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If ramping up production were as simple as hiring 100 more people, it would have been done even if there weren't a crisis. Capacity for manufacture is not infinite and it cannot be changed at a moments notice. It takes months or years to establish supply chains, facilities, machinery, and expertise needed to increase manufacture, and by that time the crisis is over and the extra demand is gone.

How do you know that? What if there was a factory running at less than 100% physically capacity? You could in theory ramp up production very quickly simply by hiring more people, but you won’t, because doing so incures costs (training them, giving them PPE, ...) and you can’t be sure about your income (price rises are banned, exporting is outlawed, your product might even be confiscated).