Live data from Hacker News

Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

economist.com

301–310 of 509 posts

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And $20/roll would expedite the changeover pretty quickly.

Not if the producers believe that this is temporary and will go back to 50/50 again soon. It isn't worth the cost of making big changes just to have to change back again in a month.

It may incentivize them to invest in the ability to quickly change the ratio.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then you're still expecting something implausible to happen, because everybody knows there is a shortage of masks and they're needed by healthcare workers, so the chances that 100% of millionaires will disregard that and buy masks they don't need is negligible.

I guess you disregard the nature of millionaires :-D

The majority of millionaires in the US are ordinary retirees who fully own their homes and have a decent amount in their 401k

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're talking about $200 per person. This isn't even "millions of millionaires" territory. This is "most of the middle class of a country of 300 million people".

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economy needs to have good sold at a profit. It seems to be the best way to ensure that people, as a group, make and sell the things that need to be made and sold, and in appropriate quantities. It's not perfect, as there are plenty of inefficiencies, but it's a very good model. There are a number of problems with price gouging. First, it isn't helpful, everyone already knows there's a shortage of critical suppli…

> The economy needs to have good sold at a profit Not for things that do not need to make a profit. See: essentials like healthcare, housing, and basic food items.

Why would anyone work to acquire, sell, and as a result create a competitive market for those items if they can't make any money off of it? Preventing sellers from profiting off of 'essentials' and setting prices has created some of the worst food shortages in history.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#306

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…

> 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.

Willingness to pay is a pretty good indicator of importance, I think. Where this falls apart is ability to pay.

But that's life. If you can't pay, you won't get what you want, no matter how important it may be. Expecting other people to cover for you is called entitlement.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And willingness to pay is a pretty good proxy when marginal utility falls off pretty quickly with quantity. I don't understand why people aren't talking about how disposable PPE defies this point at the low end. Hoarding a million masks doesn't make you better off than buying a thousand, but buying ten N95 masks is as good as buying zero. Masks, gloves, even hand sanitizer are consumables, so getting a little bit o…

Probably because despite how the media is portraying things, people are concerned and can actually act out of altruism. Plus, individuals who are practicing social distancing probably don't need to go through PPE like you would in an intensive care ward. I'm in China and have sold over 30,000 masks to the US (not for profit, but I don't have the cash to just donate them). We've sold to hundreds of different individua…

Citizens shouldn't be buying gloves at all - they're close to completely useless. What's on your gloves...stays on your gloves and promptly travels to everything you touch. SARS-CoV-2 doesn't penetrate the skin. You'd be ubiquitously better off using hand sanitizer.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, there was a post on HN from a guy who makes medical masks that isn't ramping up production as much as he can. The article's headline was basically just that, trying to get as many clicks as possible. The real story was that last time there was a shortage, he did ramp up production. But after the shortage ended, his customers dried up immediately and he was left with paying unemployment for all the new worke…

His masks cost 10c where Chinese-made masks cost 2c. Once you factor in the cost of this crisis as an externality, the cost of Chinese-made anything skyrockets. Outsourcing is a bait-and-switch, always was.

You're completely correct, but what guarantee does he have that the Government will account for this with tariffs?

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#309
post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's kind of impossible to argue that production costs haven't gone up for manufacturers. I have an employee who we need to still go into the office for some manual work 2x a week - he asked that we pay for an Uber for him because he doesn't want to ride public transport. That's just one of many additional costs companies that struggle to continue working are paying. Some degree (within reason) of increased pri…

There's a difference between price gouging and covering expenses. The guy buying up all the masks and reselling them for 10x the price is price gouging. He doesn't make anything. If a manufacturer ramped production and billed the current inventory to cover costs, then that's a very different thing. Of course all of this is why the Defense Production Act even exists. A perfect use of the DPA would be a mask manufactur…

>The guy buying up all the masks and reselling them for 10x the price is price gouging. He doesn't make anything.

The guy buying up all the masks and reselling them for 10x the price is making availability, which is highly important in a crisis.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#310
post #306

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.

Willingness to pay is a pretty good indicator of importance, I think. Where this falls apart is ability to pay. But that's life. If you can't pay, you won't get what you want, no matter how important it may be. Expecting other people to cover for you is called entitlement.

What do you call it when you expect to be able to screw over your fellow man, and have the state's monopoly on violence protect you for it?
Post reply on HN