Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#331

Post by code_duck » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 1:49 PM UTC

croon wrote: post #273

roenxi wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> isn't it better that rich people are encouraged to hoard when supply is plentiful? The market signal that would make rich people hoard masks in the good times would be ... an expectation that if an unexpected crisis arose then prices would rise to extreme values. Nothing else is going to make that happen. Not even most governments manage to resist economising and running down their medical supplies after the last h…

> I'm not going to hoard in good times because I'm not crazy; I know I can't be ready for everything. We don't want anyone hoarding ( or gouging). However keeping TP enough for 2 weeks when supply was ample, whould have prevented this ever being an issue, and no gouging needed. TP production has never been an issue, the system shock of people panic buying (too much) all at once was. People aren't shitting more than b…

>People aren't shitting more than before.

Like bananas, this is an issue of commercial and residential supply chains. Most commercial bathrooms have totally different toilet paper than home paper - thin, and on a huge roll. People are using the bathroom at home far more than before, since they’re not using it at restaurants, work or other public areas.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#332

Post by DuskStar » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 1:52 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #234

WalterBright wrote: post #226

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…

> 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.

From my perspective, there should be some word for the delusion that equitable distribution of a smaller, price-fixed supply is better than prioritized distribution of a larger, price-gouging supply. The lack of masks that not allowing higher prices causes is going to kill people, and you want to restrict the supply available to everyone in order to not be unfair to the poor?

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#333

Post by sk5t » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 1:53 PM UTC

treden wrote: post #315

Consultant32452 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

He's capturing availability, the manufacturer made the availability. There is no value-adding middle man role with a 10x value here (well value to anyone other than the middle man).

Watch out of you'll end up in a debate about whether and how HFT and front-running are good for the Main Street investor...

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#334

Post by Kaiyou » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 1:53 PM UTC

charlesu wrote: post #290

sparkie wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

You and the poster above you have fundamental differences in how you understand the world. He seems to believe in a world of abundance and you seem to believe in a world of scarcity, not simply limited resources but literal scarcity. Why do you take it as fact that there isn't enough to go around? Are you sure that's the case?

Yes, absolutely sure.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#335

Post by someguydave » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 1:54 PM UTC

numbsafari wrote: post #38

quotemstr wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It is both immoral and incorrect to measure need based on who has the most liquidity.

I’m assuming this is sarcasm. Can you propose an alternative method of measuring need?

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#336

Post by aww_dang » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 1:56 PM UTC

A popular domain which specializes in Austrian economics has printed dissenting opinions on this topic. Predictably, that domain is repeatedly flagged by HN.

Reading through the comments here, all of the objections to 'price gouging' have been addressed in those articles. I have a hard time squaring HN's mission statement of 'promoting intellectual curiosity' with this contradiction.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#337

Post by Kaiyou » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 1:58 PM UTC

kaitai wrote: post #61

patmcc wrote: 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…

If you can't pay, you don't deserve to get things for free. What's so difficult about this concept? Maybe someone else is incentivized to pay for you. But if there isn't, you do not actually deserve anything costing money, without being able to pay that money. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#338

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 1:59 PM UTC

SftwrSvior81 wrote: post #11

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…

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#339

Post by Nasrudith » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 2:01 PM UTC

SftwrSvior81 wrote: post #11

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…

> 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.

It sort of works long term but with an alien detached long term point of view. A bit more third order causes.

Essentially if they can afford to pay higher prices continually then it implies some sort of sustained utility. If their decisions are foolish they would start losing said capability squandering it and give it to the "sources" one way or another.

That doesn't say anything about the morality, sanity, or time pressures but I can see some truth to it.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#340

Post by mobilefriendly » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 2:06 PM UTC

goatinaboat wrote: post #283

wccrawford wrote: post #274

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.

The other externalities being environmental degradation and, to some degree, labor abuse.