Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 509 posts

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#351

Post by charlesu »

Kaiyou wrote: post #334
charlesu wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The USDA’s Economic Research Service estimates that 31% of food is wasted[1] while 1 in 8 families are food insecure[2]. About half a million people are homeless any given night[3], while 16 million homes are vacant [4], many of them perfectly liveable. Where's the scarcity?

[1] https://www.usda.gov/foodwaste/faqs

[2] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo...

[3]https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homeless...

[4] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EVACANTUSQ176N

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#352

Post by treyfitty »

weare138 wrote: post #240
alexmingoia wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You think the individual stockpilers have amassed more than factories world wide have/can produce? The people who stockpiled medical gear don't account for enough meaningful supply to justify your conclusion.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#353

Post by fatbird »

someguydave wrote: post #335
numbsafari wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The field of moral philosophy has extensive literature on exactly this subject. The NYTimes has an 'ask an ethicist' column. Every hospital has an ethics board with prepared guidelines on patient triage in times of crisis.

That the accepted answer to this question has become "who has the most money?" is a victory for... well, the people with the most money, so I guess we can call this a sterling example of the effects of income inequality. The vast majority not only don't have the majority of the money; they don't even have the moral standing of "legitimate" need.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#354

Post by treyfitty »

Don't hospitals + drug companies price things based on need? The relative demand for healthcare related goods are price inelastic (buyers traditionally are willing to pay more because they have no choice). For example, something as simple as one capsule of Tylenol can cost more than $5 at the hospital, while you're captive to the bed. Why doesn't anyone mention this aspect of "price gouging?"

It's the same underlying phenomenon of supply and demand, except this time regular people are using it to their advantage rather than hospitals.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#355

Post by Kaiyou »

Miner49er wrote: post #342
Kaiyou wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If you can't pay, you don't deserve to get things for free. There's a lot of problems with this concept. We don't live in a meritocracy. Having money doesn't mean your life is more valuable then someone else's. A kid born to a billionaire has access to extreme wealth (and therefore economic power) without proving any merit for it. Humanity has tried monarchism already, and we've decided it's not the best way to run…

Actually, having more money means that your life is more valuable. Just like a sack full of gold is more valuable than a sack full of broken glass. It's just people get all emotional when applying the same concept to humans.

Is it moral to replace broken things instead of trying to fix them, considering that fixing will be more expensive and the thing might just break down again after a while anyway? That's not a question about morality, is it? Except if you replace "things" with "humans". I personally do not understand why this difference exists, however.

Why is it alright to abort babies that might get a disability, but it's completely out of the question to murder someone later in life for the same reason. It doesn't make sense to me. A persons life isn't inherently worth anything. If the economic output is negative and no one is willing to cover, why shouldn't that someone just die? It would be like saving money. There are probably good reasons that I just don't know, otherwise things wouldn't be the way they are or at least that's what I figure.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#356

Post by Firadeoclus »

WalterBright wrote: post #219
notauser wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that poor people can't afford to hoard because of the cost of storage (especially in cities) and financing, isn't it better that rich people are encouraged to hoard when supply is plentiful? The problem arises when rich people start hoarding at times when supply is constrained, because they can do it so much more rapidly and create a much greater shock to the system. It was notable in London that severe shortag…

Anti-gouging laws cause sensible people to hoard at the first sign of trouble.

Fear of gouging causes (some, whether sensible or not) people to hoard at the first sign of trouble.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#357

Post by nicoburns »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #313
nicoburns wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There isn't an alternative. There is an alternative: distribute wealth. On aggregate people tend to behave a lot more rationally than individuals do. So if you spread the buying power as widely as possible then you get a more rational market.

>On aggregate people tend to behave a lot more rationally than individuals do. Just delegating responsibility for resource allocation to groups of people is not a silver bullet. "Aggregate people" tasked with distributing wealth (or taking wealth and converting it to some resource and distributing that) seems to be highly succeptable to holding onto more and more of that wealth over time for trickle down distribution…

I don't think you're quite grasping what "distributing the wealth" would look like. I have in mind something like a Universal Basic Income. Reducing the involvement of large organisations (including governments, non-profits and corporations), as well at high-net worth individuals is entirely the point.

It's basically democracy for economic power. And you're right, it's not a silver bullet. But I believe it could be a significant improvement on the status quo.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#358

Post by Kaiyou »

charlesu wrote: post #351
Kaiyou wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, absolutely sure.

The USDA’s Economic Research Service estimates that 31% of food is wasted[1] while 1 in 8 families are food insecure[2]. About half a million people are homeless any given night[3], while 16 million homes are vacant [4], many of them perfectly liveable. Where's the scarcity? [1] https://www.usda.gov/foodwaste/faqs [2] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo... [3] https://endhomelessness.org/home…

It's right there in what you have written yourself. 31% is a finite number, that means scarcity. 16 million homes is a finite number, that means scarcity.

In a world without scarcity you'd have infinite food and infinite houses. We do not live in such a world.

You don't give people without the ability to pay for things stuff for free because you don't want to absolutely wreck your economy. If I'd get food and housing for free, I'd be the first one to quit my job and just live the good life of not working ever again. I'm incentivized to work because that isn't the case. And also because it's such a stupid idea, that I can see that it would collapse fast.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#359

Post by nicoburns »

missedthecue wrote: post #343
ceejayoz wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that wealth inequality is just due to it going to "capable hands" is a hell of an unsupported assertion. "Pissing it away" is also known as buying things, which drives economic growth. The poor spend every penny they make, and this is generally considered good for the economy.

Investment drives growth, not consumption.

And small investments tend to have better returns.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#360

Post by wpietri »

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…

Ooh, that's a good point. I think of it as related to free-market fundamentalism, but it deserves a word on its own.
Post reply on HN