Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#461

Post by Chris2048 » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 10:43 PM UTC

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #407

Chris2048 wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should for-profit grave-digging be illegal too?

The fun thing about a lot of people dying is that the government will take care of the bodies for you. Try another strawman tactic, my dude. That one missed the mark.

A strawman is an irrelevant argument, but this one is perfectly relevant: A grave-digger makes money in the event of death, it needn't be during an epidemic, "my dude" (or whatever patronising, PA phrase you prefer)

If people shouldn't profit off disaster, why profit from any misfortune?

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#462

Post by fatbird » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 10:43 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #459

fatbird wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the whole point of human governance is to delegate that enforcement to a third party that is a just and neutral arbiter. Unless you want to revert to a state of nature and anarchy without laws or money, you're going to have that third party, and if you have it, then you have other options than "highest bidder", which is itself a value choice enforced on other, non-consenting citizens at the the point of a gun.

Too much delegation to a third party is called a command economy and history is full of examples of that approach not working, examples going all the way back to the palace economies of the ancient Minoans. The problem is that no third party has enough information or the right incentives to decide fully who should produce what when --- the problem is called "the calculation problem" and has a huge literature. Decentr…

There's a whole lot of daylight between unregulated capitalism and command economies.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#463

Post by olliej » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 10:57 PM UTC

modsWork4appl wrote: post #10

olliej wrote: post #8

By the logic of economists slavery and indentured service, etc are good ideas. Because by economist logic anything that produces more money is better, irrespective of the cost accrued by others. Slavery, and follow on policies of indentured service, crop sharing, etc are the only reasons the pro-slavery states maintained economic relevance as long as they did.

I could see indentured servitude being acceptable. Btw, is debt different?

Debt is. Indentured servitude is widely understood as being a variation of slavery.

Essentially you've got a large debt. You're only allowed to work for the person who you owe that debt to. That person gets to choose your interest rates and your pay rate. For many it is made impossible to ever repay that debt, even if they pay it many times over.

Note they can't go somewhere else to get a higher paying job, because to do that they have to pay off their debt.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#464

Post by quotemstr » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 11:04 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #447

someguydave wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how can you ethically defend everyone not getting a minimum ration To me, the fairest way to distribute any good is to the highest bidder. If someone is truly desperate for food, they will find a way to get the money to pay for it. I would rather that food be instantly available to that highest bidder with a true need, rather than having to jump through some kind of Soviet bread line to get their “ration”. Are you…

Historically ignorant and hysterically unethical. This is one of the saddest things I've ever seen on HN.

This is why the label "ethical" has become semantically meaningless. People, as you have done here, just define "ethical" as their own point of view and "unethical" as any point of view they reject.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#465

Post by someguydave » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 11:04 PM UTC

perl4ever wrote: post #455

someguydave wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about we let the suppliers and buyers figure that out, rather than having the government get between them with restrictions on how they can contract?

Who are the suppliers? The management of the supermarket figured out that the appropriate thing to do was to ration the product. Are you implying they are not suppliers? There's a whole chain of people that work to bring products to people, hence the phrase "supply chain". If some other store did not ration the product, then they would have empty shelves, so I'd go to the one that did.

>The management of the supermarket figured out that the appropriate thing to do was to ration the product.

Because they had a government gun to their head in the form of anti-gouging laws, or implications for the same. That's what I am arguing against.

If they were free to set prices, they might consider raising prices to keep stores in stock, rather than ration. They might not, if they calculate it will be a long-term PR hit. But right now, they are not free to choose.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#466

Post by someguydave » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 11:11 PM UTC

andrewmutz wrote: post #49

quotemstr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. High prices serve as a production signal and a rationing mechanism. There is nothing wrong with rationing access to scarce goods via the price mechanism. The alternative is waste.

Your right of course, and Economists agree with you by large margins. But the man on the street finds this offensive, and you can see that in the downvotes your comment is receiving.

It does demonstrate the degree of historical and economic literacy here on this supposed forum of SV intelligentsia.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#467

Post by _2d30 » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 11:12 PM UTC

perceptronas wrote: post #158

_2d30 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference, generally, is who the gains go to. Societally, we want there to be an incentive and reward to those who will produce the things we need so that they get produced. Giving gains to hoarders who artificially lower supplies and then resell when disasters spike demand does nothing beneficial for society. It's rent seeking at its worst. As an expansion on this, the thing you should _really_ be upset with is…

I think you are missing the point about housing. Quite the opposite if I understand what you are suggesting. The main problem is that somebody who doesn't own your land can say what you can build or cannot. That's why developers cannot build housing. From that perspective, best incentive would be to leave the housing development for markets instead of politicians. Now politicians with town's majority favor can decide…

I don't think you understood what I was suggesting since I agree with what you're saying. The land owners (majority not developers) have made it such that building is impossible which greatly increases the value of their property by lowering supply from a natural state.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#468

Post by nicoburns » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 11:28 PM UTC

nec4b wrote: post #412

nicoburns wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why would you redistribute wealth into the hands of irrational people?

Because there are no other kinds of people, so that's the only option. Time and time again it has been shown that distributing power leads to better outcomes, and money is nothing but economic power.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#469

Post by Nursie » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 11:32 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #464

Nursie wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically ignorant and hysterically unethical. This is one of the saddest things I've ever seen on HN.

This is why the label "ethical" has become semantically meaningless. People, as you have done here, just define "ethical" as their own point of view and "unethical" as any point of view they reject.

If that helps you sleep at night.

Try re-reading the post I replied to. If it's not making you feel a bit sick, might want to spend some time on introspection.

Qu'ils mangent de la brioche though I guess.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#470

Post by someguydave » Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 12:43 AM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #469

quotemstr wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why the label "ethical" has become semantically meaningless. People, as you have done here, just define "ethical" as their own point of view and "unethical" as any point of view they reject.

If that helps you sleep at night. Try re-reading the post I replied to. If it's not making you feel a bit sick, might want to spend some time on introspection. Qu'ils mangent de la brioche though I guess.

Can you address my arguments? My post is based on the ethical principles of dignity and self-determination.