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

471–480 of 509 posts

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#471

Post by gruez »

jbay wrote: post #458
Consultant32452 wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other alternatives proposed all over this thread such as purchase quotas, price fixing (stopping gouging), etc. are all central planning solutions. And those types of solutions are worse at efficient resource allocation than pricing and are less likely to get resources where they're needed most regardless of means or desperation. Pricing spreads the capability of resource allocation around. In the central plannin…

You sound very certain about this. Where does that certainty come from?

This is pretty mainstream economics.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#472

Post by opo »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #363
Consultant32452 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's none available to purchase at the old, lower price. So he's providing value to me, someone who wishes to buy one.

Because he bought them all. This is why, in states where disasters are probable due to natural issues (hurricanes, earthquakes), price gouging is a crime. Not only is it a crime, but it is one where there is full bi-partisan support for the continuance of the law. If you want to put a smile on the face on someone suffering from calamity, first help them, and then arrest the bastard who tried to profit off of it. The…

>...The first smile will be gentle and gracious, and the second will be of pure glee.

What kind of smile is there when there is nothing to buy at any price?

Before all these laws, in natural disasters there used to be marginal producers (people with a pickup truck etc) who would load up on some supplies like ice etc. and bring them to the area that was hit to make a quick profit. When the electricity is out and someone wants $12 a bag for ice it would anger you if you just want to keep your drinks cold, but you would think it is a bargain if that way you can keep your insulin chilled.

https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2007/Mungergouging....

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#473

Post by Consultant32452 »

jbay wrote: post #458
Consultant32452 wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other alternatives proposed all over this thread such as purchase quotas, price fixing (stopping gouging), etc. are all central planning solutions. And those types of solutions are worse at efficient resource allocation than pricing and are less likely to get resources where they're needed most regardless of means or desperation. Pricing spreads the capability of resource allocation around. In the central plannin…

You sound very certain about this. Where does that certainty come from?

If you have an interest in learning the core concepts of economics I can't speak highly enough about "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell. It provides a really great understanding of economics using history and lots of real world examples to explain the concepts in plain English. It's non-technical enough that the audio book is an excellent fit.

https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Fifth-Common-Economy/...

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#474

Post by goatinaboat »

valuearb wrote: post #454
goatinaboat wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ve got it backwards. China’s lack of regulation is what makes both cheap manufacturing possible and spread of pandemics inevitable. The wet markets have gone straight back into business.

Wet markets existed when it was a communist economy. Cheap manufacturing cones from cheap labor, which comes from recently being a third world nation.

Wet markets existed when it was a communist economy

Then as now, the only thing that is forbidden is criticism of The Party. Want to exploit your workers and ignore all environmental and hygienic concerns? That was and is OK there. That’s how they undercut the West in manufacturing, no other reason. Concepts of protecting the environment or workers rights ironically only exist in the capitalist West.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#475

Post by jbay »

gruez wrote: post #471
jbay wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound very certain about this. Where does that certainty come from?

This is pretty mainstream economics.

The grandparent's label of "central planning" seems to encompass almost any possible policy that deviates from a completely free market. I don't think any mainstream economics, other than caricatures, supports the idea that any possible economic policy that isn't a completely free market doesn't work.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#476

Post by quotemstr »

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.

So your argument is that anyone who has a reaction that differs from yours is just a defective human?

Persuasive.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#477

Post by sokoloff »

someguydave wrote: post #465
perl4ever wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-te…

Exactly. Every time there’s a widespread power outage in the US, portable generators sell out. Almost every time, portable generators are readily available between 500 and 1000 miles away. Anti-price gouging laws ensure that people in the disaster area are not quickly served with higher-priced but available generators.

Further, local and state politicians and AGs often are seen grandstanding about how they stand ready to prosecute anyone who is raising prices on necessities beyond the normal price (sometimes allowing +10%, but often not even being explicit about that, leaving businesses in a murky area).

Watch for it next time a power disruption hits your local area.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#478

Post by Nursie »

someguydave wrote: post #470
Nursie wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your post is bullshit.

"If someone is truly desperate for food, they will find a way to get the money to pay for it."

Just wow. Ignorant and awful.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#479

Post by Nursie »

quotemstr wrote: post #476
Nursie wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So your argument is that anyone who has a reaction that differs from yours is just a defective human? Persuasive.

No, my argument is that statements like this -

"If someone is truly desperate for food, they will find a way to get the money to pay for it."

Are both massively ignorant and quite sickening, and that if you aren't reacting at least a little bit to that sort of statement too, you may have a serious lack of empathy.

Anyway, good luck in life, I have no interest in carrying on a conversation on this matter any further. If you're not seeing it you're not seeing it, I just hope you never get anywhere you can make policy.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#480

Post by dhhwrongagain »

Nursie wrote: post #478
someguydave wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Your post is bullshit. "If someone is truly desperate for food, they will find a way to get the money to pay for it." Just wow. Ignorant and awful.

Sounds like you’re just having an emotional reaction instead of engaging his point in good faith. If you’re so empathetic, maybe you should remember that the person who made that point is a human being and not a monster.
Post reply on HN