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

491–500 of 509 posts

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#491

Post by xapata »

dahart wrote: post #416
CryptoPunk wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>The problem with this oft-used dogmatic argument is that it’s pure claim and no evidence. The anti-money position you're espousing is the one that's dogmatic. It ignores what a century of economic scholarship says about how prices work to measure shortages and direct resources to alleviate them. It belies an anti-profit cognitive bias: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/08/04/we-have-an-ingrained-an... >>The problem wi…

I appreciate the reply and the links. FWIW, I think trying to paint my views as anti-money and anti-profit is a straw man that is extreme and doesn't effectively respond to what I said. I believe that competition and profit does do what you're saying sometimes . I know there's evidence that it works sometimes . I may be perfectly comfortable saying it works most of the time. But there's also historical evidence that…

You shouldn't limit price value or velocity, as evidenced by the perverse effects of rent control laws. However, a limit on price acceleration could provide a good balance, allowing the market to adjust on a reasonable time-scale, such that humans can react.

That's my theory for immigration controls as well. Economic theory suggests that unlimited flow of human capital is just as valuable as unlimited flow of financial capital. However, we know that shock movements of financial capital can be bad, and instinctively people dislike shock movements of people. A good solution for both is to limit not velocity, but acceleration. The economy can absorb a steady flow, but needs time to react to rate changes.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#492

Post by freejazz »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #233
adjkant wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is that a sufficient example? You say I'm pigeonholing you but you have yet to name a single occupation - what am I pigeonholing? Also, my "pigeonholing" is not arbitrary, it is the breadth of jobs that can exist with a minimum wage enacted... No, it is not a sufficient example because you haven't said a word about what this person is doing. You can see how this feels like pulling teeth on my end, yes? I just want…

> you have yet to name a single occupation Because it isn't in any way specific to an occupation. It's anything where the employee receives a non-monetary benefit from working somewhere that offsets a reduction in monetary compensation. It doesn't matter if what they're teaching you is to be a lawyer or an electrician or an auto worker, what happens is that you receive long-term training in exchange for less pay. > M…

> Because it isn't in any way specific to an occupation. It's anything where the employee receives a non-monetary benefit from working somewhere that offsets a reduction in monetary compensation. It doesn't matter if what they're teaching you is to be a lawyer or an electrician or an auto worker, what happens is that you receive long-term training in exchange for less pay.

So provide an example of what such a role would be...

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#493

Post by valuearb »

goatinaboat wrote: post #474
valuearb wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That there are some factual basis to your assertions, but in aggregate you are missing the boat.

Chinese labor is cheap because it has been a poor country, lacking capital to raise its productivity and labor standards to western levels.

Comparative advantage means both sides benefit when Chinese labor makes goods for the west. They get better paying work, and we get to make our goods cheaper.

Working for Foxconn is a huge improvement in living standards over the rural jobs most of the Chinese workforce comes from.

Environmental protections cost money. It’s far easier for wealthier first world countries to bear those costs without significantly reducing their living standards.

Poor countries, whether it be China, first half 1900s USA, or as we saw previously with the USSR, are more likely to prioritize economic output over environmental protections.

Economic growth is why environmental standards improve over time. It costs proportionately less to increase them, and new technologies also lower costs of enacting tougher restrictions.

As China continues to grow wealthier, it will likely continue to increase its environmental protections. Especially if it ever turns into a real democracy.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#494

Post by freejazz »

HideousKojima wrote: post #303
auggierose wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not sure what that has to do with them not buying masks

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#495

Post by Consultant32452 »

jbay wrote: post #475
gruez wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are making false claims about what I said. I intentionally used language like "better/worse" or "more/less efficient." Of course central planning will "work" in the sense that you will see that someone commanded some masks to be sent to a hospital, the hospital used them, and some lives were saved. However, a basic understanding of economics informs us that pricing is a more efficient tool at getting masks where they are most needed, and is likely to save even more lives. Pricing simply works "better."

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#496

Post by Infinitesimus »

Kaiyou wrote: post #448
Infinitesimus wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, are you theorizing or do you believe these things? For instance, do you believe your life to be worth less than that of everyone else who has more money than you? What if that money was inherited and they didn't work a day in their lives? What about the life is say, Nikola Tesla who didn't have much money but laid foundations upon which a lot of our world is built today? Is the person who negotiated for more mon…

I'm observing reality and reaching conclusions. But I'm not viewing things as fine grained as you are, but more fuzzy. A hundred bucks are basically nothing, but if I'm a doctor and have to decide whether to work for someone paying me a thousand dollar per hour or for someone paying me a thousand dollar per day, who am I going to choose to work for is obvious. If the difference in money isn't big, than things aren't…

I'm following more now ( I wish we could chat over coffee or something post-covid cos this is interesting stuff )

> Which in turn is similar to someone getting killed and having his wealth outright stolen

I don't quite see the similarity but that's because I believe in a general, fuzzy way, all our lives are sacred but grant that individuals make exceptions for personal gain and their perceived "greater good".

> If you can amass wealth you are worth more. Even if you stole the wealth. You might then be hated and persecuted, but with enough wealth, that's not really that much of a problem, as there are few people not willing to buy the cure of cancer from a murderer if their life is on the line with no alternatives.

Ain't that the truth. Still focusing on a single axis of our humanity (material wealth) but from that axis, what you say is correct.

Money is thankfully not all that life comes down to imo. Observing reality, money does drive a lot of the world and we directly and indirectly use that as a proxy for what someone's life is worth but I think we can accept the reality while still advocating for meaningful change.

That's part of why several people each day choose not to optimize purely for $$ but consider some deemed higher purpose (arguable ofc) of helping others be happier, healthier, finding spirituality, researching in academia when you could make 2x the money in industry, and fighting to improve the outcomes of others who are less... fortunate.

I previously misinterpreted what your perspective as "fuck it, it all comes down to money so nothing matters", but I now see it more as an observation and statements of the world's perspective and not necessarily that you believe your life is worth more than that of an incidentally poorer person.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#497

Post by MisterBastahrd »

opo wrote: post #472
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 someo…

There are tons of people out there who will handle these things for their communities without expecting an exorbitant amount of money. Your scenario is also completely different from someone trying to buy up the existing supply so that he can gouge people.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#498

Post by AnthonyMouse »

freejazz wrote: post #492
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you have yet to name a single occupation Because it isn't in any way specific to an occupation. It's anything where the employee receives a non-monetary benefit from working somewhere that offsets a reduction in monetary compensation. It doesn't matter if what they're teaching you is to be a lawyer or an electrician or an auto worker, what happens is that you receive long-term training in exchange for less pay. > M…

> Because it isn't in any way specific to an occupation. It's anything where the employee receives a non-monetary benefit from working somewhere that offsets a reduction in monetary compensation. It doesn't matter if what they're teaching you is to be a lawyer or an electrician or an auto worker, what happens is that you receive long-term training in exchange for less pay. So provide an example of what such a role wo…

You go to work for a law office. You don't know how to be a lawyer, but you know how to make coffee and schedule appointments and read English text, so you make coffee and schedule their appointments and check their briefs for typos and grammatical errors. You learn how to be a lawyer by watching lawyers work all day for several years. They pay you a pittance, have fewer embarrassing errors in their briefs and don't have to make their own coffee or schedule their own appointments.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#499

Post by freejazz »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #498
freejazz wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because it isn't in any way specific to an occupation. It's anything where the employee receives a non-monetary benefit from working somewhere that offsets a reduction in monetary compensation. It doesn't matter if what they're teaching you is to be a lawyer or an electrician or an auto worker, what happens is that you receive long-term training in exchange for less pay. So provide an example of what such a role wo…

You go to work for a law office. You don't know how to be a lawyer, but you know how to make coffee and schedule appointments and read English text, so you make coffee and schedule their appointments and check their briefs for typos and grammatical errors. You learn how to be a lawyer by watching lawyers work all day for several years. They pay you a pittance, have fewer embarrassing errors in their briefs and don't…

That's incredibly naive, you don't learn how to be a lawyer by watching lawyers do lawyer things. In the UK - that's what you do as a first year associate... after THREE YEARS OF LAW SCHOOL and their version of the bar exam. It is true that some US states will allow a bar applicant upon the certification of a firm. But there, the firm is essentially certifying that they provided the equivalent education. Have you seen a bar examination? It would not make sense to anyone who hasn't studied law, and even then, everyone taking it pays $4k for a preparation program that only makes sense to someone who has spent three years in law school. I'm not sure how you think that knowledge gap will be closed by somebody who just watches and spell checks.

For example, lawyers write. How is it possible for this person to develop their writing? Typically in law school, you spend an entire school year in one class developing your legal writing. Writing briefs from scratch for your professor, so he can IN DETAIL explain what you did right and wrong. Do you think a firm is going to invest this time in such an individual? I don't think that is a likely circumstance.

Nevertheless, what you describe is essentially an internship, which law students typically do their 1L and 2L summers. Oddly enough - the minimum wage has nothing to do with it. They are jobs where you are either working at a large firm and getting compensated at the same rate you would as a full time(180k a year - not too shabby for a fresh grad), or you are working at a smaller firm and probably for free... Nowhere is the minimum wage getting in the way.

I can see why the other poster kept taking up the issue with you. I can't imagine an actual situation where it's as you describe.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#500

Post by dahart »

xapata wrote: post #491
dahart wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate the reply and the links. FWIW, I think trying to paint my views as anti-money and anti-profit is a straw man that is extreme and doesn't effectively respond to what I said. I believe that competition and profit does do what you're saying sometimes . I know there's evidence that it works sometimes . I may be perfectly comfortable saying it works most of the time. But there's also historical evidence that…

You shouldn't limit price value or velocity, as evidenced by the perverse effects of rent control laws. However, a limit on price acceleration could provide a good balance, allowing the market to adjust on a reasonable time-scale, such that humans can react. That's my theory for immigration controls as well. Economic theory suggests that unlimited flow of human capital is just as valuable as unlimited flow of financi…

Interesting, an acceleration cap might be just fine, and easier to tune correctly & get political agreement on.

I agree with you that the economy needs time to react to rate changes. The problem with rent control is sometimes it's implemented as a value cap, and sometimes it's a rate cap that is too low. I wouldn't rule out rate caps just because someone somewhere set the rate too low.

I do want to counter the idea that caps are bad just because something bad happened in some cases. That's not enough to prove that price caps are always wrong. I know price caps can cause problems sometimes. But not having any regulation can cause problems as well, and there's also plenty of evidence for this.

Pollution and global warming is already starting to have massive global economic effects, and the costs and causes of it have been externalized by corporations for a hundred years. All of the free market "success" that has been enjoyed by global manufacturers is starting to cost humanity, and our children are going to need to re-evaluate whether letting the companies operate as freely as they did with our air and land and water was a good idea. There's a growing global consensus that it was not. The implications of that on free market thinking are that we need to understand and acknowledge that some freedoms come with invisible or unaccountable costs, and/or very late costs. And sometimes these costs can outweigh all the short-term benefit. Companies can come, make billions, last for a generation, and die before we even know what the cost was. No amount of waxing laissez faire philosophy can undo the actual damage we've already done.

Post reply on HN