Live data from Hacker News

Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

economist.com

71–80 of 509 posts

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No it isn't. Are you against the idea of prices and money generally? If yes, that's been tried. Doesn't work. If no, why are you carving out a special case in your general acceptance of the price mechanism for this particular family of goods? Why is it okay to charge for food?

The opinion that charging people out the nose for basic necessities is a bad way to allocate resources isn't the same as being "opposed to money"

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#72
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.

Landlords remove supply the add it back in for a premium.

They are the hand sanitizer guy.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was able to get kleenex and paper towels saturday because the grocery store is now limiting people to one purchase per day. I am sure there are people who need more than that, and any system of rationing should allow for exceptions. But when people insist that a "free" market is inherently correct, it's no different from insisting that your OS scheduler is perfect even though some processes never get to run https:/…

If they had allowed dynamic pricing then people who needed more would probably be willing to pay $10/roll of paper towels Vs the fixed $2/roll. They aren’t necessary for life, so setting fixed prices are why they need hard limits. Seems crazy to me we aren’t seeing a “free market” at play, where both inherently the stores “win” and the people receive the goods they need / can justify.

It's weird how in that scenario software engineers and lawyers always seem to "need" paper towels a lot more than laid off waiters do.

It's as if there's something going on there that this reductionist model didn't account for.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#74
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.

There’s a difference between making a profit where market forces and utility drive pricing and profiteering where some temporary situation disrupts the market.

The exception is healthcare, which I believe the current for profit model is unethical and immoral.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. Why is Scrooge McDuck buying the entire supply of something somehow better than evenly distributing it? I can't believe people actually think making toilet paper $20 a roll is the correct outcome instead of rationing with price controls. Maybe it's the Ferengi mentality of people seeing themselves as the exploiters.

If toilet paper was $20/roll, people would think twice before hoarding, and would probably also use less squares overall.

And a lot of people would just have to go without, As opposed to everyone getting a little with price controlled rationing.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#76
Speaking as an economist, I tend to get nervous when other economists talk about circumstances where "morality trumps economics." As a profession, we have a miserable track record on morality. Economists widely endorsed eugenics in the first half of the 20th century, for example. And many modern economists endorse a minimum wage, as eugenicists did then, but with even less regard for the harm it causes. Personally, I find it hard to entertain an economist's morality argument unless it goes something like, "We shouldn't do that because it could harm people."

In this article, The Economist is telling governments to force companies to produce "large supplies at fixed prices". Even if governments had that kind of authority in free countries, and they probably don't, that sounds like a policy that could easily cause harm. Companies can't just push one lever to maximum and expect nothing else to change. But most importantly, we don't need it. Yes, we've seen some small-time punks buy up too much hand sanitizer, but the big manufacturers are being decent. As The Economist pointed out, "3M, one of the world’s biggest manufacturers of high-end masks ... has stuck to its list prices and doubled its production." So there's not very good empirical or theoretical support for this idea. But there's hope for economists - "more than half" of economists surveyed about this idea criticized it.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was able to get kleenex and paper towels saturday because the grocery store is now limiting people to one purchase per day. I am sure there are people who need more than that, and any system of rationing should allow for exceptions. But when people insist that a "free" market is inherently correct, it's no different from insisting that your OS scheduler is perfect even though some processes never get to run https:/…

If they had allowed dynamic pricing then people who needed more would probably be willing to pay $10/roll of paper towels Vs the fixed $2/roll. They aren’t necessary for life, so setting fixed prices are why they need hard limits. Seems crazy to me we aren’t seeing a “free market” at play, where both inherently the stores “win” and the people receive the goods they need / can justify.

You aren't seeing a "free market" because all of these big corps are scared to death of being accused of "profiteering" on supplies (with potential liability from anti-"gouging" laws), so they can't raise prices. Their only other option is to restrict the buyer's quantities.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#78
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.

I’m decidedly not in the camp who believe that the free market will magically solve everything. However, there is a big difference between needing disaster supplies immediately and the long-term stable markets for food and housing. The difference is time, how fast the demand changes. The arguments in favor of no regulation are that supply and demand will eventually balance at the place that is “optimal”, or least bad for everyone. Healthcare is and always will be especially problematic for dogmatic proponents of free market policy, but food in general seems to work reasonably well because the overall demand doesn’t change suddenly or dramatically. With today’s need for disaster supplies, demand is many orders of magnitude higher than normal, and by the time supply can meet the demand, the demand is going to disappear. Price gouging of emergency supplies in this case is taking advantage of a huge discrepancy between demand and supply, and this discrepancy doesn’t exist globally for food & housing - it might vary locally, but there’s almost unlimited amounts of competition, unlike N95 mask production. So that’s why it might not be so inconsistent to be okay with making food profits but not with disaster supply price gouging.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#79
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.

I don't think the price is the problem. I couldn't get toilet paper for a week, not because some enterprising con-man had purchased it all and was selling it for 10x as much outside my door, but because ordinary folk at the tail of the distribution bought it all at its normal (low) price and we temporarily ran out of supply.

What we needed was immediate rationing policies, the price was never the problem. Stores eventually ended up self-initiating individual buying limits but this was well after all the initial supply dried up.

In fact, if all prices were immediately responsive to local supply/demand, this likely would have effectively resulted in a rationing policy. If the unit price of toilet paper at my local CVS was in part a function of the remaining supply at the local store, as one person attempted to buy all of it, the unit price would soar, effectively preventing them from doing so unless they're a millionaire and prepared to spend thousands of dollars on toilet paper.

Indeed, one can easily make an argument for stronger market forces to solve this problem. That existing markets for common goods are too poorly responsive to supply and demand and that the local supply/demand signals are ignored and only national signals are accounted for.

But also, simple rationing would have worked too.

Re: Economists who defend disaster profiteers are wrong

#80

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…

I was able to get kleenex and paper towels saturday because the grocery store is now limiting people to one purchase per day. I am sure there are people who need more than that, and any system of rationing should allow for exceptions. But when people insist that a "free" market is inherently correct, it's no different from insisting that your OS scheduler is perfect even though some processes never get to run https:/…

> I was able to get kleenex and paper towels saturday because the grocery store is now limiting people to one purchase per day.

The grocery stores don't want to keep stocking-out and restocking kleenex and paper towels either.

People opportunistically filling up their carts won't have space to buy other higher-margin products.

And kleenex and paper towels take up a lot of space on the trucks, taking up space from higher-margin deliveries.

Post reply on HN