Hacker News Reader

Comment by sollewitt | Hacker News Reader

That's just poor reasoning on multiple levels: it assumes supply, the argument that it prevents hoarding misses that as prices are driven up the incentive to hold increases, and it overlooks that some populations night need the good immediately so real harm is being done.

The gain is personal, the harm is social, this is ethics 101 and solipsistic pseudo-libertarion reasoning doesn't make it right.

View on HN

>solipsistic pseudo-liberation reasoning

Basic economics is solipsistic pseudo-liberation reasoning now?

The argument that the threat of gouging increases the motivation to hoard is basic economics. For analogous reasons there is FDIC insurance on bank accounts because the alternative is runs on banks that can lead to system collapse.

Not every point on the supply/demand curve is a good place to be.

>The argument that the threat of gouging increases the motivation to hoard is basic economics.

But the ability to increase price freely also decreases actual hoarding, because when stores see a massive increase in demand, they'll be incentivised to increase prices, which will deter unnecessary purchases.

If your goal is to prevent hoarding and ensure there's enough for everyone, it's simpler just to limit the number of rolls each customer gets. Fewer corner cases.

Are people hoarding because they're worried about being gouged on the price, or because they're worried about being unable to buy at all? Are the viral social media posts "OMG look at these high prices", or "OMG look at these empty shelves"? From a hypothetical perspective, which scenario creates a stronger incentive to buy supplies now: "Prices might rise 10x in the next month, but buying will always be possible", or "The supply might run out completely in the next month"?

Only if wrongly applied.

Should have been libertarian, autocorrect. But this isn't basic economics, is the point: this is about what to do with limited resources in the social context of an emergency. Ignoring the context to justify the economics is just dishonest.

I would rather the price 10x if it means people can buy toilet paper, than have it be unavailable to all. But I am thinking rationally rather than emotionally.

Toilet paper availability likely comes down to nothing more than distribution lag.

One scenario is that a few people have taken advantage of low prices to hoard unreasonable amounts.

A second scenario is that the number of people buying a reasonable amount exceeded the assumptions built into the distribution network.

In the latter scenario, high prices pretty much go in the pocket of the retailer (and so on), and availability is still low.

My intent isn't to try to characterize the second scenario as good or bad or okay or whatever, it's to point out a possibility that your comment doesn't address.

Take face masks, that front line medical workers don't have, that their procurement offices won't let them buy for 10x - we are all screwed if all our nurses are sick.

You are basically saying "I am ok pricing limited necessary resources up to where only I and people as rich as me can afford them".

I'm in favor of attacking poverty directly, e.g. with UBI, rather than conscripting private sellers to act as an inefficient ad-hoc welfare system.

I don't believe that necessarily.

I think people are not rational to think that "oh its too expensive" - I think they will still try to hoard it and speculate on prices going up to 15x. And so on and on until the crises ends or they end up with no place willing to sell it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com