Hacker News Reader

Comment by logicchains | Hacker News Reader

>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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com