Hacker News Reader

Would toilet paper only being affordable to the wealthy be "more important uses"?

That would seem to be the likely end result if it were greatly restricted.

We've already seen that with healthcare in the US. It is expensive, so is it used on more important people?

You misunderstand what I'm saying. The more you have to exchange for something, the more you're foregoing other forms of consumption. If toilet paper cost you your entire budget, you wouldn't buy toilet paper at all. You'd buy food instead. In that way, prices redirect your consumption to higher priority things. That's what is meant by "more important."

Are there alternatives to everything / healthcare?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com