Hacker News Reader

Comment by legulere | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Please don't take HN on generic ideological tangents. They lead to threads that are repetitive and therefore uninteresting, and often turn nasty as well.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26585073.

This is the opposite of private property ownership. Property ownership comes at a cost. That cost increases as supply dries up. In this case there is no cost to the individual, only to the group.

There is nothing intrinsic about property that implies cast.

I think you are confusing property and scarcity.

> Property ownership comes at a cost.

Sort-of. Typically there is a cost associated with getting rights over a property, either by manufacturing, or in the case of land, by purchase or through the efforts of settling. However, once you have ownership of a property, it's usually relatively cheap to continue own (except, I suppose, if you consider the risk of a communist revolution or something).

This is esentially how the British monarchy earns their generous sums of money. They stole land from the Brits during the Norman conquest about 1000 years ago, and now they rent it back to them for a handsome profit (though the whole thing is rather complicated now and they only get a portion of the money).

In California you pay ~1.5% in property taxes per year. Owning property is not cheap.

In fact you never really own it.

Unless you're a golf course in LA, and cajole a permanent exemption!

I'm a brit who was only discouraged from the process of becoming a American (when much younger and on a terrific upwards trajectory which crazy events eventually skewered) and I would be hurt particularly by property tax now and actually the moment my income ceased growing.

I can't remember if Florida doesn't have property tax and that then may explain why so many of my family retired there, but everywhere I wanted to live did.

If that's all that's keeping you back, you should check if the city/state you wish to live in has what's usually called a homestead exemption. Many places will reduce property tax if you meet a few criteria. The criteria varies, but it usually revolves around being on a fixed income and living on the property.

Florida has property tax, but they don't have an estate tax, which probably influences people to retire there...

For information your property tax (council tax) for the most expensive house in Central London can be less than an average 4 bed house in a mid ranked US state.

>In this case there is no cost to the individual, only to the group.

So like all the externalities and their associated costs that capitalism throws at us without a single care...

Capitalism is compatible with Pigouvian taxes.

Yes, just not in practice, as capitalists amassing wealth can then buy legislation that suits them.

We end up with a few token Pigouvian taxes (when they're not ordered by businesses themselves and used to hurt competition).

I still know people that pre-emptively buy toilet paper "because hoarders might buy the rest of it" with absolutely no introspection.

Hoarders will buy the rest of it.

During the 2-month lockdown a year ago, I would purchase 4 frozen pizzas at a time when I had a chance to buy them, because I was so upset that I could not buy one when I wanted a single one during the 2 previous weeks, because of hoarders who had been faster than me.

People think of toilet papers, but it is not just that. Pasta, rice, flour, yeast, plenty of useful things went missing due to hoarders during lockdown. Thankfully, I don't eat meat, because there was no meat at the supermarkets. Fish was also hard to find in the frozen shelves of the supermarkets. I am not a big fish eater either, so it was fine for me as well, but you get the idea: if you don't hoard a tiny bit, you get increasingly frustrated because hoarders will hoard, and you will have to wait for weeks before you get the chance to have what you want.

The meat situation was kind of interesting actually. At the beginning of the lockdown I remember going shopping for lots of shelf-stable foods. Very perishable stuff like meat or fresh veggies were out or hard to find (and yes freezing meat works fine I know). However, lots of stores had tons of shelf stable boxed and canned goods and for meat jerky and other dried meats which are simple to boil and turn into simple soups in case of emergencies -- and yet nobody was really buying them at that time.

I think I "prepped" for the worst by buying a 10 lb bag of flour, 40 lb of rice, 5 lbs of oatmeal, a sack of potatoes and a few bags of beef jerky and trail mix. Even if the worst didn't come to pass I figured we'd eventually eat it all anyways and it wouldn't really be hoarded, but in pinch we could ration it and it would last a few months and give us nutritious meals. It's basically what ships crews used to survive on during the age of sail as they spent months at sea. Not a ton of variety but it will keep you alive.

I bought a bunch of rice, and all that happened was little rice bugs started living in it, so I had to throw it all away. But if there were a rice shortage, I would probably have eaten it.

If you freeze it for 24 hours it will kill them off. Can be a good idea to do that when it comes into the house anyway as they might be in there already.

Easy enough to separate them out of the rice after freezing too.

For the same reason (kill bugs), the same thing is recommended when you buy flour. Put it in the freezer for 24+ hours, then take it out and store at room temperature.

Extra protein (not to mention a few deviations from the OP)?

I hear this derogatory term "hoarder" being thrown around a lot. When the pandemic first hit I bought a ton of food. I still ate and bought the same amount over time.. Nothing went to waste. I just wanted to make FEWER but BIGGER trips to the supermarket so I had reduced chance of getting infected.

In the same sentence you complain about "hoarders" being faster than you whilst justifying (reasonably well imho) why you yourself bought more.

People did what they thought they needed to and will always do so. The world was always still a bit of a jungle out there (any nation is three meals away from anarchy). I'm sure those with immune compromised or elderly family members were more excessive on "hoarding". We need to get out of this blame mentality and realize our system needs improving so it can respond to these challenges.

I noticed a weird thing here. All the regular pasta rapidly disappeared. Rice also was gone.

But "Gluten Free"(I am a GFer) pasta - in this case, pasta made from rice - was fine!

I amused myself with the idea that people:"would rather starve to death than eat that GF crap." :-)

Pasta didn't sell out because people were afraid of starving.

Pasta sold out because people didn't know how to cook anything else themselves.

I know how to cook, but when you suddenly have to cook 2x as often because you can't eat out anymore your are going to cook a lot more of everything, including pasta. Suddenly the supply chain was out of whack - it was built for people that eat out a lot.

They can cook, but they can’t be arsed to.

Out of curiosity: did people really experience empty grocery shelves or are phrases such as "rapidly disappeared" meant more as hyperbole?

I live in a Chicago suburb, and while variety did decrease (I still can't get Coke Zero Cherry) the basics were always in stock throughout the pandemic time.

Some grocery items actually went into scarcity.

Why? Because the channel mix changed, and distribution and packaging are channel-specific.

For example, toilet paper is shipped to commercial customers in cardboard boxes, while retail customers by it in plastic-wrapped, branded, and SKU’d blocks of 4, 8, 12, etc. When everyone suddenly stopped going to offices and restaurants, demand plummeted in the commercial channel and soared in the retail channel. It took time for factories and distributors to adjust to that. The same thing happened to a bunch of food staples too.

Since a lot of manufacturing is regional, different areas of the nation and world experienced different impacts.

Toilet paper is interesting because it takes up lots of space, can’t be “compressed”, so most stores doesn’t store too much of them. That’s why they are the first thing to disappear.

Yes, I have pictures of empty shelves on my phone.

Part of the problem was state government response. After each further restriction, people panic bought more.

In the UK flour and yeast disappeared from the shelves for quite a while during the first lockdown baking boom.

The issue wasn't a shortage, but a shortage of flour in small bags.

Interestingly I saw some supermarkets fill up bags they usually use for bakery items to just sell the flour which seemed like a smart solution!

Also in March/April last year hand soap and toilet roll was hard to come by.

I am in Melbourne Australia. Yeah, the normal pasta and rice disappeared for about a week, the shelve were literally empty.

But as mentioned, my GF pasta was fine.

And I don't think anyone really starved as most of the shelves were full of something. Just reduced options thanks to hoarding.

Check Target for your Coke fix. Multiple stores in the Chicago burbs list of in stock.

but that's the point, by responding in that way you have become one of those hoarders.

You could say it's a real tragedy

a common one at that

The common tragedy of the commons. Sorry anytime I see something inplicit, I feel like I need to say it out loud.

This is a really perfect illustration of both parts of the parent comment.

Is fish not considered meat?

Not in some cultures. My youngest daughter isn't a big meat eater, and certainly hates seafood. She was on an organised tour to Spain with her youth orchestra so ticked the "vegetarian" box for meals. Inevitably her meal came with fish as the protein. Apparently in Spain, fish aren't considered as sentient like chicken or hoofed animals and hence are akin to vegetables.

Which is not just lacking scientific basis but goes straight _against_ what we know today of fish.

Any vegetarian who eats fish because of that reason really needs to update their ethics to the current millennium.

It’s a Christian thing.

The trick is to do exactly what they tell you not too immediately.

Masks don't protect against covid - jump on Alibaba and buy some.

Don't buy extra toiled paper, there will be no limits on its sale - immediately do a order on amazon prime. Because within a few days there will be price caps on the sale of TP (increased prices would deter hoarding) so everything will sell out right away.

I think people have really learned this by now - as SOON as the announcements come that there is nothing to worry about and they won't do price caps or other things, they will be doing exactly that soon.

Places like Alibaba do seem to continue to function - masks are maybe 50 cents per mask instead of 5, so folks buy a lot less, but you can still get a few for $5. Same with TP, it's not dirt cheap per roll, but you can get a few.

I think you’ve just described a self-fulfilling prophecy. TP is running out because enough people think like you, turning a not-scarce commodity into a scarce commodity.

True, but if you are already aware of this the only logical solution is to join in, otherwise you’d just end up with no toilet paper.

The issue is they regulate so

a) you simply can’t buy them - while other countries tried to get n95s and equivalent to everyone the us blocked sale to reserve them.

B) price cap everything which means things like hand sanitizer can’t be bought through normal channels because retailers can price to deter hoarding or incentivize production because it sells out at capped price right away

To rationalize this phenomenon... They don't warn you about it until they think you'd be worried about it, and they don't think you'd be worried about it until they start thinking about doing it. ;)

They warn you because they don't want you doing it. So if it's a tragedy of the commons (it usually is), the obvious thing to do is to do what they don't want you to.

Interesting to think about this in the context of inflation - "We do expect some price increases as the economy warms up but that's not inflation."

It's not really irrational or some behavior that they'd change if they did introspect. I suspect a significant portion of these people are internally like "Yeah, I'm part of the problem now, but the problem is not going to go away if I don't join in on it, I'll just get screwed."

In other words, they understand game theory and tragedy of the commons.

Yes but you have to recognize that there is something irrational in the perception of the problem. How do you go from -> a lot of fragile and old people are going to die to -> omg I am going to be starved to death ?

I think there were two fears. One is that you might want to stay in your house for a long time without having to go and get groceries. Either because you are quarantining, or because you're very afraid of catching a dangerous virus if you go out. Having plenty of food in the house could be the difference between having to take a risk and avoiding that risk.

Secondly I think a lot of people worried, rationally or not, about a 'breakdown of society'. If there is enough death and disease then maybe everything stops working. People don't go to work, transport and food production break down, there is looting and widespread lawlessness, and so on. Perhaps it's very hard to get food, or impossible to get some foods, or some form of government rationing starts. In that case having a stockpile could be very valuable.

The Costco I shop at only seems to sell the good Charmine toilet paper (the red stuff that doesn't leave lint and TP balls everywhere) during February. If I want enough to last, I have to stock up for about a year's worth at once. As you might imagine, this figure is rather difficult to estimate for in advance.

The introspection or lack thereof, might be defined by Nash equilibrium. Nevertheless, the situation depicted in the article is a life hack -- exactly as described. There is no malicious intent/compliance, rather it is about having the foresight and ingenuity to save the day.

https://theconversation.com/a-toilet-paper-run-is-like-a-ban...

If a scarce resource is rationed and allocated according to need, some people will misrepresent their need to get more of it. This is hardly a feature of capitalism. It's a feature of centralised resource allocation.

For example, I'm thinking of a phenomenon in the Soviet Union where people would buy a rare good not because they needed it, but because they could trade it for another shortage good they could not get.

There are tons of small anecdotes about similar abuses of resource allocation. I remember reading that Red Army officers misreported casualties to receive the pay and rations of dead soldiers.

What?

If it's morally incorrect to get to the license server early and snatch a roaming license you might not use to its fullest, is it not also wrong to access the property market early and snatch a bunch of land you might not use to its fullest?

The difference is that market mechanisms are meant to allocate items to those that value them the most (assumed to be the same as their willingness to pay). Claiming a licence by contrast has little cost.

In reality it's not the person that values it the most, but the person willing to pay the most money. That's not the same even if we ignore the ability to afford something, because the marginal value of money isn't constant: To a millionaire $80 is much less than for someone earning minimum wage.

The value placed on a good is measured by what a person is willing to give up in exchange. Naturally only those things one actually has available to give up count—not what one thinks one might be willing to pay in a hypothetical world where affordability is not a concern.

The millionaire just has a longer history of already having given things up to amass that much money which they can draw on in exchange for goods later. (Or, in the case of gifts/inheritance, others gave things up on their behalf and for their benefit—which amounts to the same thing.) That's exactly what money represents: more value provided to others than the owners have claimed for themselves.

I agree on the cost of claiming of the license on this specific case enables depletion of ressources for those who need it. But market mechanisms allow speculation. If you can mobilize capital quicker than others for a resource when you know it's going up, you are just pocketing the difference. Seems hard to justify as a mechanism that is beneficial to society as a whole.

The profit in speculation comes from correctly recognizing that a good will be worth more if consumed in the future than it would be if consumed in the present. It can be annoying to those who would have preferred to use the good in the present and are unable to afford the anticipated future prices, but in the end society benefits by having the good still available in the future for the more valuable use.

I think a homeless person values an empty house way more than a real estate owner.

not by the way they seem to treat any property I've seen and I have experience of homelessness personally and the prejudices have rational foundation

Living every single day being treated as a literal piece of disposable garbage by everyone around you, all while not having a quiet place to sleep or a little piece of the world to call your own can damage one's mental health to the point where they can no longer function as productive members of society.

You've experienced homelessness, so you shouldn't need me to tell you the consequences of living that way long term.

Prejuduces often have some foundations, but that doesn’t mean that we should accept them before acknowledging them on a case-by-case basis.

We should not let so many people “get lost” without a sane social net.

It is unhealthy group behaviour. Your actions reduces the groups access. By sharing you increase group access and group success.

When you buy a property for speculation you take a risk on your ability to increase market value (or outside reasons). You could lose money.

Hoarding group resources makes you a net negative in your group. Hoarding property alone means you had to create or borrow enough value to obtain the property and finance upkeep. Someone has the money to build a new home. That transaction is a net positive.

Not really.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com