Hacker News Reader

Comment by bheadmaster | Hacker News Reader

I was using food as a hyperbole, the same argument can be applied to anything. Should X be priced in such a way to extract the most money possible from a certain top of the wealthiest, leaving effectively everyone else without it?

Substitute X for whatever you want, and any affirmative response would be equivalent to saying "nobody should have X except the rich". If you agree with that sentence, then that's no other argument I can bring to the table.

View on HN

What is stopping food producers or sellers from 10xing their prices tomorrow to price out the less than wealthy? You're free to sell rice at $1000/kg but you probably won't find too many interested buyers.

Rice is a fungible and commoditized food source where no apparent global producer has enormous pricing power to dictate prices according to their whims, while popular music bands/acts are not commoditized and the supply is intrinsically limited or even scarce, and thus pricing is more flexible and can be manipulated more easily.

What if someone very rich simply bought all the world's food supply and started selling it for an enormous price?

Sounds like a plot to a dystopian movie to me.

A bit disingenuous, no? "The rich" aren't infinite, so market price can only be so high. And, perhaps we can agree that some things like food, should be available to everyone, other things aren't so important.

Let say there's 100 tickets available but 200 people wanting to go. You are saying the right price is the price that only the richer half can afford right?

Sort of, I'm saying that if the price becomes that, it's ok as a concert is not essential for life, it's not even essential for a good life. Of course that's simply my opinion.

Your opinion implies that money is more important than anything else. If it makes most money, then it's the right thing to do.

I disagree with your opinion. Money is just a middleman - and a mathematical device used by the cunning to take everything away from everyone else and essencially enslave the world.

That's one way to read it. I personally imply no such thing. My opinion is that if something is neither essential for life, nor for a good life, it is unimportant. Any other lines someons draws are their opinion, which they are most free to have.

I see. I disagree with that opinion, too. Where would you draw the line between "unimportant" and "important" - therefore, between prices that should and should not be (allowed to be) maximized for the sake of profit?

Food, water and shelter is obvious. Is there anything else you consider important except those three? If not, would you be willing to live a life where the only things available to you are food, water and shelter - i.e. a life of a prison inmate, or a labour slave?

I agree, where is the line? My opinion stops where written. This was fun though!

> My opinion stops where written. This was fun though!

You have incorporated the word "important" into your opinion, but you haven't explained what you mean by that word. Walking away from a discussion like that without explaining what you mean by the (subjective) word you used is nothing short of rude. Especially combined with the snarky remark about your own entertainment.

If you want to spill out your opinions, without engaging in further discussion when asked, feel free to open a personal blog.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com