Makes sense, in the short term if you have a fixed quantity of a good and demand which exceeds supply then the solution markets will find is to allocate to those with the most resources. At that point the markets are not a particularly fair allocator.

In the medium to long term though high prices slowly incentivize people to produce more of that good. So it would be like if your hardware gained more and more CPU threads to dish out over time, until we reach some equilibrium again.

> In the medium to long term though high prices slowly incentivize people to produce more of that good. So it would be like if your hardware gained more and more CPU threads to dish out over time, until we reach some equilibrium again.

Except the demand is going to fall back down in the future, and your hypervisor is sentient and realizes there's no point in spending its own resources to provision more vCPUs if they're going to be running idle by the time they're activated.

> I was able to get kleenex and paper towels saturday because the grocery store is now limiting people to one purchase per day.

The grocery stores don't want to keep stocking-out and restocking kleenex and paper towels either.

People opportunistically filling up their carts won't have space to buy other higher-margin products.

And kleenex and paper towels take up a lot of space on the trucks, taking up space from higher-margin deliveries.

If they had allowed dynamic pricing then people who needed more would probably be willing to pay $10/roll of paper towels Vs the fixed $2/roll. They aren’t necessary for life, so setting fixed prices are why they need hard limits.

Seems crazy to me we aren’t seeing a “free market” at play, where both inherently the stores “win” and the people receive the goods they need / can justify.

It's weird how in that scenario software engineers and lawyers always seem to "need" paper towels a lot more than laid off waiters do.

It's as if there's something going on there that this reductionist model didn't account for.

You aren't seeing a "free market" because all of these big corps are scared to death of being accused of "profiteering" on supplies (with potential liability from anti-"gouging" laws), so they can't raise prices. Their only other option is to restrict the buyer's quantities.

They can raise prices moderately on everything to make up for it, and/or stock things that are slightly less appealing in normal times to slow turnover and bias sales towards those more in need. For instance, the pasta section was about 5% full and almost entirely things like whole wheat, cauliflower gluten-free, or turmeric. But that's fine with me. Your tone is that this is not the optimal solution and some misguided people are causing it by mistake. I don't think that's the case.

People who get upset about the lack of high prices for scarce commodities seem to me to be inconsistent - if you aren't in a high stakes zero-sum competition, then why should you care much about being able to outbid others? And if you think that you are, how can you ethically defend everyone not getting a minimum ration or be sure that in a so-called free market you will get yours?

I think the core belief is that supply and demand is a force that can actually cause more supply to come into a market where there is imbalance. IOW: rather than curtail the expression of demand via rationing, actually increase the supply.

If the marginal profit on TP is $0.10/roll and the price is not allowed to increase in time of excess demand, you’re likely to see factories optimize to squeeze every efficiency out, trying to eek out another penny per pack of 6 rolls.

Imagine instead a world where prices rise in times of excess demand. Producers now have an incentive to maintain flexibility in monthly production, not squeezing the last fractional penny out and instead allowing flex to over-produce when demand is high (and prices/marginal profit is higher).

Likewise, warehouse and distribution adapts to capitalize on high prices, using those high prices as a signal to get more goods to flow to those demanding the goods. In other words, more toilet paper is available for people who want toilet paper.

Instead of today’s world where I have to shop twice a week instead of once, or can’t add a more vulnerable neighbor’s shopping to my own, because we are limited to how many eggs I can buy in a single trip. How does that help anyone’s health?

"I think the core belief is that supply and demand is a force that can actually cause more supply to come into a market"

Everybody believes that, in general. But in the short term, the elasticity of supply with respect to price approaches zero. If we ramped up production though, it would be too late, and then there would be a glut.

How about we let the suppliers and buyers figure that out, rather than having the government get between them with restrictions on how they can contract?

Who are the suppliers? The management of the supermarket figured out that the appropriate thing to do was to ration the product. Are you implying they are not suppliers? There's a whole chain of people that work to bring products to people, hence the phrase "supply chain".

If some other store did not ration the product, then they would have empty shelves, so I'd go to the one that did.

>The management of the supermarket figured out that the appropriate thing to do was to ration the product.

Because they had a government gun to their head in the form of anti-gouging laws, or implications for the same. That's what I am arguing against.

If they were free to set prices, they might consider raising prices to keep stores in stock, rather than ration. They might not, if they calculate it will be a long-term PR hit. But right now, they are not free to choose.

Exactly. Every time there’s a widespread power outage in the US, portable generators sell out. Almost every time, portable generators are readily available between 500 and 1000 miles away. Anti-price gouging laws ensure that people in the disaster area are not quickly served with higher-priced but available generators.

Further, local and state politicians and AGs often are seen grandstanding about how they stand ready to prosecute anyone who is raising prices on necessities beyond the normal price (sometimes allowing +10%, but often not even being explicit about that, leaving businesses in a murky area).

Watch for it next time a power disruption hits your local area.

Agreed. It’s deeply scary to me that it this stuff isn’t intuitively obvious to people who have lived in a free market economy their entire lives. The idea that a Soviet bread line is the most “ethical” way to distribute goods is madness.

> how can you ethically defend everyone not getting a minimum ration

To me, the fairest way to distribute any good is to the highest bidder. If someone is truly desperate for food, they will find a way to get the money to pay for it. I would rather that food be instantly available to that highest bidder with a true need, rather than having to jump through some kind of Soviet bread line to get their “ration”.

Are you saying it is “ethically” better to have an empty shelf with government price controls than a full shelf with prices set by your high-bidding neighbors?

With an empty shelf there is no negotiation possible, simply the will of the government bureaucrat or store manager (with a government gun to his head). They don’t have any personal knowledge of the hungry.

With a full shelf the food is right there, and it’s only money. The hungry can communicate their immediate need for food on the spot by forking over the cash.

So hell yes the capitalist system is the most ethical. Hunger is a private matter that affects individuals - not a faceless mass to be treated as robots with a government program.

Historically ignorant and hysterically unethical.

This is one of the saddest things I've ever seen on HN.

This is why the label "ethical" has become semantically meaningless. People, as you have done here, just define "ethical" as their own point of view and "unethical" as any point of view they reject.

If that helps you sleep at night.

Try re-reading the post I replied to. If it's not making you feel a bit sick, might want to spend some time on introspection.

Qu'ils mangent de la brioche though I guess.

So your argument is that anyone who has a reaction that differs from yours is just a defective human?

Persuasive.

No, my argument is that statements like this -

"If someone is truly desperate for food, they will find a way to get the money to pay for it."

Are both massively ignorant and quite sickening, and that if you aren't reacting at least a little bit to that sort of statement too, you may have a serious lack of empathy.

Anyway, good luck in life, I have no interest in carrying on a conversation on this matter any further. If you're not seeing it you're not seeing it, I just hope you never get anywhere you can make policy.

Your comment is pure emotion. There's no argument or information presentation whatsoever.

A word, you are a good man. The people you are arguing with are broken.

Can you address my arguments? My post is based on the ethical principles of dignity and self-determination.

Your post is bullshit.

"If someone is truly desperate for food, they will find a way to get the money to pay for it."

Just wow. Ignorant and awful.

Sounds like you’re just having an emotional reaction instead of engaging his point in good faith. If you’re so empathetic, maybe you should remember that the person who made that point is a human being and not a monster.

There's not really a point there, just ignorance on display. People throughout history have starved in gutters for want of money for food, yet here he is espousing the idea that if you just want it hard enough, you'll find the money to eat, regardless of price gouging, shortage or whatever else. This is just factually wrong.

And if you end up going without, that's your issue. Not only that, but that's the best and fairest system, the way it should be! This is a pure expression of "Fuck everyone else, I got mine"

> maybe you should remember that the person who made that point is a human being and not a monster.

Yes, totally, because saying their posts are ignorant and cruel is totally the same as treating them like something other than human.

My intent, like the sister post claims, is to help the folks who are in the most dire straits, with the least access to food or money.

If we arrange the rules of human behavior, such that there is an incentive to create a surplus of food and money, then the poor will be much better off.

Those who have tried to simply make a law that says "no one is allowed to die of huger" have created monstrous regimes which led to the starvation of millions.

There actually was a point. His point is that, while it might seem counterintuitive, allowing suppliers to price with demand may improve the situation for the majority of people, even if that permits a minority of individuals to fall by the wayside. He’s making a plea to look at this from a systemic angle. You totally missed that because you jumped to demonizing him for even suggesting the idea.

If you’re hearing “fuck everyone else” that’s pure projection. You’re obviously putting words into his mouth. That seems cruel to me and counterproductive.

You should be more empathetic when you discuss with people on the internet, assume good faith.

I have assumed good faith, I have not once assumed them of being dishonest or disingenuous. I believe that they believe what they are writing. Neither am I demonising someone for suggesting the idea that demand pricing may improve supply. I'm pointing out that their statements are inaccurate and their attitude cruel. If I'm demonising them it's for their attitude to other humans.

> If you’re hearing “fuck everyone else” that’s pure projection.

  "If someone is truly desperate for food, they will find a way to get the money to pay for it."
  "The hungry can communicate their immediate need for food on the spot by forking over the cash."
  "Hunger is a private matter that affects individuals"

You can take it I disagree with your assessment.

Good faith is just as much about assuming good intent as it is about assuming genuineness. All of those statements are a far cry from “fuck everyone else.” The underlying intent could just as easily be “this can help more people.” It’s an unfair exaggeration that only serves to justify your indignation.

The underlying intent may well be that, but it is couched in both ignorance and callous disregard for others.

At this point we're just going round in circles.

> The underlying intent may well be that, but it is couched in both ignorance and callous disregard for others.

Nope, that’s just your projection. You’re callously disregarding him.

We will all suffer if masks and basic hygiene products aren't allocated well.

There is not enough time to solve the coordination problem (or, more accurately, we solved it in advance).

The government elected by most market participants steps in (or threatens to step in) to help maintain order. This seems like a less crazy idea than seeing how many nurses will pay $500 for a mask.

Market participants are unable to deliberate on every policy position of every candidate that they have to choose from in elections.

Elections as currently administered are highly limited in their ability to produce good collective judgments, so the fact that politicians support sonething is no indication that it's socially beneficial. If the democratic process produced socially optimal governance decisions, no democracy on Earth would institute rent control for example, and we see the opposite in practice.

And yes, if the shortage for masks is so severe, that they would fetch $500 in a free market, we need prices to spike that high, to spur massive rapid restructuring of the economy to ramp production of masks and alleviate that shortage.

Capping the price doesn't solve the fundamental problem, which is the shortage. It interferes with the process of solving the shortage.

The non-market solution doesn't solve the fundamental problem it prevents the problem from doing maximal damage in a time sensitive situation.

It takes time to build and staff and supply a mask factory, meanwhile you risk the scarce (in the best of times), skilled clinicians getting sick en masse or abandoning their jobs.

Market solutions work when there is no coercion besides price, unfortunately viruses won't take checks, nor will people who are fearful or desperate.

That kind of extreme situation can be dealt with far more targeted regulatory responses than price controls, like simply commandeering private supplies when medical professionals need them during a critical shortage, and some monopolist is refusing to sell them.

And in most situations, money can solve the problem, and get the essential item in the hands of those who need them. Those with stockpiles typically have them in order to sell them during a shortage. Not pointlessly hoard them and forego the profit earning opportunity.

The long-term damage of anti-price-gouging laws is fewer stockpiles to prevent shortages from emerging during future crises, and a slower ramp up of production and distribution when a shortage does emerge.

A grocery store is a "market" and yet it never has been and never will be a "free market" in the idealized sense. You know, everybody knows, that it isn't some sort of free-for-all with product placement on the shelves, right?

The store is competing with other stores, but the management determines what to do within the store without either voting or unregulated competition.

The article and my comment are not about rationing. The article is about anti-"price gouging" laws.

Don't they go hand in hand? If you can't charge as much as you want, that is an obvious incentive to ration.

Per store limits prevent arrangements like one person purchasing supplies for large numbers of people.

> I was able to get kleenex and paper towels saturday because the grocery store is now limiting people to one purchase per day.

Maybe, but depending on where you are, you might be 3 weeks into this and demand is subsiding.

Capitalism is just an algorithm, heuristic. Game theory shows a mix of strategies works pretty good. Just tweak the proportional mix of strategies as necessary.

Open markets only span something like 1/3rd of our economy. (Most other trades are intra organizational, government appropriations, etc.)

We're geeks, right? Obsessed with optimization, right?

So it seems crazy to me that so many will only consider Freedom Markets™ while dismissing every other possible strategy.

As seen in this very thread, the meme of Freedom Markets™ is so engrained that even the critics only argue in those terms, rather than having an affirmative agenda based on alternatives.