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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Persuasive.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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"

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

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