There isn't an alternative. If you assume people behave irrationally you may as well send the army in straight away. People are often stupid but rarely irrational given what they can understand. There is pretty solid evidence that people with money are the ones who spend it rationally.

And besides a private buyer's opinion of what is rational is just as valid as anyone else's.

> If I may suggest you and a minority of others would be better served in such a situation and you are trying to construct an argument so as to justify a policy that would benefit yourself.

Yes? I'd like to live in a world where I can go to the store and buy toilet paper. Just like everyone else. This is not an unreasonable demand.

I'd like to see everything go back to normal as fast as possible, thanks. Policies that make it irrational to return to that happy equilibrium are not in my interests. We need producers and companies involved in consumer logistics to change their behaviors. Money is the fastest tool to do that.

Besides, seriously, why do you think people earn money if not to get first dibs on stuff they want? What do you think money is for? It isn't like everyone is going to get what they want, there is a massive shortage. Someone is going to have to do without. If someone has to do without we use money to figure out who. That is how life works in this era, and the eras before dating back to the invention of money. Price controls aren't going to win a war with the economy. It is more likely to take down the government than stop wealthy people getting what they want.

The point is not that you desire to be able to buy TP its that you are willing to sacrifice the general well being for your own convenience.

Hoarding of some non emergency items is self limiting and self correcting in a way that doesn't rob the poor of the ability to wipe their asses. It's a problem that doesn't need solving beyond the simple expedient of not allowing one person to buy too much of it to give other buys a chance.

Your solution by contrast is actually more likely to shift whose hoarding it and why then solve the problem.

If your position was apt then surely you can give one example of such a system working?

Economic modelling often fails because they assume a small number of rational and logic rules. But people are highly variable and rational for one person is irrational for another, depending upon experience and situations.

Your claim that people with money spend it rationally is countered by evidence that poor people are often spending money rationally, given their situation, needs and income. Different situations lead to very different definitions of rational and "common sense". (Mental stress & fatigue also becomes a decision making factor at low income levels.)

I claimed that most people spent their money rationally. You're not countering me with that point, we're agreeing. If wealthy people make a habit of spending irrationally they go broke.

This just isn't the case. Unless they're spending irrationally AND a large proportion of their wealth then spending irrationally is unlikely to make them go broke. And unfortunately some people have so much wealth that they can spend market-distorting amounts of money that are still a tiny fraction of their overall wealth.

Average person doesnt buy iphone because they need a new phone, or coke to quench their thirst.

This is false, as well as being a false dichotomy. We know people act at least somewhat irrationally. That's why we have laws on gambling. It doesn't mean sending in the military.

Of course there is - look at how people actually behave given various stimuli, rather than presuming enlightened rationality.

Enlightened rationality does not govern real actions, we know this, we have ample evidence of this, and making economic forecasts on this basis has been repeatedly exposed as a fools game.

There is an alternative: distribute wealth. On aggregate people tend to behave a lot more rationally than individuals do. So if you spread the buying power as widely as possible then you get a more rational market.

Just delegating responsibility for resource allocation to groups of people is not a silver bullet.

"Aggregate people" tasked with distributing wealth (or taking wealth and converting it to some resource and distributing that) seems to be highly succeptable to holding onto more and more of that wealth over time for trickle down distribution within it's own organization.

Large nonprofits regularly come under fire for using too much of their income on their leadership and luxury fluff for themselves. Governments routinely spend their income paying themselves and paying for pork for their friends and paying for fluff instead of making people's lives good. Religions tend to amass more and more wealth until some sub-group tells them to shove it and historically this results in violence. You could fill libraries with the volume of work written about all the ways organizations become corrupted and self serving and fail to achieve their goal.

It's basically democracy for economic power. And you're right, it's not a silver bullet. But I believe it could be a significant improvement on the status quo.

Distributing wealth is self-destructive behavior. Generally, you want wealth in capable hands, who can use this wealth to create more wealth. You don't just want to piss it away.

"Pissing it away" is also known as buying things, which drives economic growth. The poor spend every penny they make, and this is generally considered good for the economy.

We tried consuming our way to prosperity during the housing bubble in the early 2000s. That turned out how you might expect.

The growth in that sector is swallowed up by the overall hard-stop of the entire economy.

Indeed. Just the idea that TP is the topic of interest and not, say, food or medicine proves this. You don't need TP. A lot of the world don't even use TP. You can, instead, wash.

But there's not much you can do to replace eating.