Lol, confirmed you think it's an insignificant difference, which is why your economic viewpoint is morally bankrupt.

So what if poor people can't afford something, the rich people "need it more", and the market is efficient, so **** them.

Confirmed? How? The difference in wealth doesn't change if there is a price cap or not. That doesn't mean I don't think there's a significant difference between the amount of wealth the rich and poor have. **** that's some of the dumbest reasoning you could have possibly posted. Like you think it's some trap, but the fact is that the rich can just by more of a product when there's a price cap, ensuring there's a shortage...

Meanwhile, it's not going to go unnoticed that you have no argument for your position other than some #feels about fairness that ensure that limited resources will be distributed in a remarkably inefficient manner while holding back incentives for people to take more of that resource to the effected area. If you had an ounce of logic in you you'd realize how poor your position is, but, but FEEEEEELS

"Appeal to 'basic economics'" should be a logical fallacy if it isn't already.

maybe you should work on understanding the subject first before making that declaration. There's no reason to make some broad complicated point here, it's very uncontroversial that price caps are bad in economics.

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...ers_worse.html

It's not just democrats/liberals. Chris Christie in on it. $50000 fine for raising prices 17%.

How do people supposedly meaning to help some needy group end up so obviously hurting them? Is the appearance of being sympathetic that much more important than solving problems?

Yes obviously. Welcome to populism.

wut

do you actually understand how gas stations work?

we're not talking about gas going to $12/gallon forever just to be mean to poor people. We're talking about short-term constraints after a disaster. If gas is kept at the "normal" price then you get everyone rushing to the station, including people who just want to fill up "just in case" and then go park their car in the garage for the rest of the week. How does encouraging that behavior help anyone? Well, hey the price is fair so **** the people who actually need gas because they're driving construction vehicles or ambulances. And hey, **** the people those guys were going to help because FEELS.

Cf. hotels. If prices are capped, some upper-middle-class guy comes in and books 12 rooms because hey, he doesn't want to be cooped up with his brat kids and his mother-in-law, and the next guy to show up gets a "hey, sorry, we're full."

hey good job helping out those yuppies.

My first Uber experience was with a black driver. He let me take my dog (a pitbull mix omgmg) in the car with me and helped my friend load like six suitcases (long story). He had a slight accent, maybe Nigerian or Cameroonian. It was the rich, deep booming voice of 1000 African sunsets.

p.s. Near-west side of Chicago

Not true, at all. Under some assumptions yes, of course, they are bad. But if those assumptions don't hold then disallowing price caps would allocate scarcity to utility inefficiently.

Lol please point out what these assumptions are and how they don't hold in these situations

The assumption is that people have similar resources so the price will track with utility i.e. you'll pay more for something you want/need than someone else that wants/needs it less. If people do not have similar resources then the marginal utility of money kicks in and scarcity won't be allocated to need efficiently. That blows up the Econ 101 assumptions you were depending on.

That's not a key assumption. Nor does that assumption affect one but not the other. See above talk.

It's key to PVN's and your point about overconsumption. In fact the more unequal the society is the more the resources will be allocated inefficiently, and in that case extra market restraints should be applied such as price capping or rationing to insure that resources are allocated more effectively. Otherwise it's just #feelings about some imaginary free market system that fails in real world applications.

Even Igesias finally came around and admitted to it

Source

Yeah even vox admits it is simply lolol. That's no authority. Equal and starving though, the socialist way!

PS - if you want to continue the discussion, feel free to address how the rich simply use more less efficiently when prices are held down

What would happen if during a state of emergency the government suspended the requirements for business licenses, sales tax, seller's permits and other barriers to entry for selling needed goods? If the government wants to do something else to lower prices it could facilitate transport of goods or something.

I tried to resist so hard staying out of this one, but are you ****ing kidding me right now?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/ny...anted=all&_r=0

in b4 that example "doesn't count" because it's a different sort of resource

what about this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=wast...q=wasted+food+

Lol that's exactly my point hombre.

Is this in response to me?

I don't think those two links show the same thing. The first is about resource scarcity. Prices are going up and only the rich can afford it. In that case, there's a very limited amount of space in NYC. There could be more building - the government does restrict that - and it drives up prices. OTOH, I think restrictions preventing overcrowded building is a good thing. Manhattan will just be expensive.

The wasting food is like what Ikes was talking about. It's cheap, so it gets wasted. It's not that it is necessarily held down in price (though it largely is), but the cheaper (more affordable) it is, the more it can be wasted.

This isn't some socialist plot, it's taking the fantasy land Econ 101 out of the classroom and testing it in the real world. It turns out that in the real world, one of the base assumptions, that the market actors have relatively the same amount of resources, fails, and when inequality is present we don't get the conclusion we wanted.

Ok, now what? Well if you would have read the rest of the Vox article he says that we shouldn't be for price controls/rationing we should be targeting inequality and I agree with him and so does the IMF (hardly socialists). Making market actors more equal would align the Econ 101 theory with practice.

If the market actors are more or less equal then prices shouldn't be held down. If the marketplace is unequal then epistemologically you won't know if price ( or supply) changes necessarily signal a commensurate use of utility. In the Sydney problem even if there is a surge of supply, say the amount of taxi cabs doubled due to the surge pricing you still wouldn't know if utility is being maximized. There certainly is a case that holding the price down could be more efficient if it allows someone with maximum utility but lesser means have a higher probability to be able to use a taxi than they would otherwise have under surge pricing.

Yes. The point is that rich people buy more than they need... especially when prices are low. This makes it so that when prices are held down, the rich take more than the poor. When prices are not held down, the rich take more than the poor. The only difference is that when prices are allowed to rise to what they need to be, there is a much stronger incentive to resolve the supply disruption and the available supply is prioritized to the most important needs.

The part of both I refer to IS the resource scarcity; with the food waste the comparison is between subset societies in an entire world society set. I'm at about 50/50 his point makes zero sense or I misread/misunderstood. I mean specifically the sentence I responded to. I guess the 3rd option is taking it out of context from missing something in an earlier post.

I have no problem walking it back if need be.

You've misunderstood and so severely that I'm not sure how to approach it. Like, I have no idea how you could possibly think that I'm saying rich people don't waste stuff.

oh you're going to talk about california water example in the context of a free market? lol thanks for playing.