Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
I think it's meant to capitalize on current goings on, but the points do apply more generally (I mean, surge pricing is already a thing in certain industries).
This measure is meant to increase the marginal cost of scalping, factor in some of the invisible costs of quick restocks/more production runs, and (via the first thing) make sure everybody has access, rather than who gets there quickest.
In fact, it might be ethically questionable as a store owner to put stuff on your shelf that you know people need and then just let whomever buy as much as they'd like as long as they're first in line. This could also be circumvented via item number limitations, but that doesn't help with the costing thing, and is a measure that can be circumvented by people who are clever enough.
Of course this measure can be circumvented by scalpers that are rich enough but the marginal cost is the cost per individual item in a batch, as that goes up, the whole thing becomes less profitable (or just doable, if we're talking about normal hoarders).
I don't know if I'm saying this because I'm of a discipline where every other subject was "Let's
subvertstudy these ethics!" but I find trying to find the true north ethical position on any issue is hard... or easily circumvented by somebody willing to be mealy-mouthed.Anybody who needs something but can't afford higher prices isn't going to benefit at all. And these would be the most vulnerable people. It also makes it harder to bulk buy for a large group, or for hoarders to decide to be charitable if they realize they bought too many of something, though I don't know if the latter is particularly common.
The only people actually guaranteed to benefit are whoever runs the stores. This just smacks of excuses for making self-serving decisions by making a pretense of helping.
Also:
Does this person think it's impossible to have actual supply problems? Like delivery networks or even manufacturing facilities having trouble.
I thought I stated it here:
Not to address what you quoted, but I did mention that if you goose the price it helps cover the hidden supply chain costs or the cost of more frequent production.
But you said yourself:
Again, this is no longer just pricing items as they are (including the additioal supply/production costs I mentioned), it's trying to price in a social good; access. Of course, like most intangible things, it's hard to price correctly, if it's possible at all.
This ignores discounting, which should be possible where circumstances are explained. In fact, discounts would be more likely than normal depending on the circumstances.
It could help. I'm not saying I have solid ground to stand on here, but I see sense in what's being said. I even mentioned it was a novel libertarian concept, rather than something I've absorbed into my personal economic/retail philosophy without question.
To 180 from the libertarian point, an institution is much more accountable than an individual if all things are operating correctly, whilst an individual in these circumstances is barely accountable at all.
I don't think the concept of upholding traditional power structures is a bad thing if those structures work well enough for most.
But since you mentioned accountability, isn't the fact that people would complain about price hikes already how accountability manifests? I mean, mass complaints is the most effective way for the public to hold companies accountable, so this kind of experiment would most likely die out unless accountability itself is changed.
I'm reminded of drink machines that charged more when it's hot, for a low-key example.
I prefaced my post with that because I think it's an inherent flaw that's not really addressed. I guess it's worth mentioning that, if I ever point out that something relies on an assumption, I mean it as "I don't think this will work".
Wouldn't that require management to officially give cashiers the ability to decide who deserves a discount? That seems like more power than people are willing to give cashiers. I feel like this opens up another way for the situation to turn all law of the jungle.
Of course, that means many who need the items wouldn't have it, but that can be fixed with good social programs, no?
tbh in the case of an emergency I don't think I could bring myself to mass-buy for the purpose of reselling.
* The term is in reference to legal controls, but presumably it applies to moral ones too?
I'm not sure if I'm understanding you right, but you produce something more frequently wouldn't you generally have economies of scale that decrease the marginal cost of production? There'd be a transition period to get to the new equilibrium cost, but the result would be a lower cost per unit item, which would mean a lower (rather than "goosed") price unless for whatever reason it can now be sold for more.
> The way I've heard it explained best is that resellers revert this effect, causing the items to return to something close to the cost/availability they'd otherwise have.
This makes sense, IMO.
Of course, this again doesn't control the price so that it's available for people who need something, but aside from that, yeah.
Only for production runs that were accounted for. An economy of scale is achieved at the perfect marginal cost, rather than production into exponential perpetuity. A lot of fixed costs are "fixed" only at certain scales, and this effect is referred to as stepped costs.
We're talking about demand that fluctuates up for a significant period, then returns to normal after whatever event has occurred, right? I agree with you here if we're talking about a permanent increase in prices for the foreseeable future (let's say, 5+ years) but otherwise "we'll cover this via future profits" (ie amortization of current costs) doesn't work.
Further Digression: In terms of permanence, reaching a new "equilibrium" has it's own costs (renegotiating the whole supply chain, possibly looking into new suppliers entirely, setting up the new production schedule, setting up new factories etc), these are the sorts of things that can be amortized if we're talking long-term growth.
However, prices increase all the time for shady reasons. Or they just up the size of a dimple in an existing product. This is all about getting the price increase to work, which is a game all it's own.
I meant by discussions with management, not cashiers. I mean, if you're a big charity (who I'd assume this sort of bulk-buying should be available to, rather than whoever shows up claiming to have charitable intent) you should be able to set that sort of thing up.
Digression!
14w: IJBM has been quiet lately, I'm going to post some random stuff I've read.
14w: *creates monster*
And the most surprising thing about this is that I can get flak from opposing sides of existing arguments.
Then again maybe it shouldn't be too surprising when my opinion on political topics tends to be lukewarmly circumspect, until I can (or am forced to) decide based on strategic priorities. I get flak from people whose positions oppose those that I support or those of, or (increasingly these days) those somehow associated with, candidates that I support, and then I also get flak from people who would be allies except they're mad at me for betraying the cause by not pushing hard enough and/or settling for lessers-of-evils.
I'd say your attitude helps me, because I feel like when we argue I can very much spot neutral ground from wherever you end up staking it towards the end-stages of our debates.
Not to say I agree with neutral ground*, but I can at least see it.
One thing I've learned semi-recently is that the main opposing, established positions on a thing tend to either be wrong from the outset or become wrong as more and more is added to whatever is being said in order to further causes that really can't be furthered anymore or, in the worst case, to "own the [insert group here]" or "in order to show [insert group here]'s bigotry" depending on the sides which shall not be named.
I didn't discover this, I knew from the outset that this was what posting my political opinions would do, and for a few months I was actually afraid to post anything in the public sphere.
I'd like to be vague here about what changed, so I will say that once I stopped being afraid there wasn't much left to stop me going full-on ridiculously argumentative since I love to argue anyways.
*I have a story about this but man is it ever controversial so I'll save it for another time.
Who would win in such a game that makes it harder on the people who are already more vulnerable? (I am still referring to the situation proposed in the NR piece)
Do you not realize how actually dystopian it would to live in a world where you can't help other people as a private individual or a small group, and the needy can't hope for help from anyone that isn't a large organization?
I'm not sure what other word would describe "oh no, we can't trust you with something as tremendous as getting groceries for another person".
I think I've gone over this very thoroughly over this page. When I said "game" I meant "how to work a price increase that inhibits scalpers, doesn't hurt consumers too much, and certainly doesn't rub them the wrong way enough for them to freak out entirely".
To be clear here, neither scenario is dystopian. They present significant moral quandaries, I guess, but I doubt they really even rise to that level.
The Nanny State? An existing term that's much less bombastic and incendiary.
Plus, I think it's clear this isn't that. The price increase should work out in a way that if a friend does give you money for their own groceries, everybody can still pay for their own stuff.
A small group that's recognized throughout a neighborhood or town can easily clear the managerial discount hurdle.
Unrelated: Hey it's page 1337!
One of them inhibits freedom on a personal level. The ability to exploit others is technically a form of freedom, just as it is to aide others. And putting something out of reach for someone's power is rather similar to taking away a freedom, since either way, it's action on the part of one party making it so that another can't do something. And I can't say it's preferable to give companies more power to exploit people in general rather than private individuals being able to exploit each other. If only because resellers aren't gonna band together to amass more power.
Nanny State means this proposal results in something not actually libertarian, which doesn't sound like an argument in its favor.
Would they really? With how personal lives get more private nowadays, it's perhaps just as likely that you'll have like, one guy hoping to help out a few neighbors on the same floor. Actually, making this hurdle might prevent new groups from doing enough to build reputation, and just locking them out of this ability in the long-term.
While they're just delivering for free rather than giving away things, the Invisible Hands group that's made the news recently probably wouldn't have gone far in a world where stores charge higher for groceries during emergencies. It apparently snowballed from a very small bunch, and the hurdle of convincing management would've slowed down that momentum. They might not even be organized enough to hold negotiations. And higher prices would make them out of reach for poorer people, so that's at least one example of charity potentially becoming less effective in the proposed situation.
I remember noticing it was 1336 last page and waiting for this.
also why does no one use 13375p33k anymore@fourteenwings
> One thing I've learned semi-recently is that the main opposing, established positions on a thing tend to either be wrong from the outset or become wrong as more and more is added to whatever is being said in order to further causes that really can't be furthered anymore
Actually the "positions" themselves are just made of people with a variety of different opinions and a spectrum of different intensities; the only reason the "main opposing, established positions" look more and more extreme is that the only people loud enough to keep shouting as if they can yell the world into being what they want it to be are the people who have a pileup of opinions and feel the need to express them at others.
> I didn't discover this, I knew from the outset that this was what posting my political opinions would do, and for a few months I was actually afraid to post anything in the public sphere.
To be fair I already expected this of large public spaces (e.g. Facebook, MAL forums, Twitter, etc.), but it's just that I didn't expect this of small spaces like IJBM and HH, where I thought I could get away with talking about arguments elsewhere, from a distance.
@Stormtroper
> Glenn, remember the time I posted on HH that Jolteon has going for it the fact that it learns Pin Missile and somehow that created a monster that bit you? Sorry!
I remember a big conflagration about political ideology (or, in my opinion, about ideological labels), but I don't remember how it involved Jolteon and Pin Missile.
@fourteenwings
> "how to work a price increase that inhibits scalpers, doesn't hurt consumers too much
Thing is, if all you're doing is changing the price, then you're going to have to take this as a trade-off, where (for any reasonably necessary item, e.g. food, or toilet paper), you have to "hurt consumers some" in order to inhibit scalpers.
Perhaps the problem with using price to control this is the assumption that price is the only way to control availability of an item; relaxing this assumption by instituting other availability controls may be more useful for reducing harm to consumers.
> The Nanny State? An existing term that's much less bombastic and incendiary.
To be fair, I don't think I've ever heard "nanny state" used in a non-derogatory way.
> A small group that's recognized throughout a neighborhood or town can easily clear the managerial discount hurdle.
This seems to run into the problem of depending on people knowing each other well enough to trust each other not to misbehave or otherwise act maliciously, beacuse otherwise there are just stupid amounts of transaction costs with everything.
(Oddly, this problem is shared by both libertarianism and communism.)
I'm good with curtailing this freedom since it's one of those hacks that bypasses reasoning to mess with human nature itself. Of course, this isn't libertarian at all, but neither am I.
We've gone over this re: Accountability: Institutions vs Individuals.
Well, I was trying to describe what you'd said in the most neutral way.
Digression:
Yeah, I was trying to soften "dystopia", so it is still derogatory here. In all accuracy, I guess it'd be "Nanny Stores", but it isn't this either, since it's about pricing in access, rather than guaranteeing access.
Yeah I was very careful with my wording there to address this; "doesn't hurt consumers too much".
This is severely underestimating charitable efforts. I mean, just breaking the cycle of complacency takes a lot of guts. Nobody's giving up due to such a basic thing.
There's a lot more to go through when it comes to charitable efforts, but frankly I'm not interested in digressing even further down yet another tangent.
Again, I'm not attempting to say this could be the be all and end all of availability controls, I'm just saying I find the argument compelling.
However, it feels like now I have to keep steelmanning it like a maniac and in all honesty it's
...getting?gotten out of hand.At least this isn't the sort of site where somebody just blockquotes whatever somebody said (usually during the post right before theirs) and then responds in their own block, leaving everybody to figure out whatever is being said in response to whatever else.
I shudder to think of how much worse things have to get before birds lose the ability to fly.
Unless they were 90 feet tall of course.