In response to:

Disaster Ignorance

sdoonan Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 8:39 AM
The author: "That's the unappreciated benefit of freely fluctuating prices. They get people to do voluntarily what's in the social interest -- conserve on goods and services that have become scarce." So-- If the price of a loaf of bread doubles, so I can only afford to buy half a loaf and be hungry most of the day, that's a good thing?
Specious Rule Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 10:41 AM
Consider it from the other shoes. When you go to get bread there is none available because the guy before you bought more loaves than he actually needed. He saw the low price on his way thru and stocked up when he could have bought just enough to get him thru the day. Now when you arrive to buy your bread you face a shortage and no food at all. While you might have been ticked about a higher price for bread you are more ticked off with no bread at all. Remember that people act in their self interest. This higher price will allow for more bread to be available for those who need it most. I'd rather have lighter pockets and some food in my belly.
Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 8:46 AM
Half a loaf may not satisfy you but it will ward off starvation.

And the hunger will motivate you to take action to improve your circumstances rather than depend on others.
sdoonan Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 9:34 AM
I agree, but the merchant who raised the price to double will make out like a bandit, while everyone else is figuring out how to make their lives better. It seems opportunistic, like the merchant is taking advantage of the problems everyone else is facing. The only person who comes out ahead is the merchant.
sdoonan Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 9:37 AM
--It seems like if the merchant didn't charge more for the bread, but began to split the loaves up and give only portions to everyone, to prevent hoarding and spread a thin resource to as many struggling people as possible, would be a better solution than the merchant just being concerned about his own profit, taking advantage of a situation that is bad for everyone else but--like a windfall--good for him.
Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 9:40 AM
You are missing two important facts.

First, the other half of the loaf will feed someone else.

Second, the chance to make a profit on bread will cause someone from outside the area to bring in a truckload of bread for sale that would not otherwise have been there and more people will be fed.
olddoc4444 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 10:23 AM
Wrong. The merchant will eventually lose out to someone who will come in and charge 150% rather than double. That is, unless the local government, thru taxes, business licenses, health regulations, zoning etc prevents it
MadisonWannabe Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 7:52 AM
olddoc4444 Wrong again. The person who charges 150% will lose out because people will not voluntarily pay the higher price. As more product becomes available prices will stabilize to the norm. The only way the higher price wins out is WITH government intervention giving people no choice. This is why business sleeps WITH democrats as in so called Green energy. The other name for this is Fascism.
Here's a which-is-better question for you. Suppose a New Jersey motel room rented for $125 a night prior to Hurricane Sandy's devastation. When the hurricane hits, a husband, wife and their two youngsters might seek the comfort of renting two adjoining rooms. However, when they arrive at the motel, they find that rooms now rent for $250. At that price, they might decide to make do with one room. In my book, that would be wonderful. That decision would make a room available for another family who had to evacuate Sandy's wrath. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and others condemn this...
Sunday, May 19 | 02:16 AM ET
Sunday, May 19 | 02:16 AM ET
Sunday, May 19 | 02:16 AM ET
Sunday, May 19 | 02:16 AM ET