You misunderstand the point. Prices and markets allow for an efficient distribution of resources to where they are most needed and to where people are willing to pay the price. There is a world in which profitability aligns with the crisis and, in fact signals to other producers to enter the market, thereby increasing supply.
That's a fair argument. But then simply block exports.
Edit: Also, I'm not going to say that life in any other part of the world is worth more or less than this part. I say, let markets make that determination through price.
Does that still make sense if other world players are not playing fair? Here is a hypothetical: China knew they'd catch us with our pants down. They buy up supplies anticipating a critical time window. This causes irreparable damage to us in that critical window.
I could say we made our bed with negligent preparation (Oh lord is that a big topic). I can also say there is a place for Govt to mitigate predatory capital manipulation.
That's an oddly hostile and ineffectual defense. Because we're not a completely free-market as it is, then we ought to give up on it completely? We are a mixed economy, true, but that's an argument for less regulation, not for more. It's ludicrous that you really think 3M is the only company that can produce this stuff.
What would cause producers to drop heavy capital (doubtful it's that significant) to make products in demand? Would a profitable model, perhaps, signal to them that it's a good product to produce?
There are companies. The MyPillow guy said he was entering the market and retooling his factories. As profits rise, there will be more. This whole process is how the market flushes it out. It's not instantaneous. Not even Trump can make this happen instantly.
It may seem distasteful to you, but that doesn't change it's effectiveness. We ultimately rely on the self-interest of 3M and other companies to produce the products we need. Why would we punish the very self-interest that serves our interest?
But given that you’re trying to rationalize the current situation you need to further explain why it’s appropriate for the government to subjectively give NYC far far more resources than the country on average will have to deal with the same crisis.
We have spent weeks talking about inadequate preparation and now suddenly the areas which have had time to prepare suddenly need to suffer?!
And why? Because the same politicians you are complaining about in terms of bailouts are suddenly supposed to be trusted to distribute supplies?!?!? Please.
You misunderstand the point. Prices and markets allow for an efficient distribution of resources to where they are most needed and to where people are willing to pay the price. There is a world in which profitability aligns with the crisis and, in fact signals to other producers to enter the market, thereby increasing supply.
Here's a good article that explains some of the economics of it. https://www.econlib.org/price-signals-price-gouging-and-philanthropy/
That's a fair argument. But then simply block exports.
Edit: Also, I'm not going to say that life in any other part of the world is worth more or less than this part. I say, let markets make that determination through price.
Does that still make sense if other world players are not playing fair? Here is a hypothetical: China knew they'd catch us with our pants down. They buy up supplies anticipating a critical time window. This causes irreparable damage to us in that critical window. I could say we made our bed with negligent preparation (Oh lord is that a big topic). I can also say there is a place for Govt to mitigate predatory capital manipulation.
That's an oddly hostile and ineffectual defense. Because we're not a completely free-market as it is, then we ought to give up on it completely? We are a mixed economy, true, but that's an argument for less regulation, not for more. It's ludicrous that you really think 3M is the only company that can produce this stuff.
What would cause producers to drop heavy capital (doubtful it's that significant) to make products in demand? Would a profitable model, perhaps, signal to them that it's a good product to produce?
There are companies. The MyPillow guy said he was entering the market and retooling his factories. As profits rise, there will be more. This whole process is how the market flushes it out. It's not instantaneous. Not even Trump can make this happen instantly.
It may seem distasteful to you, but that doesn't change it's effectiveness. We ultimately rely on the self-interest of 3M and other companies to produce the products we need. Why would we punish the very self-interest that serves our interest?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kQuW9K9bt0
That position is fine to take.
But given that you’re trying to rationalize the current situation you need to further explain why it’s appropriate for the government to subjectively give NYC far far more resources than the country on average will have to deal with the same crisis.
We have spent weeks talking about inadequate preparation and now suddenly the areas which have had time to prepare suddenly need to suffer?!
And why? Because the same politicians you are complaining about in terms of bailouts are suddenly supposed to be trusted to distribute supplies?!?!? Please.