Posts by George Darroch
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Same reason that free-market healthcare is such an abominable concept.
Yes, and because most states are not prepared to have citizens dying on the street, even in developing countries and the United States, there is a provider of last resort, offering very poor service but sufficient to keep most people above death.
A suitable comparison would be a restaurant operating beside a Red Cross tent. I think people would think the patrons to be wankers, but they would not consider the restaurant highly morally unfit. That's differentiation of markets. What gouging is in this context is a person or company exploiting a monopoly on supply for short term gain.
-
What about them?
Demand is elastic. Under normal circumstances, these people are okay. If someone wants to watch the rugby, they can pay for it, because they have other options for entertainment, like watching it on television, seeing a lower division match, or spending their entertainment dollars elsewhere.
Food demand is pretty inelastic. You can normally subsitute for cheaper food down the chain, but when a crisis hits and all food is valuable, substituting from food to not-food is simply not possible. This is why gouging is egregious in this situation. Similarly for transport - with limited transport options, gouging on an essential service is seen in a highly negative light.
-
I was heartened to see Clare Curran use that link.
Still thinking about what it means.
-
I think you make very clear points.
To use the language of economists, you increase the cost of cooperation, and you destroy social capital. Decreasing the cooperative state of a body is harmful under normal circumstances, as fascinating new research shows. Isolating antagonistic actors is highly important for maintaining the unity of a group.
under stress, social networks either end up all agreeing or splitting into two opposing factions. Either condition is referred to as "structural balance."
In this situation, the costs are much higher. Anti-social actions are both unpriced externalities, so it is right that social opprobrium is used to increase their cost to actors. Where the state has been able to price anti-social behaviour, by imposing costs, it has, in quite dramatic ways. This is why looters are being given much harsher treatment by the courts than would ordinary thieves taking the same would.
Classical economics is weak, often perverse. The poor person starving and the rich person hungry both have similar needs, but one is priced out of the market immediately. This is why prices are poor expressions of preferences - rather than perfect ones as stupid economists like Mr Crampton assume - in anything other than an egalitarian society.
-
Are NatLib archiving Twitter feeds? They're a huge source of information for future readers.
-
And yet, as I said, very well-suited to the new world of flashmobs and ninja gigs. She's really expert at making things happen around her.
The best people make things happen in every circumstance.
I kicked back against the Palmer hype in my internet with friends in Australia telling me about their insanely amazing musical-outing/hot-tub Palmer experiences (narrated by AP herself ), until I actually saw a little. She's good at what she does.
-
I can say that the McGs are very happy the census has been cancelled...
That quote, from a friend, has to be the highlight of my day.
-
The photo has gone viral. Getting @ mentions and RTs by the second, and newsproducers asking me for the source. But I don't know with any certainty, it was forwarded on to me.
The problem with url shorteners...
-
Christchurch from the hills, moments after the quake. Beyond belief.
-
Edit: wait, wrong thread.