How can I help someone with a gambling problem?
m0darn @ m0darn @lemmy.ca Posts 8Comments 665Joined 2 yr. ago
m0darn @ m0darn @lemmy.ca
Posts
8
Comments
665
Joined
2 yr. ago
That’s what those words mean. Read what you wrote carefully.
I'm afraid I don't follow.
Try again.
Maybe the 35k is a signing bonus?
You were saying that price caps ARE shortages.
I said no such thing.
You said:
The formal definition of shortage is: A situation where an external mechanism, such as government intervention, prevents price from rising.
That's what those words mean. Read what you wrote carefully.
The formal definition of shortage is: A situation where..
"A shortage is when..."
...an external mechanism, such as government intervention prevents price from rising.
"...there are price caps (or something similar)"
Therfore you said:
"A shortage is when there are price caps (or something similar)"
That's what you said.
but when something doesn't seem quite right, one interested in the topic will ask questions to try and resolve the discrepancies
Yeah, that's why I asked who is using that definition, and proposed one I liked.
[A shortage is when] ...buyers want to purchase more at the market price than the quantity of the good or service that is available.
Does not need additional context to be understandable. It's what a shortage is. It may mostly be caused by price rigidity, but the price rigidity isn't the shortage (which IS what you said).
My best take is that you are trying to say is that I was being too technical for an audience not familiar with economics and that I should not have left them needing to do some research of their own to understand the bigger picture the original definition exists in. Am I close?
I'm saying that if someone objects to the way you're defining something show them where you got the definition. And if you insist that your definition is correct make sure you said what you think you said.
The accusation someone made that you were a crazy neoliberal was because when you said:
The formal definition of shortage is: A situation where an external mechanism, such as government intervention, prevents price from rising.
You were saying that price caps ARE shortages. Which is ridiculous and untrue. It seemed you were saying that there wouldn't be shortages if there were no regulations. Which is ridiculous and untrue. You probably should have decried the injustice of our food distribution system before saying there isn't a food shortage. Like when Haitians were eating mud so they wouldn't feel hungry while starving to death, you should acknowledge the injustice and dysfunction of the market, and propose better terminology.
If you had said where you were getting your definition from I could have understood why you were insisting your definition is correct while failing to capture some pretty obvious failures of the market.
I think you believe you're using the definition as it's given in Wikipedia for example. But read what it says carefully:
In economic terminology, a shortage occurs when for some reason (such as government intervention, or decisions by sellers not to raise prices) the price does not rise to reach equilibrium. In this circumstance, buyers want to purchase more at the market price than the quantity of the good or service that is available, and some non-price mechanism (such as "first come, first served" or a lottery) determines which buyers are served.
It's the second sentence that's the definition of a shortage. The first sentence is a cause of shortages, but the shortage is inadequacy of supply described in the second sentence.
I was lazy with terminology re doctor salaries I understand the distinction but didn't think it was important. I thought you were saying that if doctors could be paid more there would be more doctors this alleviating the shortage. You were actually saying that if people had to pay incrementally for medical care, there wouldn't be a shortage because people would decide they didn't want it.
It wasn't clear because you didn't specify price cap. Medical service doesn't really occur in classical market at all. There is a price but it's paid through insurance contributions implemented through the tax system. Medical service is also a terrible example of basic market principals because medical service isn't a commodity. The value of critical life saving treatment is all the money the buyer has.
Ah yes, I've been trolled. He is conveniently omitting the part of the definition which specifies in 'prefect markets'.
My first point was about part of the reason you're getting a negative reaction is that you're declaring your personal definition of a shortage is a formal definition which is basically claiming that experts agree with you. Please support this claim or stop making it.
Does your definition mean there is a shortage of restaurants?
Restaurant patrons aren't buying the restaurant, they're buying food and ambiance etc. Can you give some examples of people looking for what restaurants provide outside of the conventional market?
These are inseparable concepts. It's supply and demand, not supply or demand. In a normally functioning market...
Yes shortages don't occur in an ideal market, but ideal markets don't occur in reality.
...a supply chain struggling to produce something people want to have will raise prices to start to scare some buyers away.
Stores can only raise their prices so many times per day (like physically). Toilet paper factories can only make so much toilet paper in a day they can't increase production much at the drop of a hat. If I went to the pharmacy and there wasn't any toilet paper and I went grocery store and there wasn't any toilet paper, the normal market can't meet demand so I have to go outside the normal market to get some, that's a shortage. It's a shortage whether or not there was a price cap, the fact of the matter was that there was no inventory in the conventional market, that market had a shortage. It doesn't matter what the price tag on the shelf says, if there is nothing on the shelf, there is a shortage. Yes price caps often create shortages, but they aren't identical to shortages.
Formally speaking, a shortage occurs when that price is unable to rise.
Formally according to whom? Shortages seem to occur even when price are allowed to rise.
If you have ever visited a medical doctor in Canada, which for patients are capped at zero (they are prohibited from accepting payment from you), you may have also felt a shortage.
Medical salaries aren't what cause doctor shortages in Canada. The shortages are caused by supply restrictions. The government and college of physicians in medicine restrict the number of doctors allowed to enter the work force (to limit expenditure, and keep individual earnings high respectively). Many physicians operate on a fee for service model so while the fees are fixed (renegotiated every few years) so in many cases there isn't really a limit to how much a doctor can earn. In fact increasing doctor pay sometimes reduces doctor supply, because now they don't need to work over time to maintain their level of spending.
There, Loss.
I think a lot of the opposition to your 'formal definition' of a shortage would disappear if you gave examples of credible institutions using that definition.
Also I don't think it's true that there were price caps put on toilet paper by the government everywhere there was a TP shortage.
I would propose that a shortage is when inventory is depleted or prices rise such that buyers seek sources previously considered outside the market.
The shortage ends when the novel sources are no longer sought. (Either because novel sources have been normalized and inventory/ prices restored to equilibrium, or traditional sources manage to restore equilibrium making the previouslt novel sources irrelevant).
Note that in my definition it's only a shortage if it's inability to buy [or perception/concern therof] that's motivating the search for novel sources.
Craigslist was considered outside the TP market before the pandemic, and is again considered outside the TP market. During March 2020, it was very much in the market. The shortage had nothing to do with price caps and everything to do with supply chains being unable to handle spikes in demand.
A food shortage is when food inventory in a market is diminished or prices increased to the point that people seek novel sources. Like if people are eating mud in order to not feel hungry, that's a food shortage.
Bribery has to be for something specific.
Garnering favor with those close to or in power doesn’t need an explicit predefined goal. Just because he wasn’t holding public office at the time doesn’t mean he didn’t have any political power, or that it was somehow unlikely that he’d ever hold a public office again.
I agree, but it's not bribery of Joe Biden if someone gives a gift to his son.
What do you allege Joe Biden or his family was bribed to do while Joe Biden was a private citizen?
Yeah, I think it was conspiracy to commit suicide.
Yeah sorry I guess it's not clear.
Food banks are not the solution. They're a sparse but redundant supply chain. Just tax it back.
N is neighbour G is gambler
N lives in G's house.
But the crazies with no sense of realty lack an understanding of that and started banging pots crying about the mistake.
Parliament stared to worry that it would escalate to something more dire, and as such it was agreed that Rota would take the fall to tame the crazy onlookers with no sense of reality in order to avoid a tragedy.
When you bring someone in to be celebrated by the house it's generally understood that you've gone to reasonable lengths to make sure that the person has never sworn an oath to Hitler or is otherwise politically toxic.
It was a reasonable assumption of the MPs that this vetting had been done. Everyone involved in inviting/selecting this person to be celebrated should resign because of their negligence.
If my colleague invited someone to our year-end party and encouraged us to publicly cheer for someone that I didn't know had sworn an oath to Hitler, I would want them to resign too.
I definitely shared your perception, but have learned he has a reputation for being a hothead behind the scenes.
It's just hearsay though.
I can't believe they didn't include this one
Yeah everybody is talking about the soldier and the unit he was in and what they may have done and whether he should be shunned for fighting for the nazis. (Imo yes). But really it's more egregious that there is so little oversight that something like this can happen, because they certainly wouldn't have done it if they had KNOWN that he swore an oath to Hitler. It really isn't that hard to think about looking into. It's embarrassing that our government goofed like this.
Thanks, yeah when I spoke to my neighbour I got the impression that they do have something like that set up. But I'll try to get them to understand the importance of making it difficult to reverse or work around.