The (new) Official Political Compass Thread - All Users of VGC join in!

[sapphi_snake]

Kasz216 said:

A)  Actually my best arguement is... it doesn't work.  Hence why it was abandoned.  It's been tried everywhere, and never worked out.    Though yeah, time kinda is a big factor.   That and the supply issue.

B) People are willing to buy those products EVERYWHERE.  Not just the disaster area.  So why not put stuff there?  Well because you have a much higher risk of losing product.

C)  Except... they don't.  Not to a level that people find unfair.  You say this is the case yet offer no proof.

D) You STILL have yet to argue against the fact that more people die under price gouging and quantity fixing.  Supply is wasted  and people die under your system.  That's a fact you've yet to even attempt to refute.  If your willing to let more people die for your definition of "fairness", just say so, and we can end this here.

Again, i'm seeing no economic arguements, only untrue statements that have been disproven by the already provided economic studies.

In otherwords, put up or shut up.

I've provided plenty of economists papers, including a case study and a formula model and economic consensus.

You've provided.... nothing outside of opinions which are disproven by the very data and expert opinions presented... and just a logical breakdown of the situation and causes, which you haven't even refuted being the case.

All you've done is say "This way has negatives too!"

However, every system has negatives.  The positive of "more people living" outweighs any of those negatives.

 

Since this is off topic and gone on for a while, if you wish to continue I suggest you start a new thread titled "This is why more people won't die under price controls and quantity fixing and link to it here.  I'd suggest actually having a supply and demand formula or some economic reasoning behind your arguement that goes against the presented models and real world case studies.  Versus your current "This is true because I say it is, despite the presented evidence" approach.  You are boardering on the whole creationism style of arguement.

You are making the same mistake.  As an Walter Williams once set "Passionate issues require dispassionate analysis."

From a strictly economical POV, disregarding human beings and considering them mere figures on some table, your ideea is perfect. If that's the answer you wanted to hear then there it is. Sadly for you, it's a very limited POV, but alas, we all must chose which lords to serve.