Really what is wrong is that most prescription drugs do show less tolerance. Yes, prescription drugs have tolerance, but not as fast as recreational drugs taken at recreational doses.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47425834

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

It's possible a majority of pofeople would have been marginally happier with betamax than vhs. Even in that case, vhs can still win because a minority of people had a strong, stubborn preference for it, even if a majority of people had a weak preference for betamax.

If 1,000,000 people are willing to pay $5 more for video quality but 800,000 people are willing to pay $8 more for longer recording, which wins out?

Not to mention savings on the producer side are relevant too, not just consumer side.

I'm not saying the above is necessarily the case. Just pointing out that markets aren't majoritarian, they're utilitarian.

As long as the birds can't change direction too quickly (e.g. output acceleration, not velocity) I'd guess you get flocking.

Virus spread follows exponential/logistic growth. Something could reduce spread 5% per month and that would still have an extremely big impact in a pandemic that lasted years. It's not necessary for any of the precautions to have been remotely close to 100% effective to argue they were helpful and important.

They may have existing futures contracts at the prior price and quantity but if quantity demanded has increased, then that means there are new orders as well that would be at the new, higher, market price.

The article is about them increasing their output. They could have sold the factories previous expected output via a futures contract. That doesn't stop them increasing output and selling in excess of any futures contracts.

>The reason is that markups along the chain of intermediation between importer and consumer can scale up the percent pass-through in tariff costs, cumulating over distribution stages and resulting in a direct dollar impact on prices to be greater than tariffs paid, even though the percent change in consumer price is less than the tariff ad-valorem rate.

The retailer is paying more for its stock. Everyone loses despite higher prices.

Just like food prices didn't just jump one day, they won't just drop one day. We target 2% inflation, so they'll still go up, but slower.

Going up slower than wages means better affordability.

Taxes make after tax prices go up and reduce profits due to reduced quantity.

No reason to go searching for a "plausible excuse" or some greater critique of culture.

In this case, it ended up that the retailer raised prices, probably because the retailer can just sell domestic wine for cheaper (close substitute). Retailer profits still didn't increase because of reductions in sales (~12% iirc) and increase in after-tariff inventory prices. This is textbook econ 101. Substitute, profit maximization of a firm, supply and demand etc.

You're confusing exporter and importer lowering prices with the retailer facing lower after-tariff inventory costs. Inventory costs still went up.

The price the market supports depends on things like taxes and tariffs.

Why removing taxes lowers prices:

https://open.substack.com/pub/shonczinner/p/why-removing-tax...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47082419

Points: 2

# Comments: 2

Saying economics doesn’t model community is a bit like saying physics doesn’t model color because some models ignore wavelength variation. It depends which models you’re looking at and what their purpose is. There is substantial economic research on: Social capital (e.g., Putnam, though he’s political science adjacent; economists like Glaeser formalize it) Network effects and network structure Repeated games and reputation Religious participation and club goods (Iannaccone’s work is central here) Identity economics (Akerlof & Kranton) Trust and informal institutions Household bargaining models Matching theory, where who you match with specifically matters

I think the fact that communities are not fungible is frankly obvious. Fact is communities do die, and sometimes there are long run benefits to consider.

The challenge is actually nurturing and valuing community which this post doesn't actually grapple with.

E.g. the problem with Robert Moses wasn't just development. It was the style of development which was inherently anti-community. Nurturing a community requires common space where people bump into each other harmlessly. Highways dividing neighbourhoods, for people in their private cars to get to neighbourhoods with no commercial life and large setbacks between homes.

It's not that Robert Moses didn't realize community isn't fungible. It's either that he didn't realize how bad it would be for community or that he just didn't value community in the first place.

Non-market housing will have extremely long wait times if there is not as much of it as the market demands.

And the NIMBYs and left-NIMBYs are still winning.

Relevant substack article (Towers Don't Cause the Housing Crisis):

https://open.substack.com/pub/shonczinner/p/towers-dont-caus...

https://youtu.be/itRV2jEtV8Q?si=qm51bvuo-ZIT_Pjk

Veritasium has a good video on how criticality applies to other things too,

https://youtu.be/HBluLfX2F_k?si=nK51yQVlNXz5bNSA