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.
I said no such thing. It is very much possible there was miscommunication, but when something doesn’t seem quite right, one interested in the topic will ask questions to try and resolve the discrepancies, not double down on the miscommunication to shit up the thread. There is no rational explanation for that “Neo-liberal” comment.
It’s the second sentence that’s the definition of a shortage.
That is not a separate definition. The second sentence in your quote further explains the concept described in the first sentence to those who don’t have a well rounded understanding of economics and how price is used as a scarcity control mechanism. It fails to stand on its own as it needs the context from the first sentence to be understandable.
I get the feeling we have yet another miscommunication on our hands here. 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?
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.
That’s what those words mean. Read what you wrote carefully.
I’m afraid I don’t follow. “Price caps” isn’t even mentioned in the definition. Indeed, price caps are one possible external mechanism, but hardly the only possibility. Perhaps you can explain how you see “external mechanism” equating to price caps and price caps alone?
but the price rigidity isn’t the shortage (which IS what you said).
Again, I don’t follow. There was nothing said about price being unable to fall. Where do you see rigidity coming into play?
Also, it says that a shortage is a situation where price is unable to rise, not a shortage is when price is unable to rise. This situation is that, with loss of the default scarcity control mechanism (price not being able to rise) during periods of rising demand or declining supply, demand is able to exceed supply. Exactly what you also say a shortage is. For the sake of improving communication in the future, can you explain to me how this was not clear?
The definition is technical. It requires some understanding of economics to grasp. Your entire paragraph definition is more approachable – but also excruciatingly long for a formal definition. As the grander discussion is about economics, we’re not talking to people who don’t have some understanding of economics, so we can safely use technical terms. Anyone here in good faith that does not have such understanding is going to develop that understanding before going any further.
I’m saying that if someone objects to the way you’re defining something show them where you got the definition.
While “formally” already indicates where the definition comes from, logically where the definition comes from is irrelevant. I can speak to it myself to anyone who wants to have a conversation and not go down some totally bizarre “Neo-liberal” road. If you would rather read someone else’s work, why be here?
And if repetitive miscommunication means that I fail to speak to it, oh well? It makes no difference to me if someone does not take anything from it. Who cares what someone else thinks? That’s their problem. It is not my job to educate them and I have absolutely no desire to become a teacher – especially for free. Do you really believe that I need to work as someone else’s teacher for free or have we miscommunicated again?
The accusation someone made that you were a crazy neoliberal was because when you said:
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:
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.
I said no such thing. It is very much possible there was miscommunication, but when something doesn’t seem quite right, one interested in the topic will ask questions to try and resolve the discrepancies, not double down on the miscommunication to shit up the thread. There is no rational explanation for that “Neo-liberal” comment.
That is not a separate definition. The second sentence in your quote further explains the concept described in the first sentence to those who don’t have a well rounded understanding of economics and how price is used as a scarcity control mechanism. It fails to stand on its own as it needs the context from the first sentence to be understandable.
I get the feeling we have yet another miscommunication on our hands here. 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?
You said:
That’s what those words mean. Read what you wrote carefully.
“A shortage is when…”
“…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.
Yeah, that’s why I asked who is using that definition, and proposed one I liked.
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).
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.
I’m afraid I don’t follow. “Price caps” isn’t even mentioned in the definition. Indeed, price caps are one possible external mechanism, but hardly the only possibility. Perhaps you can explain how you see “external mechanism” equating to price caps and price caps alone?
Again, I don’t follow. There was nothing said about price being unable to fall. Where do you see rigidity coming into play?
Also, it says that a shortage is a situation where price is unable to rise, not a shortage is when price is unable to rise. This situation is that, with loss of the default scarcity control mechanism (price not being able to rise) during periods of rising demand or declining supply, demand is able to exceed supply. Exactly what you also say a shortage is. For the sake of improving communication in the future, can you explain to me how this was not clear?
The definition is technical. It requires some understanding of economics to grasp. Your entire paragraph definition is more approachable – but also excruciatingly long for a formal definition. As the grander discussion is about economics, we’re not talking to people who don’t have some understanding of economics, so we can safely use technical terms. Anyone here in good faith that does not have such understanding is going to develop that understanding before going any further.
While “formally” already indicates where the definition comes from, logically where the definition comes from is irrelevant. I can speak to it myself to anyone who wants to have a conversation and not go down some totally bizarre “Neo-liberal” road. If you would rather read someone else’s work, why be here?
And if repetitive miscommunication means that I fail to speak to it, oh well? It makes no difference to me if someone does not take anything from it. Who cares what someone else thinks? That’s their problem. It is not my job to educate them and I have absolutely no desire to become a teacher – especially for free. Do you really believe that I need to work as someone else’s teacher for free or have we miscommunicated again?
Try again.
Try what again?