Recognizing and accepting this fact is the first step towards fixing supply issues.
Money is not just an abstract store of wealth. It's a store of wealth backed by state violence.
People don't revolt because wealthy people can gas their cars. They revolt when they don't have what they need. Again using the above example, the vehicles of wealthy people simply don't represent a significant consumption of gas. It's not reasonable to talk of revolts or other such nonsense in this context.
Most revolts end up with poor people killing other poor people, or at "best", everybody killing everybody. When "money" (distinct from wealth) ceases to have the backing of state violence, it's replaced by private violence, backed by other forms of wealth.
No, money didn’t matter much. You could have money and still do nothing with it. You needed connections and an ability to kombinować (untranslable word, but somenthing akin to hustle or hack).
Not saying here that rationing is bad by itself (I think people would starve or revolt otherwise). But that your „full stop” is not always true.
Also, during mask shortages and toilet paper shortages last year, in no country I think, money would help you much. I could pay $1000 for N95 back then (literally), and wasn’t able to find one.
Oh oh, and remember that scene in Titanic where a rich guy offers a pile of money to get on a life boat? :,)
To scheme or connive feels about right to me haha. It's a tough word for sure.
* It's always been possible to buy a n95 mask at a $1k/mask price point in the US. I'm sure you never tried making that offer.
* My post was about wealth, and your reply switches this with "money," and then points out that sometimes money loses value. This is a straw man. If money has reduced value then it isn't necessarily indicative of wealth. When I talk about wealth it may be money in healthy, capitalist countries. In communist countries, wealth may take the form of political connections, of less measurable forms of power.
* The titanic scenario you propose, a zero-sum scramble for life, is not at all like the business situations we're discussing where people are typically focused on making a living through the exchange of goods and services.
As for n95, perhaps it was different in US, but in Poland there was no way I could find one in March. You couldn’t find them online anywhere regardless of price, and when I asked around, nobody had them available. I honestly wonder where could I make such an offer online - craigslist?
As for Titanic, agree.
Prior to the pandemic I had several boxes of n95/n99 which I bought years prior to manage California wildfire smoke. I donated most of them to local hospitals when they asked, but I always had a couple left in an opened box which they wouldn't take and I certainly would've sold them at a $1k price point if offered.
But, to be more clear, we're talking about reaching price equilibrium to manage demand, and the critique that wealthy people aren't limited by high prices. My argument is that things always have a price (if they're available at all, as you point out).
What I'd add is that the wealthy generally consume negligible amounts of resources in these types of scenarios. We didn't run out of masks because billionaires bought them all up. We didn't run out of gas because wealthy people are driving a lot. I think there's a fixation on fairness without stopping to consider whether the issue is particularly relevant.
Raising the prices changes the consumption behaviors for the majority, and that's what matters in terms of conservation.