The problem with your argument is it's whataboutism. Your argument's conclusion should be that even prescription drugs aren't necessarily good.
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.
Pretty much although it's less about majority/minority preference and more about utilitarianism and economics.
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.
I agree that this would be a more interesting approach; I think you might need more incentives to create a flock though (aerodynamic benefits, predator protection, etc.)
Viruses get less dangerous over time. Hospitals absolutely were overwhelmed back then, and anything to reduce spread helped.
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.
If demand increases for PPE (e.g. a righward shift of the demand curve) because of a pandemic, then prices increase but quantity demanded increases as well.
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.
This doesn't increase their profits because, consistent with economics, increasing prices reduces quantity. Profit depends on the amount you sell, not just the price.
That's true in absolute numbers (sales volume goes down), but in terms of margins (profit / sale) they're still doing better than they should have. As the study in TFA implies, if the consumers paid more than the tariffs were collected, the retailer in the middle must have pocketed the difference.
>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.
Ah I see, I had misunderstood, the discrepancy in tariff revenue and what the consumer pays is due to the markups at each stage of distribution successively absorbing minor portions of the price increase until the consumer bears most of it. Took me a while to get my head around the numbers, but makes sense now, thanks for the correction!
reply