COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test
https://www.biomedomics.com/products/infectious-disease/covid-19-rt/
And what it does:
https://www.biomedomics.com/products/infectious-disease/covid-19-rt/
And what it does:
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
What you need to know about the virus in China "2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)"
- Thread starter andymok
- Start date
- Status
gikigill
Senior Member
He,s deprived those in need and created a temporary shortage when previously there was none.
Selling a solution to a problem he himself created in the first place.
Clear way to increase the risk.
Transportation will be even more crowded.
Either you close it completely, either you keep it as it is.
Here in Belgium, they decided to close all bars and restaurant, gym and so on.
But they also decided to close all non-food shops on saturday/Sunday.
I don't see the interest of the last one (except for supermarket who also have non food, that will see their sales increase, obviously)
Most people will either go to shop around 5PM... or not go to shop at all. Shops will still need to maintain employees at work, so they'll be possibly even more hit than if they had to shut down completely...
And of course won't get rights to Gov compensations...
Half full measures are much worse than full.
Political improvisation and wrong decision drivers (please people rather than take care of common good) is going together with media disinformation.
But that's nothing special to Belgium, I guess.
Nor to any specific political party.
As for everything, we are in great need for more measurements. More tests !
Last edited:
Here in Austria the government just announced dramatic measures, we shall not leave houses unless absolutely needed.
It took the gov about 5 days to slowly get the public there, step by step, every day more closed.
I do understand the approach in a democracy where information shall be shared. An immediate full closure would have raised tons of doubts and maybe a mob.
It took the gov about 5 days to slowly get the public there, step by step, every day more closed.
I do understand the approach in a democracy where information shall be shared. An immediate full closure would have raised tons of doubts and maybe a mob.
Not a political point: your argument is defective - he specifically bought ALL the stock anywhere he could drive to in order to create a shortage. Of course there are others like him. This is a breakdown in the market, not a free market. Monopoly power is not "right".
Handy site using WHO data to see where the infection is accelerating or topping: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus
Prediction of US infections based on other countries trend, has been accurate and says will be updated: https://towardsdatascience.com/esti...virus-cases-in-the-united-states-a0ce17df029a
Prediction of US infections based on other countries trend, has been accurate and says will be updated: https://towardsdatascience.com/esti...virus-cases-in-the-united-states-a0ce17df029a
This is an email from my sister in law who works in the medical testing area, who I suppose could be considered one of the private partners to the government/country at the time. I was going to edit it for some benign personal content, but I will leave it as is, because I think it communicates well as a whole. My brother David is a surgeon on Cape Cod by way of some context:
Dan and Ben are her kids...obviously.
Gives an idea of what's going on behind the scenes in her neck of the woods...and I'm sure it's like that all over. Crazy time for a lot of people, and nothing to do for the rest of us.
As Jane said, stay safe!
Dan and Ben are her kids...obviously.
Gives an idea of what's going on behind the scenes in her neck of the woods...and I'm sure it's like that all over. Crazy time for a lot of people, and nothing to do for the rest of us.
As Jane said, stay safe!
digicidal
Major Contributor
True. In a real free market - he would have manufactured his own in order to meet a newly created demand. In that scenario, he would not only have been enterprising - he would have been filling a need where one existed. In this case he merely exacerbated a need and attempted to fabricate profits without effort. The ironic aspect is that many well-intentioned, but poorly executed "consumer protection" regulations largely prevent any of this beneficial free market enterprise to occur - while actually encouraging the behaviors exhibited here. It's lawful (letter not spirit here) to hoard and resell an existing product - but not to create one without proper licensing.
At the same time I do find it a bit humorous that the targets of our outrage in almost every instance in modern society - are guilty of nothing more than behaving in a manner which is possibly more intrinsic to our nature than walking upright. The strong have always preyed upon the weak - and money (or rare desireable assets - like TP and sanitizer right now) are merely an abstraction for that strength. As much as we might like to deny that fact, competition - even to the point of genocide - have been part of the human experience since we've existed. The "enlightened" state of holding an ideology of species commonality and cooperation is a fragile value which is only in it's infancy in comparison to the thousands of years before this time - and it can crumble in an instant.
Yes, this is the essential difference between the jungle and civilization. Stealing is not legal, neither is wife beating. Profiteering is illegal in a handful of countries, Germany and The UK among them, for obvious reasons.At the same time I do find it a bit humorous that the targets of our outrage in almost every instance in modern society - are guilty of nothing more than behaving in a manner which is possibly more intrinsic to our nature than walking upright. The strong have always preyed upon the weak - and money (or rare desireable assets - like TP and sanitizer right now) are merely an abstraction for that strength.
https://yalebooksblog.co.uk/2013/04/05/thomas-hobbes-solitary-poor-nasty-brutish-and-short/
Last edited:
Whether markets can be efficient depends on the type of good and the type of competition.
A good is excludable if non-paying parties can be denied consumption and a good is rivalrous if consumption by one party precludes consumption by another party (Practically, this is often a matter of degree). If the good is rivalrous and excludable, it is private while if the good is non-rivalrous but excludable it is a club good and if the good is rivalrous but non-excludable it is a common good while if the good is both non-rivalrous and non-excludable it is a public good.
If a good is not excludable, even if the consumer benefits from consumption, since consumers can obtain the good at no cost, producers can make no profit and the good will not be supplied. Thus, in case of public and common goods, lack of excludability leads to markets not being efficient.
If a good is not rivalrous, the marginal cost of production is zero and the cost of production is thus fixed and increasing production always decreases average cost. Thus, firms can only operate in this market if they can set the price such that average revenue equals or exceeds average costs. The greater the number of firms competing, the more the price will be driven down toward marginal cost. Since marginal cost is zero, the number of firms operating in the market is thus limited. Since prices have to be greater than zero, the equilibrium quantity is less than the quantity demanded at zero price. Thus, the consumers could together afford the fixed cost of production while maintaining the equilibrium surplus and gain the surplus from consuming the amount beyond the equilibrium quantity up to the quantity demanded at zero price. Thus, in case of club goods, lack of both rivalry and excludability leads to markets being inefficient.
Thus, markets can only be efficient for goods which are both excludable and rivalrous, i.e. private goods. However, only in case of perfect competition where no firm has pricing power and the firms price thus equals its marginal cost. As per above, firms that have fixed costs cannot operate when pricing at marginal cost. Since that is true of most, if not all, firms, most, if not all, markets are not efficient.
Even if goods are private and competition perfect, if third parties are affected, i.e. if there are externalities, the market is not efficient if the third parties are not compensated or penalised by the trading parties such that only the trading costs and benefits of a trade only befall the trading parties or if the traded quantity is set such as if that were the case.
Ultimately, however, in order to achieve efficiency everything about the demand/taste of every consumer and cost structure of firms must be known. Practically, of course, this is impossible. Still, markets alone may not achieve the maximally possible welfare with the information distributed the way it is which we may call practical efficiency.
Further, as per above what the individual parties know or, better, do know about the good can also lead to markets falling short of practical efficiency. If all trading parties do not know everything relevant about the good, there is incomplete information about the good.
If one party knows more about the good than another, there is asymmetric information.
However, due to the potential gain of welfare, the lacking information has itself a value to at least one of the parties while supplying comes at a cost of another party, which allows for another market to arise but due to the non-rivalry of information that market would not be efficient. Still, mutually beneficial outcomes can arise as this forum proves: A public good (possibly supplied at monetary loss but partially) financed through donations.
TL;DR: Markets are not efficient in practice due to fixed costs of firms and the relevant information being unequally distributed and possibly even unattainable. For private goods, markets might however maximise welfare compared to other allocation mechanisms. Information trade, while not efficient, might be a part of that.
A good is excludable if non-paying parties can be denied consumption and a good is rivalrous if consumption by one party precludes consumption by another party (Practically, this is often a matter of degree). If the good is rivalrous and excludable, it is private while if the good is non-rivalrous but excludable it is a club good and if the good is rivalrous but non-excludable it is a common good while if the good is both non-rivalrous and non-excludable it is a public good.
If a good is not excludable, even if the consumer benefits from consumption, since consumers can obtain the good at no cost, producers can make no profit and the good will not be supplied. Thus, in case of public and common goods, lack of excludability leads to markets not being efficient.
If a good is not rivalrous, the marginal cost of production is zero and the cost of production is thus fixed and increasing production always decreases average cost. Thus, firms can only operate in this market if they can set the price such that average revenue equals or exceeds average costs. The greater the number of firms competing, the more the price will be driven down toward marginal cost. Since marginal cost is zero, the number of firms operating in the market is thus limited. Since prices have to be greater than zero, the equilibrium quantity is less than the quantity demanded at zero price. Thus, the consumers could together afford the fixed cost of production while maintaining the equilibrium surplus and gain the surplus from consuming the amount beyond the equilibrium quantity up to the quantity demanded at zero price. Thus, in case of club goods, lack of both rivalry and excludability leads to markets being inefficient.
Thus, markets can only be efficient for goods which are both excludable and rivalrous, i.e. private goods. However, only in case of perfect competition where no firm has pricing power and the firms price thus equals its marginal cost. As per above, firms that have fixed costs cannot operate when pricing at marginal cost. Since that is true of most, if not all, firms, most, if not all, markets are not efficient.
Even if goods are private and competition perfect, if third parties are affected, i.e. if there are externalities, the market is not efficient if the third parties are not compensated or penalised by the trading parties such that only the trading costs and benefits of a trade only befall the trading parties or if the traded quantity is set such as if that were the case.
Ultimately, however, in order to achieve efficiency everything about the demand/taste of every consumer and cost structure of firms must be known. Practically, of course, this is impossible. Still, markets alone may not achieve the maximally possible welfare with the information distributed the way it is which we may call practical efficiency.
Further, as per above what the individual parties know or, better, do know about the good can also lead to markets falling short of practical efficiency. If all trading parties do not know everything relevant about the good, there is incomplete information about the good.
If one party knows more about the good than another, there is asymmetric information.
However, due to the potential gain of welfare, the lacking information has itself a value to at least one of the parties while supplying comes at a cost of another party, which allows for another market to arise but due to the non-rivalry of information that market would not be efficient. Still, mutually beneficial outcomes can arise as this forum proves: A public good (possibly supplied at monetary loss but partially) financed through donations.
TL;DR: Markets are not efficient in practice due to fixed costs of firms and the relevant information being unequally distributed and possibly even unattainable. For private goods, markets might however maximise welfare compared to other allocation mechanisms. Information trade, while not efficient, might be a part of that.
digicidal
Major Contributor
Yeah, or at least that's the idea behind civilization. In practice I don't see those laws as doing that for the most part. All that does is really create further disparity between those in power and those ruled by it... as the rulers don't have to abide by the laws and therefore profit even more on the backs of the ruled. Regardless, that's not pertinent to this thread so I'll leave it at that.
It’s ok. In the post-apocalypse anarchy, profiteers will be shot on sight and their inventory will be priced at zero.Yeah, or at least that's the idea behind civilization. In practice I don't see those laws as doing that for the most part. All that does is really create further disparity between those in power and those ruled by it... as the rulers don't have to abide by the laws and therefore profit even more on the backs of the ruled. Regardless, that's not pertinent to this thread so I'll leave it at that.
True. In a real free market - he would have manufactured his own in order to meet a newly created demand. In that scenario, he would not only have been enterprising - he would have been filling a need where one existed. In this case he merely exacerbated a need and attempted to fabricate profits without effort. The ironic aspect is that many well-intentioned, but poorly executed "consumer protection" regulations largely prevent any of this beneficial free market enterprise to occur - while actually encouraging the behaviors exhibited here. It's lawful (letter not spirit here) to hoard and resell an existing product - but not to create one without proper licensing.
At the same time I do find it a bit humorous that the targets of our outrage in almost every instance in modern society - are guilty of nothing more than behaving in a manner which is possibly more intrinsic to our nature than walking upright. The strong have always preyed upon the weak - and money (or rare desireable assets - like TP and sanitizer right now) are merely an abstraction for that strength. As much as we might like to deny that fact, competition - even to the point of genocide - have been part of the human experience since we've existed. The "enlightened" state of holding an ideology of species commonality and cooperation is a fragile value which is only in it's infancy in comparison to the thousands of years before this time - and it can crumble in an instant.
I agree. That, and free markets only exist as an ideal. There are no free markets. Markets have regulations that protect the participants (e.g., the stock market halt triggers). Moreover, many regulations as well as the tax codes are biased to invariably benefit some participants over others.
It is true.True. In a real free market - he would have manufactured his own in order to meet a newly created demand. In that scenario, he would not only have been enterprising - he would have been filling a need where one existed. In this case he merely exacerbated a need and attempted to fabricate profits without effort. The ironic aspect is that many well-intentioned, but poorly executed "consumer protection" regulations largely prevent any of this beneficial free market enterprise to occur - while actually encouraging the behaviors exhibited here. It's lawful (letter not spirit here) to hoard and resell an existing product - but not to create one without proper licensing.
At the same time I do find it a bit humorous that the targets of our outrage in almost every instance in modern society - are guilty of nothing more than behaving in a manner which is possibly more intrinsic to our nature than walking upright. The strong have always preyed upon the weak - and money (or rare desireable assets - like TP and sanitizer right now) are merely an abstraction for that strength. As much as we might like to deny that fact, competition - even to the point of genocide - have been part of the human experience since we've existed. The "enlightened" state of holding an ideology of species commonality and cooperation is a fragile value which is only in it's infancy in comparison to the thousands of years before this time - and it can crumble in an instant.
Without a strong rule of law the most greedy, ruthless and selfish end up owning everything.
Here the "Dark Ages", where there was pretty well no rule of law a few families ended up owning pretty well everything (including most of the people as serfs) giving themselves titles whilst 99% of the population grovelled in the dirt.
It is nowhere near as bad as that nowadays, of course, but one mans freedom is another's oppression, which probably is fine by oppressors...
It has just been announced here that over 70s are going to be instructed to self isolate in a few weeks but for a long time. Particularly irritating since I shall be 70 in 3 weeks
I think within a week all Europe will be in lockdown
They did not really create shortages or at least only temporarily. That is a matter of excess demand. While indeed between the point of the purchase and the point at which the items were put to sale, there were indeed shortages but afterwards demand was as high as before which is what they sought to exploit.
At worst, they created a (negative) supply shock both locally and elsewhere by increasing the price and the associated costs of having to purchase goods first supplied in supermarket from a someone's garage. At best, they may have, as claimed, created a positive supply shock elsewhere by selling the items to buyers to whom the terms were favourable given the other offers. Welfare may have increased indeed, increasing the efficiency of the market. Still, the welfare of those who can no longer afford it has decreased.
Since demand is what is desired for purchase for a given price not what is needed at any price, welfare may be increased even more by supplying the items to those that need them the most. In this case, the "inefficiencies of the marketplace" could be simply fixed even more (look into the article for reference if this reads a bit odd).
Further, arbitrage requires opportunity which is not equally distributed. Not everyone can swing $10k-100k to buy things to resell at multiples. Particularly those who could barely afford what they need for themselves in the first place.
Ironically, for the accounting example, according to the article, for the Purell sanitiser, the cost of purchase, pick-up, administration/labor and shipping may just-about equal those of the claimed price. So, barely any profit. For the other items, though, the profit would have probably been multiples of purchase price so likely much more than the costs of getting and shipping the items.
Just have another 69th birthday Frank , I'm sure you'd get away with it .It is true.
Without a strong rule of law the most greedy, ruthless and selfish end up owning everything.
Here the "Dark Ages", where there was pretty well no rule of law a few families ended up owning pretty well everything (including most of the people as serfs) giving themselves titles whilst 99% of the population grovelled in the dirt.
It is nowhere near as bad as that nowadays, of course, but one mans freedom is another's oppression, which probably is fine by oppressors...
It has just been announced here that over 70s are going to be instructed to self isolate in a few weeks but for a long time. Particularly irritating since I shall be 70 in 3 weeks
Burning Sounds
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Too late for me, I'm afraid - I just had my 70th a few weeks ago and my wife arranged a surprise dinner with friends and neighbours, so they all know!
As for self isolation - I have a large dog that needs several hours of walking everyday (keeps me fit), my wife is a teacher so will be coming home from a large secondary every day and our children will be coming home from university shortly (one in Russia and one in Manchester). Being isolated is not going to be easy. Still, once the kids are here they can be the dog walkers I guess and then I can sit arround listening to music all day getting fat!
Arbitrage is very much part of the free market. The 'free' denotes freedom from government interference and market power.
While arbitrage is not part of equilibrium, it is one mechanism by which it can arise or which can at least accelerate convergence towards it.
Entering into markets with lower prices to buy shifts demand upward (like a positive shock) which increases price and quantity, while entering into markets with higher prices to sell shifts supply downward (also like a positive shock) which lowers price but increases quantity. This way prices change such that subsequent trades of the same goods can only occur at a lower price difference and thus lower profitability. Eventually, there will be no more trades where the price difference is sufficient for profitability.
In the discussed article, the (anticipated) demand shock made buying items in the store(s) and subsequently selling them online with the associated costs profitable since their purchase price in the store(s) was lower than the new equilibrium price.
While arbitrage is not part of equilibrium, it is one mechanism by which it can arise or which can at least accelerate convergence towards it.
Entering into markets with lower prices to buy shifts demand upward (like a positive shock) which increases price and quantity, while entering into markets with higher prices to sell shifts supply downward (also like a positive shock) which lowers price but increases quantity. This way prices change such that subsequent trades of the same goods can only occur at a lower price difference and thus lower profitability. Eventually, there will be no more trades where the price difference is sufficient for profitability.
In the discussed article, the (anticipated) demand shock made buying items in the store(s) and subsequently selling them online with the associated costs profitable since their purchase price in the store(s) was lower than the new equilibrium price.
You can't climb Mt Everest this year...
- Status