Taking a bad option away might be worse for a person, but will be much better for the people. These regulations (no selling organs or sex) exists, becuse in a free market there would be a race-to-bottom which would not increase human values.
Suppose we allow selling sex for rent. The number of rentable apartmants stays the same; however, there will more demand for them, because some people can now pay for them by non-monetary means. Because of this, the rent prices will increase, and that would just accelerate the rent-problem.
While exchanging kidneys for medical treatment is OK for me, it should not be mixed with the standard money market. The forces of money markets usually optimize for dollar value, which could be decoupled from human wellbeing. The result would be a worse state for everyone.
Also: If the rent is so high, why can’t a developer build a new complex? They could rent it out and would very fastly pay for itself. It would increase the number of flats and lower rents. These bad options try to solve a supply issue from demand side.
These arguments seem to come from misunderstandings of why prices changes.
Suppose we allow selling sex for rent. The number of rentable apartmants stays the same; however, there will more demand for them, because some people can now pay for them by non-monetary means. Because of this, the rent prices will increase, and that would just accelerate the rent-problem.
This is written in a way that hides the important fact that rents rise in this situation because more people have housing, and more people having housing is good.
You can write a fully-general argument against anything good like this. “Suppose we give poor people food. The amount of food stays the same, however, there will be more demand for it because some people don’t have to pay for it. Because of this, food prices increase, and that will just accelerate the problem.”
The problem of high prices is that some people can’t get the thing, but if prices are increasing because more people can get the thing then pointing at the higher price as bad doesn’t make any sense.
While exchanging kidneys for medical treatment is OK for me, it should not be mixed with the standard money market. The forces of money markets usually optimize for dollar value, which could be decoupled from human wellbeing. The result would be a worse state for everyone.
I’m confused about what this even means but isn’t this a fully general argument against money and/or trade in general?
This is written in a way that hides the important fact that rents rise in this situation because more people have housing, and more people having housing is good.
No, they don’t. Greater demand with a fixed supply leads to a a price increase. The supply need not increase in order for the price to rise.
Taking a bad option away might be worse for a person, but will be much better for the people. These regulations (no selling organs or sex) exists, becuse in a free market there would be a race-to-bottom which would not increase human values.
Suppose we allow selling sex for rent. The number of rentable apartmants stays the same; however, there will more demand for them, because some people can now pay for them by non-monetary means. Because of this, the rent prices will increase, and that would just accelerate the rent-problem.
While exchanging kidneys for medical treatment is OK for me, it should not be mixed with the standard money market. The forces of money markets usually optimize for dollar value, which could be decoupled from human wellbeing. The result would be a worse state for everyone.
Also: If the rent is so high, why can’t a developer build a new complex? They could rent it out and would very fastly pay for itself. It would increase the number of flats and lower rents. These bad options try to solve a supply issue from demand side.
These arguments seem to come from misunderstandings of why prices changes.
This is written in a way that hides the important fact that rents rise in this situation because more people have housing, and more people having housing is good.
You can write a fully-general argument against anything good like this. “Suppose we give poor people food. The amount of food stays the same, however, there will be more demand for it because some people don’t have to pay for it. Because of this, food prices increase, and that will just accelerate the problem.”
The problem of high prices is that some people can’t get the thing, but if prices are increasing because more people can get the thing then pointing at the higher price as bad doesn’t make any sense.
I’m confused about what this even means but isn’t this a fully general argument against money and/or trade in general?
No, they don’t. Greater demand with a fixed supply leads to a a price increase. The supply need not increase in order for the price to rise.