"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4901e58f$1@news.povray.org...

> >> I bet this guy is also one of the people who immediately buys 8 weeks'
> >> worth of petrol as soon as a tanker strike is announced too. :-P

> > It's called planning.

> No, it's called panicing.

Distinction without differentiation, in this case.

> > If you have the means to carry it out, it makes perfect sense.

> No, obtaining what you *actually* need makes perfect sense. Obtaining
> far more product than you can possibly use does not make any sense at all.

You'll use 8 weeks worth of petrol, well, in 8 weeks, by definition. It's
certainly not something you won't use. Even in the unlikely case that you
completely switch to cycling and don't ever use it, it's not something that
will ever devalue substantially. You can always sell it.

> > Everybody else will be doing
> > that, which will worsen the shortage, so one would be a fool not to

> Or rather, one would be a fool to follow the crowd and create a crisis

Yes.

> which doesn't need to exist in the first place.

But see, the crisis *needs* to exist. The crisis may not have existed if
everyone acted irrationally, but if most act rationally, the crisis needs to
exist. When you say something "need" or "not need" be, the baseline
assumptions should be the natural ones. It's not human nature to be grossly
irrational/apathetic or overly altruistic, so the natural tendency is
towards hoarding. In this sense, the crisis is necessary, much as a knee
jerk is necessary after tapping the knee. You may pretend it is neither
necessary nor needed, but that won't make it not happen.

If you singly cannot change the outcome (which you cannot in the cases
presented), make sure to exercise damage control.

Of course, if you have excessive petrol reserves, it makes sense to sell it
during a crisis at inflated prices. Rather than damage control, you are then
grabbing an opportunity due to your differing circumstances.

Post a reply to this message