It’s not a strawman at all. That’s what he’s saying. He’s saying with the prices up to gouge level people will buy less because they can’t afford to buy as much. I just pointed out that some of those not being able to afford as much will not be able to afford any. One way or the other somebody is not getting water, either because they were too slow or too poor. Pick your poison.
“He’s saying with the prices up to gouge level people will buy less because they can’t afford to buy as much”
Some people will buy less, yes, which means more people will be able to buy. Not only that, the ones who do buy will value it more.
“I just pointed out that some of those not being able to afford as much will not be able to afford any”
Some, surely. But mire will buy with higher than lower prices. Your posts make it sound as if the same number of people will go thirsty with empty shelves due to underpricing than with the price being too high fir some. Which is wrong.
That is, assuming the seller hasn’t set the price above market. But since this is all about obscene profits, again, we can assume it was set to where the supply still ran out.
“One way or another somebody is not getting water”
Can you understand the concept if more or less people getting water? Yes, in both cases probably not every person who wants water will get it. But one way (higher prices) more people get water, and another (lower prices) less people do. Do you understand why the former way might be preferable?
“One way or another somebody is not getting water”
Can you understand the concept of more or less people getting water? Yes, in both cases probably not every person who wants water will get it. But one way (higher prices) more people get water, and another (lower prices) less people do. Do you understand why the former way might be preferable?