So, I am trying to get housing at Wymount. New apartments are available to click at 4 oclock everyday. The only way to get an apartment is to click on the apartment I want and then click submit before anyone else does. I haven't been fast enough or the page takes too long to refresh. Could everyone help me click on the apartment at 4:00PM? It might not be tomorrow since their might not be any available apartments. I will let everyone know when to click. Any help is greatly appreciated.
ECONOMICS
When you think about it, having people scramble to get an apartment by being the fastest clicker seems like a silly way of rationing apartments. Since all resources are scarce(which means that people will always want more than is available) some rationing method must be devised to allocate who gets what. The Wymount system is a lottery system and randomly rewards those who happened to click refresh at the right time. Discrimination or a fiat process is another way to ration—those who are selling a product or bureaucracy pick those get to purchase what is offered on the basis of income class, race, or any other classification. Historic Use is another rationing system where history plays a role. Coupons are a way for bureaucracy to control how much of something gets purchased by each individual.
There are 2 other rationing systems that BYU could choose from that I think would be better.
They could use a First Come, First serve rationing system, whereby those who wait the longest are rewarded for their wait by receiving the option to get an apartment. But, this might create more work for BYU, so that could be problematic. Also, the people in line might not have a choice of what apartment they want.
But, the best rationing system that I think should be available is the Price system. If BYU has a high demand for on campus apartments, they should raise the price to cut down the demand. Only the people who valued the apartments the most would get apartments. They might get enough revenue to build more apartments. I could see that BYU might want to keep prices down for off campus housing and therefore provide cheaper housing to keep the prices of competition down. But, this wouldn't work since they don't have enough supply. Besides, if they wanted to keep apartment prices down, they would get rid of the BYU approved housing rule and/or they would raise the tuition of BYU, but that is another story.
The reason why understanding rationing matters is because governments try to socialize our health and education systems and they always run into rationing problems which are bigger problems than the original problems created by their solutions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Lame...stick with the system they have now. If they drive the price up then whats the point at living at Wymount, why not just pick from every other apartment complex in Provo?
It's not like we live here because of all the extra rules.
It's bad now because it's in the middle of the semester and there's no vacancies, which in all honesty, what do you expect? It's not like this year round, during the spring people wouldn't even give it a second thought about applying for an apartment because they're in abundance. So really it's still an issue of timing.
And of course, you know my stance on health care sooo..I guess I live up to my reputation.
Thanks for the comment.
Those who don't live at Wymount have the cost of rent plus the cost of transportation to school. The reason to live at Wymount is to diminish the transportation costs and save time. Also, Wymount doesn't have a cancellation cost which is a side bonus.
My point was that it doesn't seem just and fair to reward random people instead of rewarding those who value the service the most. Obviously it is hard to find housing at this time of year because of high demand. In the spring, I think they should lower the prices to accommodate for the low demand.
I am also not convinced that government rationed health care is just when there are far more losers than winners. But, even if there were more winners than losers I am still unconvinced that it is moral to force neighbor A to give money to neighbor B even if neighbor B "needs" it. I can't see how this is different from stealing even though the government is administering the coercion.
Cato.org is a great resource for information on how medicaid in particular creates more poverty than it relieves.
"...on how medicaid in particular creates more poverty than it relieves."
So how do people who can't get insurance pay for their surgeries? Or their ongoing medical bills? The reoccurring bills that happen every month? They don't deserve help because neighbor A doesn't want to pay taxes? Give me a break. Taxes pay for stuff, we all need it.Roads schools, hospitals. Why not use it that's going to help thousands (maybe millions) of people who actually need it?
The fact is there needs to be a safety net for those who do not qualify for private health insurance (yes private insurance CAN and DOES discriminate). Maybe all your little numbers look bad on paper, but try to argue that with the people that actually need the help. Until someone comes up with a better solution that includes EVERYONE, I'll take what I can get.
"I am still unconvinced that it is moral to force neighbor A to give money to neighbor B even if neighbor B "needs" it."
This is probably the most irresponsible and frankly douchiest thing you've ever said, Gavin. If you think it's easy to get on Medicaid and that the people who are on it don't "need", you are living in some kind of charmed reality. The fact is, the majority of people on medicaid use it for a couple of years until they can get their lives into a better situation. To make a blanket statement like that just shows you have no idea what its like to be responsible for anyone else but yourself.
Okay, I'm sorry I said your comment was a douchey one. Name calling is not appropriate in any conversation.
It's an emotionally charged argument and sorry if things got away from me. That being said, I still stand by my argument.
Part of it is because I know I can disagree with you and still get a long. We just have different views based on different experiences.
Dear Joey,
We are on opposite sides of an argument much greater than us both. It is a little more complicated and subtle than you think. Though I am passionate about freedom, I don't want to continue if there is contention and lack of respect. I will address your comments as sensitively as I can and then you can have the last word if you like.
• In my opinion it is the argument of force versus free agency—philosophers sometime refer to it as equality versus freedom. Your comments echo what liberals have said for years. They have essentially said that if someone "needs" something then the government should provide it at all costs. According to this view, one can justify making a whole nation poor to satisfy 1 persons needs. In my opinion, this is evil. It is evil sacrifice a greater good for a lesser good. Whenever governments put equality before freedom, both are lost. All communist and socialist countries have confirmed this.
• Taxes are necessary to perform what the founders in their wisdom saw fit for a nation to provide—Courts of Law, Police system, and Military. They also in their wisdom set limits on government to protect freedom. If you were to ask Brigham Young who should pay for schools he would say this:
"I am opposed to free education(public schooling) as much as I am opposed to taking away property from one man and giving it to another who knows not how to take care of it. But when you come to the fact, I will venture to say, I school ten children to every one that those do who complain so much of me…I now pay the school fees of a number of children who are either orphans or sons and daughters of poor people. But in aiding and blessing the poor I do not believe in allowing my charities to go through the hands of a set of robbers who pocket nine-tenths themselves and give one-tenth to the poor. Would I encourage free schools by taxation? No, that is not in keeping with our work."
• As for roads, private companies should pay for most roads and charge tolls.http://reason.tv/video/show/6.html
Hospitals should be paid for by individuals and private charities of their own free will and choice. As Joseph Smith wrote in D&C 134, " 2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life."
High taxes are violating our right and control of property. Stealing from neighbor A to give to neighbor B is not virtuous, but evil. Robin Hood, at least for what he is remembered for, is evil because he is the champion of "need." We all need food. Should the government nationalize all of the food industry? When is it enough? When is the government too big? Yes, Joseph Smith said the protection of life was a function of government, but to what extent? Should the government regulate who can and cannot cross the street? That would be protecting life. Obviously Joseph Smith and the founders meant protection from harm from others.
• Private insurance discriminates, and governement does'nt? Do governments discriminate more or less than private insurance? Here is a story last week about the government dicriminating against those who "need" it: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/11/socialized-medicine-can-kill-you.html
• I can't tell you a solution that includes everyone. But, look at where the masses are healthier—Is it in freedom loving countries or equality(anti-freedom) loving countries? I assure you as an economist that if you truly wanted a healthier America, you would support free trade and freedom. The evidence is overwhelming. If you would just look at the reports for example on cato.org, you would be convinced of the problems created by medicaid.
• Now you called me irresponsible, but I am not offended. I invite you to read about the sources of that argument. It did not come from me. It came from Ezra Taft Benson; Many others such as Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman echoed this argument. Here is one many quotes on the subject by President Benson:
"By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft, and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute money or property nor to force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by the people. No individual possesses the power to take another’s wealth or to force others to do good, so no government has the right to do such things either. The creature cannot exceed the creator." (”The Constitution - A Heavenly Banner,” BYU Devotional, 16 September 1986.)
• I mean this in the most lighthearted and uncontentious way, but you basically called Ezra Taft Benson "douchy". In any case, I truly can say that I strive to found my arguments first in the church and gospel and second in philosophy and reason.
• Now one thing must be understood. Those who do not help their neighbor when they have the means will be held responsible by God for their actions. The unfortunate truth is that raising taxes lowers people's ability to engage in charity.
P.S. You are right that I have not had as much responsibility as you, but that has nothing to do with the truthfulness or error of the message.
Okay a couple of things. I agree, we this argument can't hold up under the current situation so here's my last little blurb.
"They have essentially said that if someone "needs" something then the government should provide it at all costs."
You're putting words into my mouth. I'm saying there needs to be a solution for those who the private insurance discriminate and refuse service to. I don't think it should be provided "at all costs". But if the free market is going to fail at providing a solution, then who can we turn to? Right now it's the government, its the best option for those people in my situation and I'm not going to sit there and let you call it evil when it's the only thing that's going to save me and my family from financial ruin because greedy people in the free market has decided to take advantage of my situation. Yeah, costs for R&D are necessary, but greed is the basis of how expensive the medical field is, thus the need for insurance, which as it turns out, is good in theory but has been taken over by greed as well.
I'm all for a better solution than government funded and supported health care. But it doesn't exist. And until there is a better one, I think it's evil to allow those who are suffering to be high and dry. I think it's harsh to call it evil. Imperfect is not the same as evil.
"I mean this in the most lighthearted and uncontentious way, but you basically called Ezra Taft Benson "douchy"."
Again, you're putting words in my mouth. What I called douchey was the implication that you think everyone on medicaid doesn't actually "need" it. They're not just freeloaders who are too lazy to take care of themselves. Does it happen yes? But again, it's a blanket statement and it's an incorrect outlook on the individuals who use and need it.
I think you need to realize I believe government can get too big. I don't think the goverment should handle all our problems and I don't believe in socialism, but where a solution does not exist, there's not a lot of options. Right now the government is the best one in which I will take advantage of.
What are you going to do in this situation Gavin:
Your wife gets pregnant and there are unexpected complications with the birth. You have no insurance. The hospital ride in an ambualce ALONE is going to be $5000. The open heart surgery (which my son has had) is well over $100K. No insurance. That's not including the hospital stay which if you're lucky will be less than 2 weeks. What are you going to do? We're talking hundreds and thousands of dollars. Charity? Government assistance? Hope the hospital doesn't bill you? Keep in mind this is just day 1 of your child's existence. You don't even want to know what we've been through the past 4 years. It'll just depress you.
It's these situations where why had to create something like medicaid because no charity was available.
I'm curious to know how you'd handle it.
I wrote a response about as long as the last one because you said you were curious, but it takes emotional and logical fortitude to digest. Would you like me to post it? I feel like I have already addressed most of your questions in the previous post.
Aren't the scriptures and quotes I cited convincing enough that it is immoral to redistribute wealth through coercion?
email it to me
Boys boys...
Post a Comment