For a commodity that is in short supply, mis-allocating it to people who literally do not need it seems like a strong negative.
For another example, let's say tp was being rationed. The amount each person gets is calculated to be the amount the average person uses.
One person uses 90% less tp than average, because he's got a bidet. Another uses 3x the average because he's got a bowel problem. Anyone who gets more than they need will feel no need to conserve it, while those who get less will treat each square as precious.
Is this equity? How does this make practical sense?
(Disallowing bartering won't help here, it'll just make things worse.)
This logic would work if people who cannot afford TP = people who don't need it, but this assumption would make the model unrealistic imo.
If bartering was allowed, even bowel prob guy night have a shot.
There are variables in the model, the price of the rationed goods still reduces waste. Similarly the income distribution of the presumed society affects how many couldn't afford any 10x priced tp. Etc.
The amount of waste caused by the rationed/unrationed price difference, minus waste refuced by bartering, is unlikely to be worse than the high prices scenario if there is high economic inequality. Especially if we give value to fairness (that everyone should have access to some tp). Of we agree that everyone needs some tp, isn't there always a level of tp rations that isn't wasteful? Then we can think what the best ration size is for the overall outcome.
Allowing the market price for tp will eliminate wasteful use which means MORE tp will be available as people won't hoard or waste it. Secondly, higher prices for tp will cause the supply to increase. Thirdly, you won't have all the administrative costs associated with rationing and trying to imagine what the "best" ration size is. Fourthly, you won't have a crime wave that rationing engenders.
(In WW2, organized crime got involved in supplying gasoline due to rationing. Complete with drive-by shootings.)
For another example, let's say tp was being rationed. The amount each person gets is calculated to be the amount the average person uses.
One person uses 90% less tp than average, because he's got a bidet. Another uses 3x the average because he's got a bowel problem. Anyone who gets more than they need will feel no need to conserve it, while those who get less will treat each square as precious.
Is this equity? How does this make practical sense?
(Disallowing bartering won't help here, it'll just make things worse.)