This is not the goal. The only mitigation that could make sense is to impose limits per person or household to avoid someone hugging all the supply.
This allows there to always be supply available for purchase
By the very few who can afford it, by definition of raising the prices until the products barely sell. If you have 100 items and 1000 people you guarantee that at least 90% of people won't get an item. It doesn't matter if it's because there is none left, or because it's too expensive. If you're hungry because the shelf is empty, or the shelf is full but you can't afford it, what's the practical difference for your stomach?
It is what the stores are having a hard time accomplishing.
It's a proxy for what the stores have a hard time accomplishing. The goal is to fulfill demand. Do you genuinely need the explanation why a store's goal is to sell not "have on shelf"?
From the store's perspective it is still in stock and supply is available
I guess I do need to explain. Now I'm starting to think this is intentional hard headedness :). If the goal was just "have X on the shelf" they'd put one item and price it like gold. Or put it really high on the shelf. Goal achieved. When the authors of these articles say "have on shelf" they assume the reader is reasonable and intuitively makes the connection to "fulfilling demand, people able to buy".
How much people eat of it is separate from what the article is discussing.
You're right. What the article is discussing is how much people can buy. If there is no supply then people aren't buying. But make no mistake, the buying is important, not the being on the shelf. Maybe some stores put the breads in a basket ;).
Comments
It doesn't increase supply, but it slows down how fast the supply sells out. This allows there to always be supply available for purchase.
This is not the goal. The only mitigation that could make sense is to impose limits per person or household to avoid someone hugging all the supply.
By the very few who can afford it, by definition of raising the prices until the products barely sell. If you have 100 items and 1000 people you guarantee that at least 90% of people won't get an item. It doesn't matter if it's because there is none left, or because it's too expensive. If you're hungry because the shelf is empty, or the shelf is full but you can't afford it, what's the practical difference for your stomach?
It is what the stores are having a hard time accomplishing.
From the store's perspective it is still in stock and supply is available. How much people eat of it is separate from what the article is discussing.
It's a proxy for what the stores have a hard time accomplishing. The goal is to fulfill demand. Do you genuinely need the explanation why a store's goal is to sell not "have on shelf"?
I guess I do need to explain. Now I'm starting to think this is intentional hard headedness :). If the goal was just "have X on the shelf" they'd put one item and price it like gold. Or put it really high on the shelf. Goal achieved. When the authors of these articles say "have on shelf" they assume the reader is reasonable and intuitively makes the connection to "fulfilling demand, people able to buy".
You're right. What the article is discussing is how much people can buy. If there is no supply then people aren't buying. But make no mistake, the buying is important, not the being on the shelf. Maybe some stores put the breads in a basket ;).