Here is what @JustinWolfers claimed regarding toilet paper hoarding: “Once they have more toilet paper, people aren’t going to pooh more.” Now, in times of crisis, we need sober and accurate economic analysis & this statement is quite disappointing ...
forbes.com/sites/susanada…
forbes.com/sites/susanada…
I think it is typical of macroeconomists to unduly aggregate things. In this case, @JustinWolfers is focussing on the total amount of excrement per person. We can agree that this is sensibly considered to be invariant to the amount of accessible toilet paper but ...
... toilet paper usage is *not* dictated by the amount of poo and nor by its composition but instead by the number of defecation events. For instance, I must choose to visit the bathroom once or twice or three times and equally divide my load amongst those visits. However, ...
the amount of toilet paper used will differ depending on the quantity of visits rather than the quantity of poo. That is, we have an equation P = VQ where P is the aggregate poo, Q is the per visit load and V is the number of visits.
Toilet paper usage per visit is a function of Q/V, say, f(Q/V) but the aggregate usage is Vf(Q/V). So long as f is concave, that is there is diminishing toilet paper square usage as a function of a defecation session, then it is V that will determine total usage.
I would argue that V is most definitely a choice variable for many people and offers a route to toilet paper conservation in the case that the opportunity cost of a marginal square (contingent on you having one to spare) is exogenously shocked.
In summary, @JustinWolfers has let has down in this instance and, in the process, has lowered the quality of public discourse. I hope he thinks about this any time he has a spare moment of reflection.
