So you don’t have an answer, that’s fine, figured as much. Hand waiving, indeed.
Irrational actors are unpredictable in compounding ways. The concept is a meta analysis of the individual and the masses. Biases, irrational fear, herd dynamics, etc. These can lead to unpredictable outcomes.
But markets can still function, sometimes, because of other factors. Leverage, venture investment, loss management, mergers and acquisition, etc. And learning from witnessing a counterintuitive market dynamic.
In this, most basic example, there are no compounding factors in either case. There are no buyers. So, their irrationally is not a factor. And there is only production of a supply that has no demand.
Someone producing a degradable product that has no buyers is not what is meant when discussing irrational actors.
It’s not referring to some crazy person who will just operate at a loss forever. And even if it was, they couldn’t even do it forever if they wanted to.
Dodging the question, plugging your ears, and saying, “I heard a term one time that says they could be crazy and would just keep doing it forever for no reason. Prove me wrong.” Is not the gotcha argument you think it is.
Dosen’t matter if it happens or not. It’s it’s not required to prove the case because of the overwhelming evidence in every other market where it has. The idea that something will be produced at a loss forever just because you can’t accept that it won’t is troll-level ludicrous. So, hats of to you for that bait, I guess.
I’m not going to believe something without evidence. your hand waiving is not evidence, and historical data about irrational actors is not predictive about the future of those same markets. it can’t be reliable evidence about the future in a separate market.
others already do that. no need for me to undertaking such an endeavor. the problem is that we don’t have a method to reduce demand. you haven’t even produced a method to measure demand.
Here’s the test, everyone stops buying milk. Go.
did it work?
You still don’t understand basic markets, huh. That’s unfortunate.
I understand that markets are populated by irrational actors.
That’s not relevant. This issue is more basic than that. It’s the most basic.
Out of morbid curiosity. Hypotheticaly, why or how do you think a producer would continue to operate at full scale with no buyers?
saying it’s basic is hand waiving. say what you mean.
So you don’t have an answer, that’s fine, figured as much. Hand waiving, indeed.
Irrational actors are unpredictable in compounding ways. The concept is a meta analysis of the individual and the masses. Biases, irrational fear, herd dynamics, etc. These can lead to unpredictable outcomes.
But markets can still function, sometimes, because of other factors. Leverage, venture investment, loss management, mergers and acquisition, etc. And learning from witnessing a counterintuitive market dynamic.
In this, most basic example, there are no compounding factors in either case. There are no buyers. So, their irrationally is not a factor. And there is only production of a supply that has no demand.
Someone producing a degradable product that has no buyers is not what is meant when discussing irrational actors.
It’s not referring to some crazy person who will just operate at a loss forever. And even if it was, they couldn’t even do it forever if they wanted to.
Dodging the question, plugging your ears, and saying, “I heard a term one time that says they could be crazy and would just keep doing it forever for no reason. Prove me wrong.” Is not the gotcha argument you think it is.
Basic markets are not capitalism.
no one proposed that but you
Removed by mod
Dosen’t matter if it happens or not. It’s it’s not required to prove the case because of the overwhelming evidence in every other market where it has. The idea that something will be produced at a loss forever just because you can’t accept that it won’t is troll-level ludicrous. So, hats of to you for that bait, I guess.
I’m not going to believe something without evidence. your hand waiving is not evidence, and historical data about irrational actors is not predictive about the future of those same markets. it can’t be reliable evidence about the future in a separate market.
Lol. How about this experiment. You produce something nobody buys and see how long it lasts. Remind me in, idgaf, you’re a troll.
calling me names won’t change the truth.
The truth is whatever you believe regardless of evidence, clearly.
Removed by mod
such an experiment would have no bearing on a separate product in a separate market.
Produce milk then, I’ll wait.
others already do that. no need for me to undertaking such an endeavor. the problem is that we don’t have a method to reduce demand. you haven’t even produced a method to measure demand.
You have changed the argument from: demand decreasing does not reduce supply. To: we can’t reduce demand. Do you see the flaws in your argument yet?
@remindme@mstdn.social 1 month
deleted by creator