"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

>> > > > I have purchased tomatoes in the past past 2 weeks, three times.
>> > > > Prior
>> > > > to this, I purchased some in approximately May of 2004. Imagine my
>> > > > surprise and chagrin to note that farmers still kill animals, use
>> > > > pesticides, clear land and all of those things when I don't buy
>> > > > their
>> > > > products. Could it be that they are responsible for their own
>> > > > actions?
>> I
>> > > > don't control the universe. They will still do what they do
>> independent
>> > > > of my actions.
>> > >
>> > > They are not independent of your actions, in fact they DEPEND on your
>> > > demand. The reason nothing changes is that your demand is very small,
>> but
>> > > significant in principle.
>> >
>> > Now you've changed the argument. They act independent of my action as
>> > was demonstrated.
>>
>> No, in theory supply responds 1:1 with fluctuations in demand. In reality
>> supply does not change unless there is a significant and peristent
>> change.
>
> In _theory_. Clearly, if I am and others are able to not buy tomatoes
> for periods of months and growers will still do their thing then, the
> ratio of 1:1 is false.

I said 1:1 is theoretical, a supply curve can't work that way.

> Frankly, I wasn't interested in changing the
> dynamic at this time and for the reasons stated previously. A problem of
> theoretical constructions.

There's no problem with the principle, if demands drops by a perceptible
amount for a single production cycle then production targets will be set
based on that level. That's where your impact is felt.