In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.

Theoretical and actual are different. That was the point. Thank you for
agreeing.

> > 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.

"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.
>
> Theoretical and actual are different. That was the point. Thank you for
> agreeing.

The difference reflects the complexity of a demand/supply situation in a
diverse market. The principle stands, decreasing demand leads to decreasing
production, and vice versa.

To state it simplistically but essentially correctly, YOU cause a farmer to
grow a tomato every time you eat one.

>> > 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.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.
> >
> > Theoretical and actual are different. That was the point. Thank you for
> > agreeing.
>
> The difference reflects the complexity of a demand/supply situation in a
> diverse market. The principle stands, decreasing demand leads to decreasing
> production, and vice versa.
>
> To state it simplistically but essentially correctly, YOU cause a farmer to
> grow a tomato every time you eat one.

As a flawed human/social theoretical construction.

I caused nothing. Farmers grew thousands of tomatoes in the months that
i didn't buy any. I can support this by producing statistics of tomato
sales for my local store, by region or by nation for the time that I was
not buying tomatoes.

> >> > 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.

Now what was it you said about social construct (read human constructs
like _theories_?)