3 ms·

> Which will most probably cause the producers to want to reduce that inventory by not producing that much anymore I don't think that's how that works. I'm pre

> Which will most probably cause the producers to want to reduce that inventory by not producing that much anymore I don't think that's how that works. I'm pretty sure producers produce because there is demand and they are selling their product. They aren't producing for the fun of it.

paganel 7y ago
> there is demand and they are selling their product. I agree with this, but reducing the ships' speed will reduce the rate and the price at which you can potentially deliver said products to the consumers, which in effect will reduce the effective demand. As an example, I bet there's lots of people that would want to have rocks delivered to them from the Moon, i.e. there is a notional demand for Moon rocks, but because transporting rocks from the Moon to said customers is prohibitively expensive the effective demand for such an item is close to 0. Making trans-oceanic transport more expensive works the same way.
- MuffinFlavored 7y ago
  Wouldn't this just move more goods that need to be delivered time-sensitively to the air, which pollutes even more?
  - paganel 7y ago
    Some of them probably, yeah, but it will make them more expensive by at least an order of magnitude so that demand will certainly fell. Measures like these are in effect additional taxes.
- xondono 7y ago
  That's when I'm getting lost >but reducing the ships' speed will reduce the rate and the price at which you can potentially deliver said products (Emphasis mine) The moon rock argument would be solid if the prices were to rise, but by your own admission, it would lower them. The regulation just bans "high-speed" expensive shipping. As another commenter has stated, this will just make time-sensitive shipments to switch to the cheapest alternative, and for non-time-sensitive items like consumer goods, this will just mean higher stockpiling in origin. As anyone who has work on In-demand manufacturing will tell you, the slower the transport the higher the waste.

paganel 7y ago

> there is demand and they are selling their product. I agree with this, but reducing the ships' speed will reduce the rate and the price at which you can potentially deliver said products to the consumers, which in effect will reduce the effective demand. As an example, I bet there's lots of people that would want to have rocks delivered to them from the Moon, i.e. there is a notional demand for Moon rocks, but because transporting rocks from the Moon to said customers is prohibitively expensive the effective demand for such an item is close to 0. Making trans-oceanic transport more expensive works the same way.

MuffinFlavored 7y ago
Wouldn't this just move more goods that need to be delivered time-sensitively to the air, which pollutes even more?
- paganel 7y ago
  Some of them probably, yeah, but it will make them more expensive by at least an order of magnitude so that demand will certainly fell. Measures like these are in effect additional taxes.
xondono 7y ago
That's when I'm getting lost >but reducing the ships' speed will reduce the rate and the price at which you can potentially deliver said products (Emphasis mine) The moon rock argument would be solid if the prices were to rise, but by your own admission, it would lower them. The regulation just bans "high-speed" expensive shipping. As another commenter has stated, this will just make time-sensitive shipments to switch to the cheapest alternative, and for non-time-sensitive items like consumer goods, this will just mean higher stockpiling in origin. As anyone who has work on In-demand manufacturing will tell you, the slower the transport the higher the waste.